"Oh come, let us sing to the LORD!
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
Let us come before His presence with thanksgiving;
Let us shout joyfully to Him with psalms.
For the LORD is the great God,
And the great King above all gods.
In His hand are the deep places of the earth;
The heights of the hills are His also.
The sea is His, for He made it;
And his hands formed the dry land.
Oh come, let us worship and bow down;
Let us kneel before the LORD, our Maker!
For He is our God,
And we are the people of His pasture,
And the sheep of His hand."
Psalm 95:1-7 (NKJV)
U.S. Sheepherding Experiment
Last Sunday I had just arrived home from church where I heard an encouraging Thanksgiving message entitled "God is Great, God is Good!", based on the above passage. During the church service we sang "Be Exalted O God" and "Count Your Blessings", and I was doing just that! Then my cell phone rang. It was my older daughter calling to say that she had just gotten out of church and that the pastor had lambasted certain bloggers in his message, whom she believed to be Dee and me. My younger daughter, a college student, attends the same church at a satellite location, and I called to see if she had attended. Yes, she had. When I brought up the blogger comments made by the pastor, she also suspected that her mom was being criticized. She wanted the pastor to name that blog! Well, if he won't identify the bloggers, we will! The pastor that my daughters listen to week after week was excoriating your humble blog queens here at TWW.
What follows is an excerpt from last Sunday's sermon that pertains to Dee and me. Because this is a sensitive matter for my daughters, I have decided not to name the church.
" . . . When you are devoted to serving and blessing and doing good to others, verse 15, Peter says you can put to silence, at least a little bit, the ignorance of foolish people. Have you ever experienced the ignorance of foolish people because you are a Christian? Have you ever experienced that? Anybody? If not, then you’re not living right. Of course you have. Let me say something that I hope encourages you or at least put some things in perspective for you. The church, the true church, in every age has always been the subject of derision, always. That’s not new with your generation. . . .
Now (church name) I don’t know if you know this I hope you do, but you are often spoken about with derision in our community. Did you know that? Go home and bless yourself by typing in the name of our church on a search engine and just spend the next two hours reading all the wonderful things that are out there. Would you like to hear some of ‘em? You’re going to cause I wrote some down here. (laughter) I didn’t even I didn’t even use one of the many, the voluminous collection of e-mails I have that come my way. I just pulled these off of a couple public blogs this week. Um, some of them date back a few weeks, but here’s one.
Um, the authors of this one blog, which I will leave nameless, and it’s not even in my transcript so you can’t look it up there either, um they came to a sermon a while back where I explained um that before God we’re all sheep. Remember this sermon and sheep are idiots? And that that means we ought to trust the wisdom of God our shepherd who guides us and not always lean on our own wisdom and understanding.
O.K. so here’s what this person writes on their blog. “Clearly this is how this works. Congregation members at (church name) have a legitimate question and concern, but when they come to their shepherd — quote — the shepherd who appears only to be a man of average intelligence and educated in average Christian institutions, is so elevated to a higher level that he is the kingpin and cannot be questioned by the dumb sheep.” Now not to mention that in that same sermon I said that I was a sheep and that that made me an idiot before God as well, and so I depend on the wisdom and leadership of God, not on my own understanding, but they didn’t hear that part. All right.
So, so this is where it gets good, get this. A very significant factor to consider is that seventy to seventy-five percent of the congregation members are college women. It certainly appears that the pastor at (church name) has been elevated to megapastor status because of the loyalty of a congregation that is comprised primarily of young college women. Turns out that their pastor is most likely just another ho-hum authoritarian dictator disguised as a cool dude pastor.
Now, first of all, O.K. (laughter) that’s not true! (laughter) That’s just not true. (laughter) My family is seventy-five percent female – that is true. (laughter) But I look around this morning I see all kinds of unattractive guys in our congregation. (lots of laughter) Yeah, there’s a lot a lot of there are a lot of college girls and college guys. I told guys that if they can’t get a date at our church it’s like going to the ocean and complaining that you can’t get wet. I understand that, but seventy-five percent, be serious! Be serious! How do you respond to that?"
Since my daughters had to listen to their mom being labeled as 'foolish' in a public setting (church) — is this the Calvinistas new church discipline? — I have chosen to address them (my daughters) in a public forum via TWW. Before doing so, here is the portion of Dee's post that irritated this pastor, along with a comment I made on a different TWW blog post.
********************
Almost two year ago, Dee wrote: (the pastor's name has been replaced with asterisks)
***** is a darn fine speaker! He intersperses humor with Scripture, explanation, and admonition. He made a claim that the Research Triangle area (this includes Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill and Cary) has the largest concentration of PhD’s per capita in the US. He then went on to explain how we were all sinners and in need of a shepherd. In fact, he claimed, that all of “you” are sheep. He then used an amusing word picture. He had us imagine sheep strutting around being quite cocky because they have PhDs.
His point is well taken. We are all sheep in need of a loving Savior to guide us. As it says “All we like sheep, have gone astray.” We are all sinners in need of salvation. Just as Dee was about to pronounce the sermon, “excellent,” her husband said, “The devil is in the details.”
You see, it definitely came across that we all were the sheep. But, what does this make *****? Why, he is the shepherd. That means he is the man in charge of the flock. If one looks carefully at (his) resume, it becomes clear that he has an affinity for the folks who tend to be “hyper-authoritarian". We have written extensively on this topic. It is a movement replete with abusive and/or controlling pastors. These sorts of pastors are found both in the SBC Great Commission Resurgence crowd as well as the assembly of the Calvinistas. ***** is affiliated with both.
Here is how ***** sets up the paradigm. Mr. PhD becomes concerned with the direction of the church. He carefully documents his issues and goes to see a pastor in the church; however, he is just a sheep. It really doesn’t matter how smart or perceptive he is – he is just a “strutting, egocentric” sheep. So, the priesthood of the believers can be sidelined because they are just a bunch of stupid sheep. The shepherd, who may be of average intelligence and educated in average “Christian” institutions, is now elevated to a higher level. He is now the kingpin and cannot be questioned by the “dumb” sheep.
This line of logic excludes the talents of the educated. For example, PhD’s in applied mathematics have an ability to pick up logical inconsistencies. Therefore, they may question a particular sermon. A PhD in psychology could potentially perceive issues of egocentricity or even critique the makeup of an elder board. A PhD in economics could predict the potential financial challenges of a rapidly expanding church.
Yet, the pastor has now set up the ability to ignore the priesthood. His PhD, which focused on Islamic studies, somehow trumps a PhD in any other field. Why? Because it’s “his” church and he studied at a seminary!
So, as we look at his admitted affiliations and friendships, we conclude that ***** may be just another “ho hum” authoritarian disguised as a “cool dude” pastor. Only time will tell…
********************
Here is the exact comment I wrote almost nine months ago in response to a different TWW post.
Deb said:
"What defines a “mega church and a mega pastor”? Isn’t one important factor the size of the congregation?
Yes, (pastor's name) has established quite a following in the Raleigh-Durham area. I have attended (church name) once (back in August 2010), and I was struck by how young the congregation is. Not only that, from my vantage point AT LEAST 60 percent (I believe I’m being conservative with my estimate) were college women. Actually, that percentage could have been as high as 70 to 75 percent. I believe this is an extremely important factor to consider."
********************
A LETTER TO MY TWO PRECIOUS DAUGHTERS
I am so proud of both of you and the choices you have made in your life. Choosing to attend church regularly during college (and beyond) without your parents' prodding is admirable. I am grateful that both of you are worshiping the Lord at the same church, albeit in two different locations. I have always supported your decision of where to worship and am thankful that you have made it a priority in your life.
It saddens me that you heard your mother and her friend being rebuked by your pastor during last Sunday's sermon. It is most unfortunate that he misunderstood what Dee wrote in her blog post after she attended the church. Your pastor stated:
"Um, the authors of this one blog, which I will leave nameless, and it’s not even in my transcript so you can’t look it up there either, um they came to a sermon a while back where I explained um that before God we’re all sheep. Remember this sermon and sheep are idiots? And that that means we ought to trust the wisdom of God our shepherd who guides us and not always lean on our own wisdom and understanding.
O.K. so here’s what this person writes on their blog. “Clearly this is how this works. Congregation members at (church name) have a legitimate question and concern, but when they come to their shepherd — quote — the shepherd who appears only to be a man of average intelligence and educated in average Christian institutions, is so elevated to a higher level that he is the kingpin and cannot be questioned by the dumb sheep.” Now not to mention that in that same sermon I said that I was a sheep and that that made me an idiot before God as well, and so I depend on the wisdom and leadership of God, not on my own understanding, but they didn’t hear that part. All right."
For clarification, Dee and her husband attended the church when "sheep" were discussed; I did not accompany them. Dee and I contend that God does not portray His children as just a bunch of dumb sheep. Yes, there are many references to sheep in the Bible, but nowhere do we see God calling His precious children idiots. It's interesting that your pastor asked the congregation: "Remember this sermon and sheep are idiots?" We strongly disagree with the dumb sheep metaphor, and we will have much more to say on this in an upcoming post.
When Dee described the pastor in her paradigm as being a leader of "average intelligence and educated in average "Christian" institutions", she was NOT talking about your pastor. Actually, she was thinking of your pastor's good friend, C. J. Mahaney and the graduates of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Pastors College (a nine month pastor preparation program). A college degree is not a prerequisite for the SGM Pastors College. By the way, Mahaney readily admits to having barely made it through high school and often jokes about his lack of education. Truly, it's not a laughing matter, especially since SGM is currently being shaken to its core (more on that to come as well).
Before we go further, I want to remind you, my dear daughters, of the definition of the word paradigm. It is "one that serves as a pattern or model". (link)
In her paradigm, Dee established a very likely scenario here in the Research Triangle where a church member with a PhD approaches his/her pastor, who may or may not be as credentialed as his congregant. She writes:
"Here is how ***** sets up the paradigm. Mr. PhD becomes concerned with the direction of the church. He carefully documents his issues and goes to see a pastor in the church; however, he is just a sheep. It really doesn’t matter how smart or perceptive he is – he is just a “strutting, egocentric” sheep. So, the priesthood of the believers can be sidelined because they are just a bunch of stupid sheep. The shepherd, who may be of average intelligence and educated in average “Christian” institutions, is now elevated to a higher level. He is now the kingpin and cannot be questioned by the “dumb” sheep.
This line of logic excludes the talents of the educated. For example, PhD’s in applied mathematics have an ability to pick up logical inconsistencies. Therefore, they may question a particular sermon. A PhD in psychology could potentially perceive issues of egocentricity or even critique the makeup of an elder board. A PhD in economics could predict the potential financial challenges of a rapidly expanding church."
Notice how Dee says "Mr. PhD" goes to see "a pastor", NOT your pastor specifically. It is the pastor in the paradigm that she labels as the kingpin who cannot be questioned.
Dee readily admits that the transition from the general paradigm back to a remark about your pastor may not have been clear enough. She thought that by starting a new paragraph the distinction between the pastor in the paradigm and your pastor would be clearly understood. Here is what she wrote immediately following her paradigm:
"Yet, the pastor has now set up the ability to ignore the priesthood. His PhD, which focused on Islamic studies, somehow trumps a PhD in any other field. Why? Because it’s “his” church and he studied at a seminary!"
Now Dee is back to talking specifically about your pastor who has a PhD in Islamic studies. She then concludes the post as follows:
"So, as we look at his admitted affiliations and friendships, we conclude that ***** may be just another “ho hum” authoritarian disguised as a “cool dude” pastor. Only time will tell…"
Now let's take a look at how your pastor misrepresented what I wrote. As you will remember, he stated:
"So, so this is where it gets good, get this. A very significant factor to consider is that seventy to seventy-five percent of the congregation members are college women. It certainly appears that the pastor at (church name) has been elevated to megapastor status because of the loyalty of a congregation that is comprised primarily of young college women. Turns out that their pastor is most likely just another ho-hum authoritarian dictator disguised as a cool dude pastor."
Now compare your pastor's remarks to MY comment made nine months ago on a totally different TWW blog post. I wrote:
"What defines a “mega church and a mega pastor”? Isn’t one important factor the size of the congregation?
Yes, (pastor's name) has established quite a following in the Raleigh-Durham area. I have attended (church name) once (back in August 2010), and I was struck by how young the congregation is. Not only that, from my vantage point AT LEAST 60 percent (I believe I’m being conservative with my estimate) were college women. Actually, that percentage could have been as high as 70 to 75 percent. I believe this is an extremely important factor to consider."
Look how your pastor seriously misrepresented what I wrote. My dear younger daughter, you will remember that you, your dad, and I were sitting in the church's overflow area when we visited in August 2010. I distinctly remember commenting to you and your dad about the make-up (no pun intended) of those sitting in that large room. There were so many young ladies that it really caught my attention! As I sat there that morning, I did a cursory count and estimated that at least 60 percent of those in attendance were college women. My dear older daughter, I remember talking with you and your friends outside after the service, and in your friend group about eight were female and three were male. I'm not saying that this statistic accurately represents the ratio of males to females in the congregation, but it does seem to be another indicator of the make-up of the flock (to use sheep terminology).
Please notice how your pastor embellished Dee's concluding words in her post by adding the word dictator. As you can see, she did not say that! Dee simply said authoritarian. As you can see, there is quite a contradiction between what he said and what she said (Dee and I), and we are not going to tolerate being misrepresented so grievously. It's wonderful to have this public forum where we can set the record straight.
Regarding your pastor's cutesy remark — "blogging in your mama's basement" — which has made the rounds in Sovereign Grace Ministries and Acts 29 churches, I have three things to say:
(1) I AM the mother
(2) Our home does not have a basement
(3) I only blog in designer clothes, not pajamas 
Dear daughters, as you know Dee and I strive to proclaim the truth in everything we do, and we expect the same of our brothers and sisters in Christ, especially pastors. This hodgepodge of misquotes by your pastor is indeed a travesty! I take comfort in knowing that ALL of these circumstances have occurred because of the sovereignty of God.
As I conclude, I hope you are beginning to see firsthand that a paradigm shift is taking place in Christendom. What is the shift that is gradually occurring? It is simply this — servant leaders have been replaced by leaders of servants (sheep), particularly among those who label themselves as "young, restless, and reformed".
Finally, if you get the chance to talk with the pastoral staff at your church, perhaps you could ask them what is wrong with a congregation being comprised of a majority of college women?
Looking forward to spending Thanksgiving with you!
Love,
Mom
Lydia's Corner: Nehemiah 3:15-5:13 1 Corinthians 7:25-40 Psalm 32:1-11 Proverbs 21:5-7
Eagle,
Funny you should ask who mentors this pastor. My guess is that Mark Driscoll has had a significant influence.
Geesh! These guys are mega-insecure, aren’t they?
In fact, some of them could almost be called paranoid. Any criticism, no matter how indirect, is immediately seen as a direct assault on their precious ministry; a direct threat to their power structure. That tells me that their power structure stands on a very shaky foundation.
Eagle,
Hope you know you are in our prayers.
Blessings.
Then in trying to find comfort and seek guidance they will hear something similar to what John Piper has taught about all evil being ordained by God. — Eagle
Resolving the paradox of Evil by placing God beyond Good & Evil. The same resolution used by Mohammed, which fits neatly into Extreme Predestination: God wills Evil whenever He wants, and who are we to complain and call it Evil? In’shal’lah…
It is simply this — servant leaders have been replaced by leaders of servants (sheep), particularly among those who label themselves as “young, restless, and reformed”. — Dee
Remember that the original “Young, Restless, and Truly Reformed” — John Calvin — was very controlling and autocratic when he got hold of Geneva. More like a Christian Ayatollah Khomeini once he got a taste of Power. Even whitewashing the churches and calligraphing Scripture(TM) over the plain white walls just like Wahabi mosques.
“Now not to mention that in that same sermon I said that I was a sheep and that that made me an idiot before God as well, and so I depend on the wisdom and leadership of God, not on my own understanding, but they didn’t hear that part. All right”
Ummm…so this makes him an “intermediary sheep”, one step above the other sheep…but still and idiot before God…but representing God to the dumb sheep? Exactly how does that work? The other sheep don’t depend on the wisdom and leadership of God? Is he saying because he does this he has the right to lead others but they don’t. Can we analyze this please?
Hey, I know who this is…the same pastor who got ride home from the SBC 2009 convention on a private jet that everyone was talking about after his be humble and give up the high life sermon at the PC.
A “special” idiot sheep
Dee and Deb — your daughters are blessed to be learning to listen with disciplined ears! Do you plan to approach this pastor personally in addition to the blog post? If he met you, he’d be sure to notice your designer clothing — not to mention your hearts for people and for truth.
This is an odd thought for me — but bear with me, there’s a point, though kind of obscure and trivia-related…
Your comment about 60% of the congregation being college women rang a bell with me. I was surprised when a friend recently told me that the population of UNC Chapel Hill is now 70% female, because in my day, very few women were even accepted there. All that to say that if, indeed the population of nearby UNC-CH is somewhere around 60% female, it’s interesting that that approximate # carries over to the church. Actually, I read somewhere that more women are enrolled in four year institutions than men these days across the board, though I imagine in places like NCSU where technical degrees abound, perhaps the numbers are more even — but then you’ve got Meredith and Peace to weigh in there as well.
So, I googled the demographics of UNC — found this website, and I believe the statistics are a couple of years old — but the numbers actually calculated out to a 70/30 split. 70% of the students at UNC Chapel Hill are women. So, if church attendance mirrors university enrollment, 70% isn’t far off. However, the church may well have a different percentage of age ranges than the university, so it’s hard to make an accurate comparison. But given this information, your numbers seem to be well within the ballpark.
http://colleges.collegetoolkit.com/colleges/overview/university_of_north_carolina_at_chapel_hill/199120.aspx
A) I wonder if there is indeed a paradigm shift. My working template is, “there’s nothing new under the sun.” However, I do think there is a pendulum effect in culture and society so maybe we’re currently swinging back towards an older paradigm?
B) How did this post open the doors to a diatribe against John Piper?
Nickname,
I had those same thoughts about the make-up of the student body at UNC-Chapel Hill. Surely, it’s reflected in church attendance in nearby churches. Thanks for doing that research.
We have had a previous “exchange” with this pastor, and I do not plan to discuss this further with him. He can read my rebuttal here.
Nickname
We totally agree with your understanding of college statistics and we believe this carries out in this situation.
As for the personal approach, there is much, much more that has been left unsaid. In fact, let’s just say an in-depth exchange did happen awhile ago. And my concerns about Mahaney are not unfamiliar.
Deb
Well done; well said. My daughter attends the same church, and I shared with her the issue. She understands our point of view and is well aware of the changes occurring in the faith as people are no longer dearly beloved children of God but egotistical, idiot sheep and worms crawling in the mud. Wait until Monday as I discuss a different God who has been my dearest Friend.
Seneca
What diatribe? However, John Piper and this pastor run in the same circles.They are part of the same movement which appears to redefine evangelicalism as a dour faith filled with worms who spend most of their day contemplating the fires of hell.
Anonymous
Thank you for not naming the pastor in your comment. This is a touchy situation which involves our family.
Anonymous
I plan to talk about his next Monday. I am concerned that there has been a shift in the faith from a God who loves us to a God who barely tolerates us.This attitude pervades the group we call the Calvinistas. For anyone who is reading this, please be assured that the God who created heavens and earth loves us dearly and races after one of His sheep who has gone astray. Please emphasize the word “LOVE.”
Nickname
So, here is the question of the moment. What is wrong with a congregation filled with college women? Would the same response have been elicited if it were 70% men?
Dee,
My younger daughter arrived home from college Tuesday afternoon, and we had a little chat about the sermon she heard on Sunday in which her mom was berated.
She informed me that her roommate and other friends regularly attend a satellite location of this same church, which is just down the street from the main campus where the pastor addresses the congregation in person. My daughter went there with her friends a few weeks ago, and she observed that it was nearly ALL college students. She prefers attending at another location closer to her school.
Deb
I think it has nothing to do with with college students although they are usually nonpaying members 🙂 I believe the issue has to do with the view of women.You know, they are not very useful in the view of some churches except for singing and taking care of children.
His good buddy, Mark Driscoll, has said some very nasty things about women-“gullible, easily deceived.” Driscoll also talks about the feminization of the church and how he wants a Jesus who could punch out other guys and a Jesus who wears tattoos and carries a sword, etc. He also said something about learning to love Jesus without feeling he was in some sort of same sex relationship and on and on. Driscoll wants a “manly” faith and it appears he wants a faith that talks a whole lot about sex as well. (See Christian Nymphos which was on Driscoll’s site at one time and , of course, the infamous Scottish Song of Solomon debacle).)
Since the pastor of whom we wrote has made his church part of the Acts 29 group of which Mark Driscoll is the de facto head since he started it , could it be that he has inculcated some of these views of women? Don’t know. Time will tell…
Perhaps the pastor should treat the presence of so many college women as a sign that his preaching is not reaching college age men and use the presence of the women as a means of attracting more men. Then he could preach Driscoll’s masculine Christ to them.
Our church has a large population of college and graduate students, not overwhelmingly of either gender. When the students are out of town summer and holidays, attendance is only about 60% of the usual. But the students generally contribute when the plate is passed.
Thank you Dee and Deb for representing the love of our Heavenly Father to all who come to read. Hoping both of you and ALL who read and comment have Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving!
“What diatribe? However, John Piper and this pastor run in the same circles.They are part of the same movement which appears to redefine evangelicalism as a dour faith filled with worms who spend most of their day contemplating the fires of hell.” Dee
Seems just a little over the top but I fear that is EXACTLY your template Dee/Deb
“I plan to talk about his next Monday. I am concerned that there has been a shift in the faith from a God who loves us to a God who barely tolerates us.This attitude pervades the group we call the Calvinistas. ”
While I firmly believe in the Wrath of God….. what the Calvinists are doing is presenting a false view of God to Born Again believers what some of us are calling the “Islamization of Christianity”.
Help me out there…your post on this pastor was last year. Why is he bringing this up? Seems it was really stuck in his mind. That is also a red flag.
Eagle,
You said that you wanted to know what about confronting a pastor, when he says something like this. Well here’s my story.
General Baptist church in Southern California: Preacher talked, in a sermon, about Bathsheba being the one who caused David to sin. It bothered me, I checked some reference books, wrote a letter to him (which I read to another Christian woman before I placed it in his mailbox at church). My biggest concern was that a woman struggling with abuse would be harmed by that idea, and blame herself.
His response: To call me at work, to talk about it. (I’m surprised that we weren’t interrupted during the call). He complained that I should have gone to him in person, rather in writing (not Scriptural, you know), and basically told me that I was completely wrong. That one phone call left me feeling physically battered. Fortunately, I was already almost out the door.
Would I have met him to talk about it? Possibly, but I know my weakness in being able to counter a forceful persona verbally. I do better when I have a chance to think and prepare my arguments. Would a different kind of pastoring kept me Baptist, probably not. I like having a God who loves the dickens out of us, just as we are, and One who doesn’t give up on us.
“Seems just a little over the top but I fear that is EXACTLY your template Dee/Deb”
My fear is just the opposite. We don’t have enough people seeing exactly how damaging these celebs are to the true Faith. And that is because so many really believe they are preaching only truth. But they have made so many tertiary issues salvic ones. And Piper is nothing but a silly little shock jock. But he is idolized among so many. It is scary.
Seneca –
Maybe you should do a little research. Add up all these authoritarian type church structures. Then figure out the number of PEOPLE that attend these churches and then you might understand Dee and Debs concern. It’s about a convoluted Gospel being preached and the ramifications of that on these brothers and sisters in Christ as well as on future generations.
Anna A,
The Apostle Paul sometimes wrote letters to present his positions on Biblical matters. Some have even been canonized.
I think you did the right thing by writing a letter to your pastor. You were able to gather your thoughts and express yourself in a concise manner. I would have done the very same thing.
In my ever to be humble opinion, your pastor was WRONG! Bathsheba DID NOT cause David to sin. What a ridiculous interpretation. I may do a blog post on this at some point in the future.
Thanks for sharing your experience with us. I have no doubt that it will be of benefit to others reading here.
Oh, I can beat that. My pastor called me in a paranoid snit that a facebook comment of mine might not be putting our church in the best possible light- and railed at me non-stop over the car speakers with my family in the car. He wouldn’t even let me get a word in edgewise to tell him he was on speakerphone.
That was three weeks ago, and no apology yet….
Shadowspring
You should flee that church. That pastor has no place in the pulpit, and no church that allows him to stay there has any business having you as a member.
Even though I quoted Dee’s statement, I want to rescind mine. I don’t think Dee/Deb are as negative about the Evangelical Church as I suggested. I suspect their feelings and attitude have more nuance — just like mine.
shadowspring,
Is your pastor part of the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement? I’m having a brain freeze and can’t remember what you have shared about him in the past.
So if all these big and little “issues” are how many pastors treat fellow believers, then how in the world do they interact with nonbelievers? How do they share the Good News with the lost? How do they welcome new believers into fellowship with a church that seems more like an underground, secret, club that has private languages and practices? Grrrr!
Bridget2,
BINGO! That’s one of the major problems with this crowd.
Dee – I think the “god” that the Calvinistas talk about is “Not God.” (Their “God” is not the God I follow and believe in… I spent too much time hearing about their – and others – Not God and have no more to waste!)
In fact, their Not God sounds more like the traditional view of Satan – accusing, filling people with fear, having no love or mercy, etc.
Mind you now, I’m not equating the god they believe in with Satan, only stating that the two seem to share many characteristics. 😉
My dissapointment in the pastor whom I think you’re talking about, and the Acts29 movement in general, has shot up big time.
There are good guys in the movement, as there are in Calvary Chapel, SGM, the SBC, etc. Unfortunately the arrogant, prideful knuckleheads are winning the day, and abusing God’s people.
No wonder people are leaving the church in droves.
Seneca
I am so glad you well defined one part of our templates. I stand by it.
Bridget
It is commenters like you who make this blog. Thank you.
Anonymous
I have heard others use this term-Islamification of Christianity. Could you expand on it?
Anonymous
We are rather flummoxed by this as well. I think it would have been better to drop it. People truly insult us all the time . We find it amusing. We put the better insults in the About Us section on the blog under What the World Is Saying About the Wartburg Watch. (for example “Wartburg witches”). We hope to have a new submission by Seneca in the near future. Perhaps time will tell…
Anna
Thanks for your story. I do better writing as well. You know, you bring up an interesting issue. I have been hearing more about Bathseba being the real problem. This coincides with the rise of patriarchal theology. hmmm-something to think about
To say that we are egocentric, idiot, dumb sheep is completely contrary to what God says about us. Yes, we are sheep that He lovingly guides and protects. However, we are not are dumb, bumbling, idiotic sheep. We were created in God’s image, so I’m certain that God takes offense to this pastor’s comments. We were fearfully and wonderfully made. We were given strong, sound minds and intellect. We have been given all manner of talents and spiritual gifts. God gave us dominion over the things of the earth. We are the royal priesthood, and He is the only High Priest. We are sons and daughters of the King. God is extraordinarily proud of His creation and His people, and I doubt He takes kindly to any suggestion that we are idiot sheep.
Shadow spring
Join the club. Seems like some pastors are thin skinned They could all take a lesson from Wade Burleson.
Seneca
wow!
Wendy,
Love your comment! We are so blessed to be children of God. Dee will have more to say about the sheep metaphor next week.
Wendy
I will talk more about this on Monday. We are dearly loved by our Savior. He does not look at us as idiots. Do we look at our children as idiots when they make mistakes or do something wrong? We love them anyway and would do anything for them.
Dee,
Don’t ya know – all sheep are equally dumb, but some are more equal than others.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell
Mark Driscoll definitely comes to mind…
Deb,
So sorry this has happened, but I agree that it’s nice to have a blog to document the truth. It’s obvious you’re a terrific mom with two great daughters. I’m sure this is a sensitive matter for them.
Dee,
I agree – loving parents don’t consider their children idiots, even when they make mistakes. I am very proud of each one of my children. I marvel at their intelligence, their unique personalities, their talents, their kindness, their love for the Lord even at their young ages. Because God is an infinitely better parent than I am, I know He loves me and thinks more highly of me than I do my children. It’s hard to imagine Him loving me (and them) more than I love my children, but He does. I am human, but God loves us with a perfect love. In fact, I cannot fathom His love entirely. I know He doesn’t consider His children idiot sheep. I look forward to hearing more about this next week.
Deb
Great comment-Love it
“I have heard others use this term-Islamification of Christianity. Could you expand on it?”
It has to do with “what” the Calvinists emphasize about God. Notice they ALWAYS emphasize his Sovereignty. That is their focus to the detriment of His other important attributes such as justice, mercy and grace and even grace is totally twisted to mean something else. And within this focus of theirs on Sovereignty God is directing every single movement…even to the point that God orchestrated the Penn State little boys to be raped.
It is not a case of “God allowed evil”, in their doctrine, It is “God orchestrates it for His Glory”. This is the determinism that is so concerning about the Reformed doctrines. And it is a sort of fatalism and why we see so many unconcerned about the victims of abuse. It was meant to be. If that thinking is not the same fatalism as Islam, I don’t know what is!
On one blog I read a young SBC pastor’s post where he was preaching to the youth about the Sovereignty of God and a young man told him afterwards he made God out to be a narcissist. (Frankly, I thought that was an astute observation considering their focus)
But what narcissists do you know who would be totally innocent yet agree to be condemned to hang and die on a tree for other’s sins? How does that play into Sovereignty? A God in the Flesh that did not come to be served but to serve?
While I believe in the wrath of God, these Calvinists are almost always preaching to Born again believers as if they are never really born again. They remain totally depraved after being born again. And there is nothing we can do about it.
If you read the Koran you will know that it teaches that you NEVER really know if you have pleased Allah or not…even if you are following the rules. You can hope you might one day go to paradise but it is never certain. You are always a “worm”. There is no definite conduit to paradise. There is a fatalism in Islam such as there is in Calvinism as you can believe but not be one of the elect.
Bill Kinnon did a blog post with Udo Middleton’s writing on this and the comments are interesting. People have a hard time with this. I agree with Bill, we live in a fallen world and horrible things happen. I do think the bad things make us long for perfect justice and no death in His Kingdom.
http://kinnon.tv/2009/05/the-islamization-of-christianity.html?asset_id=6a00d8341c8f5e53ef011570acf0d3970b
And don’t get me going on all the rule for women in the Calvinist agenda.
Is there any way that the identity of this particular local church could be named? Or the name of the denomination? Or at least the name of the pastor or his initials?
Perhaps exposing the identity of one more source of darkness, especially one closer to home, could spare a few readers the misfortune of ever stumbling through the door of said church….which would only give such persons cause for thanksgiving.
Near the start of pastor *****’s talk, he said, “Go home and bless yourself by typing in the name of our church on a search engine and just spend the next two hours reading all the wonderful (sarcastically) things that are out there. Would you like to hear some of ‘em? You’re going to cause I wrote some down here.”
Not knowing a thing about (church name) except from TWW, I thought I’d follow his advice, and gobbled, correction, googled (church name). Then (church name) with some modifiers such as blog. There were many links to official (church name) sites interspersed with some unrelated links, but nothing on the first few pages for ANY negative postings. (I was reminded of a church in my city by the same name, which was formerly “2d Baptist” and i got sidetracked wondering if there are fewer 2d or 3rd Baptist churches around than formerly, and if so, why.)
Finally, I typed in pastor *****’s name along with “blog” and found one of the ’09 TWW postings on page 2. Totally unscientific, of course, but I’m thinking pastor *****’s flock would need to do more than a casual search to find the frequent derision cast upon (church name) in their community. The search appears to be more productive if it’s done for pastor ***** himself. Draw conclusions if you dare about what this may reveal about pastor *****’s attitude toward the sheep.
“So if all these big and little “issues” are how many pastors treat fellow believers, then how in the world do they interact with nonbelievers? How do they share the Good News with the lost?”
They don’t. I have been following this closely. The big celeb Calvinists preach mainly to other pastors and congregations of those who claim to be Born Again. They spend most of their time outside their churches on the conference circuit speaking to young pastors or seminarians.
This is a huge insight into what they preach. And they usually sound like they are preaching to non believers. That is another reason you hear “Gospel” everything coming from their mouths.
You have hit on a huge issue that needs to really be discussed and analyzed.
“Driscoll also talks about the feminization of the church and how he wants a Jesus who could punch out other guys and a Jesus who wears tattoos and carries a sword, etc.”
Again, it seems Driscoll (and by implication, the God he allegedly speaks for) has One and Only One definition of what it means to be male: “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!! I CAN BEAT YOU UP!!!”
“I agree – loving parents don’t consider their children idiots, even when they make mistakes. I am very proud of each one of my children”
Now, here is something else to think of when you look at the Calvinist teaching on God. I know it is a stretch to use human traits when understanding God but bear with me. What if your child did something really great and wanted to please you and was so excited to share with you the wonderful thing he did. Would you tell that child that every single thing he does is filthy rags no matter how good a thing it was? That he could NEVER have any positive intentions even though he thinks he does… he is not capable of that because his heart is totally depraved?
Just think about seeing your child in that light. And ask yourself if this is really the way God sees us as his Born Again believing children? Can we not be “good and faithful” servants?
I have described the Calvinist view of God.
Ted,
I think Dee and Deb want to reduce possible retalliation against their daughters in this case. I feel the same way as you, but want to honor their request. I had to do a bit of searching on TWW to find the names myself.
Dave
I have heard others use this term-Islamification of Christianity. Could you expand on it? — Dee
In my experience, I’ve heard it called “The Islamization of Christianity”, and there used to be an essay with that title somewhere on the Web.
My own use of it was “Ever noticed when Christianity goes sour, it starts resembling Islam?” Because I noticed that a lot of things to do with Extreme Islam — Male Supremacy, Hypermasculinity, Hyperliteralism (Scripture (TM) as word-for-word Party Line to micromanage the believer’s every action), iconcoclasm (as in minimalist decor), conformity of behavior, and Culture War aggression towards the Infidel — were also found in a lot of these Evangelical Christian splinters. And hyperseriousness, i.e. lack of any sense of humor whatsoever. (“There can be no Laughter in Islam” — Ayatollah Khomeini) And the Culture War idea of “Take Back America and Turn It Into a Christian (TM) Nation” parallels Iran and Talibani Afghanistan a bit too closely.
In addition, a writer contact of mine in Louisville once described problems he encountered at a church that was into Extreme Predestination (what’s probably called “Truly Reformed” or “Hypercalvinist”). He reported the exact same symptoms that have plagued Islam throughout its history — passivity & fatalism (“God Wills It To Happen, So Why Bother?”), arrogance & aggression among the leaders (“I Wanna! So God Must Have Willed It!”), and excuse-making when things go wrong (“Not My Fault! God Willed It To Happen!”). Also rabid hostility (“DO YOU DOUBT GOD’S SOVERIGNITY?”) towards anyone who questioned this. My informant bailed out and found another church when all this went down.
Another informant (ex-Army Intel in Iraq) mentioned when dealing with Iraqis of any side or level of education, you could get them to “stretch their minds” only so far, “Then you could see the wall in their mind slam down, after which there was only ‘It is Written! It is Written! Al’lah’u Akbar! Al’lah’u Akbar!'” And I’m sure you’ve seen similar behavior (with holy book and/or praise-phrases used as thoughtstoppers) among the SGMers and/or a lot of the churches warned about on this blog.
My own theory is that Islam expresses an end-stage result of human religious thoughts and actions, people will normally drift in this direction unless some outside interference disrupts this drift.
I’ve previously speculated about whether Islam and Mormonism may have been founded by them same “angel”. Likewise about how evangelicalism entropies into Mormonism without ‘some outside influence’ but hadn’t quite put the 2 together fully as now.
“the” same angel.
Dee & Deb — interesting that the pastor would think that your simple observation of the demographics of the congregation is some kind of criticism — when hey, it’s just the facts, man.
I think I can safely say that I have never been in a church service where there were more men than women, except in a military chapel filled with basic trainees. Maybe other people have had different experiences, but in the churches I’ve been part of, many women come alone because they have unbelieving spouses or are single moms or are single college/career women. There are a few men who come alone, I know of ONE who comes regularly without his spouse because she’s an unbeliever, I know of a widower or two, and only ONE single dad who comes regularly, and a smattering of single college/career guys. There appear to be far more unattached women coming to church regularly than there are men. I haven’t counted, and this is not a scientific conclusion, so I hesitate to say this is an absolute, but at least in my own experience, it is true.
And in congregations made up of older people, there are generally more women, simply because we live longer, and the guys have already gone onto glory. (Or not!)
So, it seems kind of defensive of the pastor to take a comment regarding the number of college women as some kind of criticism.
Happy Thanksgiving to the Blog Queens who, I am more than certain, served Paula-Deen worthy dinners in Martha-Stewart surroundings, clothed in Lydia’s purple designer aprons.
All of this about gender ratios is why I tell young men, including my son, that the best place to meet eligible young women is church and especially Sunday School and small groups. It happened to me, even when I wasn’t looking. Also, generally a better class of people and a likely more loyal spouse if it gets to that, than those in the bars.
OT: Dee and Deb, I just sent you all an e-mail about a comment I made in a previous blog entry of yours.
“Does John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and others have blood on their hands because of what they have taught? I would be fascinated to know if there is a higher suicide rate at Bethlehem Baptist, and Mars Hill than at an Evangelical Free. ”
Almost irresistible but I think I’ll pass. -:)
Anonymous
Thank you for your fascinating synopsis. I, too, have seen this tendency to constantly refer to believers as objects of wrath who are somehow saved by a God who grits His teeth in doing so. Whatever happened to the God of love who sacrificed Himself for His beloved people? It was that loving relationship that drew me into the kingdom. I am not sure I would have responded to this “angry God who thinks I am an idiot.”
Look, I know I am a sinner. Ten minutes into my day, I recognize my faults. It used to be 2 hours into my day but i am getting more sensitive. That is why I need His grace and love. I know my faults all too well. When I listen to these guys, I start feeling worse and worse. In fact, with some of them, I begin to wonder why God would have lowered Himself to live with us and die for us. God is presented as this angry God who had to sacrifice His Son for these lowlifes who are still a pain in the butt.
Do they really understand what they are saying? Sometimes, I believe I am hearing about a different Jesus than the Jesus who came to set the captives free.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
“And hyperseriousness, i.e. lack of any sense of humor whatsoever.”
Thanks for your explanation of the Islamization of Christianity. Your above statement struck me. I used to have a younger brother who was an ordinary guy. He was cheerful, had a good sense of humor, and laughed often. I could relate to him, and so could my husband, my other brother, and the rest of our family. He doesn’t exist anymore. All that began to change when he began attending Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, an SBC Seminary. He and his wife both graduated from SEBTS several years ago, and my brother now pastors a small church. They are Calvinistas to the core, and laughing and having too good a time is obviously frowned upon. Now, he is very serious. Even in the most casual conversations, he uses a deep “preacher voice”, Christian buzzwords/phrases, and scholarly language. In all honesty, we don’t even recognize him anymore. His personality and the way he interacts with people has changed completely.
I have a little song I like to sing: “Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up and go to seminary. They’ll never be the same….”
Ted
This is a very awkward situation. There is much, much more to this story and it involves keeping a promise.This pastor’s church has many strong points. We disagree with the basis of some of his theology which tends to reflect some of the tenets of what we call the Calvinista movement in order to separate it from the many, many decent Calvinists/Reformed folks.
If he had taken the time to read everything we have written about him, he would discover that we have said a number of nice things about him. Our criticism was limited to his sermon and his close association with some folks like Mark Driscoll and CJ Mahaney whom we find to be problematic in how they do business.
My comment about “average intelligence” and average Christian institutions” was not even directed towards him but towards a paradigm and we definitely had CJ Mahaney and his Pastors College in mind. And Mahaney himself admits to his lack of education. Frankly, we admire the institutions from which Greear received his higher degree.
But, here is an interesting question. Why is he so hung up about the “average intelligence” thing anyway? What is wrong with being of average intelligence? I believe I am of average intelligence. Jesus called fishermen to follow Him, not the scholars of the day. It is said that the knowledge of the wise is foolishness before God. In fact, the vast majority of the world, including, most likely this pastor’s audience, are average. So what?
Appalled
You are too funny. Actually, some people at my Thanksgiving gathering did the same. The entered the name of the church as suggested. One friend had difficulty finding anything “negative” about the church. I did the same. Ditto. Now, if you read that posting you found, you will find that my fellow glamorous blogger was quite complimentary of him. She merely disagreed with a recommended resource. Our critique has been limited to his theology and recommended resources along with a few of his friends.
Read our words carefully. We said that “time would tell” meaning that nothing is sealed in stone. Time changes many things. Look at SGM and the Mahaney mess. There are some indications that CLC, Josh Harris’ church may move out from under SGM. There are reports of some reports that the SGM leadership is unhappy with Harris which is amusing since Harris lived with the Mahaneys for some time. Could there be a new book coming “I Kissed SGM Good-bye?”
The two of us get called names rather frequently. We find them funny and list the better ones on “The Basics” page. (I am particularly fond of “wenches.”) I think we all need to take ourselves a little less seriously. If not, we may end up like Calvin and start chopping off the heads of those we deem “heretics.”
Anonymous
Two words “Biblical” and “gospel” are being misused in this movement. The word “Biblical” is used to deflect disagreement. So, The Council of “biblical” Manhood and Womanhood which preaches strict complementarianism, implies, by its name, that, if you disagree with them, you must not be “biblical.” That is why I use the little “b,”
They are starting to use the word “gospel” in the same way. For example, “gospel” gender roles. This one is very, very bad. It implies that if you disagree with them, you are denying the gospel. That means you are not a Christian. This is nonsense and is adding to the requirements for salvation. Yep, accept Jesus and complementarianism and you will be a Christian. Now mind you, I am not saying one can’t be a complementarian. I am saying that it is not the “Gospel.”
Headless
I think you forgot one thing. You must have tattoos along with the ability to punch out those who disagree with you. He claims that Jesus has a tattoo in Revelation which adds to His divine cool factor.
Anonymous
Well said. I have never thought of “filthy rags” in that fashion before. Thanks
Appalled
I am flattered that you took the time.
Headless ( Your name is interesting-would love to know how you chose it)
Now I am getting it. Let me add another. You know how the jihadists believe they will be rewarded with a lot of virgins in the hereafter. What about the doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of Jesus. This is used to say that women will be subordinate to men throughout eternity.
A pastor said something funny last week. “I chose to be a Calvinist.” and “I was predestined to be an Arminianist.”
“Since the pastor of whom we wrote has made his church part of the Acts 29 group of which Mark Driscoll is the de facto head since he started it…”
CORRECTION:
Driscoll is not the “de facto” head. He IS the head: http://www.acts29network.org/about/leadership
And, although he lists himself as the founder, the true founder was the late Dr. David Nicholas, who headed the organization until Driscoll took over and sidelined him several years ago.
Eagle
We actually wrote about this idea when reviewing Mahaney’s book The Cross Centered Life. Deb made the point that the sacrifice on the Cross ends with a period, not a comma, in his presentation. Mahaney leaves us staring at the Cross with Jesus still there. But, the glorious but, Jesus rose again and sits on the right hand of God the Father. It is truly finished! Grace and freedom are ours and that is the glorious good news. Jesus died comma and rose again Not Jesus died period.
Appalled
Interesting!
Nickname
I laughed and laughed over your ending. My house is being torn up and getting to be entirely repainted inside-popcorn ceiling scraped, bathrooms gutted, etc. But, if truth be told, i have never been able to achieve the norman Rockwell scene of Thanksgiving. I usually have bedlam with tons of people coming. I use paper table cloths and plastic cups because everyone usually drinks from 3 0r 4 glasses because they forget where they put there previous glass (I do this as well). After i run out of silverware because we have so much food, I pull out the plastic stuff. Ditto goes for dessert plates (yellow paper plates). But, I did wear cute clothes! Promise!
I know this upsets the patriarchs but most churches have women in the majority. So what? Jesus was born of a woman and revealed His Resurrection to the women who told everybody. Women have played a major role in the life of the church but some men are not real happy with that fact.
Arce
Met my husband at Park Street Church in Boston.
Eagle
I did not know that about Edwards’ church and suicides. I need to do some reading. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
And yes, there are consequences to this hounding on the utter depravity thing. Here is the message. God loved us while we were yet sinners! Never, ever forget that.
Ted
Thank you fro the correction. How does this work. Does Driscoll dictate the policy and procedure for the group or is it more like the SBC which claims to have an independent structure. Also, I wonder how the Acts 29 churches deal with Driscoll’s visions of rapes and affairs in progress. Do they tell their churches about it. Do they mention the infamous Song of Solomon sermon? I wonder if it is passed out as resource?
Hey Wendy
I have an idea. Why don’t you give him one of Driscoll’s Song of Solomon sermons and have him read it out loud in his “preacher boy” voice? It could make for an amusing event. I think they like Driscoll at SEBTS so you can present it to him that way. He may not laugh, but you will.
Seneca
One of our readers had a daughter who became very depressed after a talk by Piper and needed some intervention. There is an undeniable harshness in some of these circles. Frankly, I’d be depressed listening to some of these guys myself.
SUICIDE AND JONATHAN EDWARDS:
Eagle
Seems you are onto something but I do need to read more.
From Wikidpedia:
At least two people committed suicide in the depths of their spiritual duress, one from Edwards’s own congregation—his uncle, Joseph Hawley II. It is not known if any others took their own lives, but the suicide craze effectively ended the first wave of revival, except in some parts of Connecticut.[20]
(20)George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003), pg. 163-169
Dee,
You can gain a lot of info about Acts 29 from their web site.
Dee,
“I have an idea. Why don’t you give him one of Driscoll’s Song of Solomon sermons and have him read it out loud in his “preacher boy” voice? It could make for an amusing event. I think they like Driscoll at SEBTS so you can present it to him that way. He may not laugh, but you will.”
This sounds like a wonderful Christmas activity for our family. I’m laughing right now just thinking what that would sound like! 🙂
Dee and Seneca,
“One of our readers had a daughter who became very depressed after a talk by Piper and needed some intervention. There is an undeniable harshness in some of these circles. Frankly, I’d be depressed listening to some of these guys myself.”
I hold Piper at least partially accountable for the division in my family. My brother, who I discussed above, (dare I say) “worships” Piper, constantly quotes him, studies his teachings, and so on. My brother has allowed Piper to infiltrate his life and belief system so far that he has no room for his extended family (or anyone else, I suppose) who doesn’t hold Piper’s beliefs or live according to Piper.
According to my brother and Piper, my husband and I are living in adultery (since I divorced a man who became abusive), our marriage isn’t recognized by God, and our four beautiful children were born because “God blesses the just and the unjust”. Apparently, this means that we’re unjust and unsaved. My husband has never been able to get past the 20-page document, including a copy of Piper’s divorce and remarriage paper, we received in the mail from my brother while he was at SEBTS. My husband had a really hard time letting it go, but he finally did – only to be “divorced” later by my brother. Two years ago, he told us that any relationship he has with us will be on his and his wife’s terms. Needless to say, that isn’t much.
I believe Piper has caused much harm in the body of Christ.
Interesting Quote from Acts 29:
Arce
How about this one I found on their statement of beliefs. “We are not egalitarians and do believe that men should head their homes and male elders/pastors should lead their churches with masculine love like Jesus Christ.”
What in the world is masculine love? How is it differentiated from feminine love? Does God only love with masculine love?
Eagle,
I am running across more and more former Calvinists that are now athiests or agnostics. Some were bloggers who just a few years ago were rabid New Calvinists on the blogs. It is astonishing. I also know a few in person who were rabid Calvinists who are now athiests.
As to the suicides…I highly recommend Marsden’s book on Edwards. I was shocked to read of the suicides but there is more to it than that….the details of some of them are very interesting.
Also, I can relate to another commenter above. My neice and her new husband left Wheaton to go and study under Piper. WE did not know them when they came home. In fact, i was horrified at how she treated her parents who had just dished out a ton of money to put her through Wheaton. She never had to work a day and lived quite well with a car, etc, everything paid for.
They basically treated our entire family as infidels who had no real understanding at all of theology. And her entire extended family are long time born again Christians who have supported her throughout her life. It was a huge shock to many of us. And it is one thing that made me start looking at Piper more closely.
I really honestly believe much of the New Calvinism is a cult.
Headless ( Your name is interesting-would love to know how you chose it) — Dee
Actually, it came from this picture and accompanying short story I did for the AnthroCon 1999 conbook. Last year, I discovered someone had bootlegged it onto a blog I had never heard of. Since the story never sold, I just point to the bootleg.
Another thought about “The Islamization of Christianity” came to me last night. Extreme Predestination and obsession on God’s Soverignity resolves the paradox of evil by putting God beyond Good and Evil — God Can Will Evil. This ignores God’s nature in favor of God’s Raw Power. In Christian Monist’s words, “You end up with a God who is Omnipotent but not Benevolent.”
There is also another major flaw in this system. You Keep every Commandment, the five Pillars of Islam, Pray the Sinner’s Prayer — at the Great White Throne, what prevents God from Willing you into Hell anyway? Just because He can?
I would be fascinated to know if there is a higher suicde rate at Bethleham Baptist, and Mars Hill than at an Evangelicla Free. I do recall reading somehow that Jonathan Edwards congregation and a lot of suicides in it. — Eagle
Good question. Has anyone actually done a study on this? If so, I would like to request a companion study on the incidence of Bridezilla Syndrome among churches which preach or imply “Salvation by Marriage Alone”, a common corollary of going around the bend on “Family Values”.
What in the world is masculine love? How is it differentiated from feminine love? Does God only love with masculine love? — Dee
Considering I live near Ground Zero of the Sexual Revolution, where “love” is usually defined as meat-in-meat, you don’t want to know the images “masculine love” brings to mind.
’ve previously speculated about whether Islam and Mormonism may have been founded by them same “angel”. — Appalled
Careful where you go with that one, Appalled. A lot of Christians are prone to Grand Unified Conspiracy Theories masterminded by Satan trying to slip his Woopee Cushion under their butts. It’s very easy to slide completely into the Demon-Hunter/Witchfinder-General Conspiracy Mindset where The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In. (As you’ve probably guessed, I’ve crossed paths with Witchfinders-General seeing DEMONS under every bed. It’s not pretty.)
The origin stories of Mormonism and Islam can also be explained by strictly human factors working with religious ideas and memes of the place and time, no alleged messenger angels needed.
Anonymous
We are getting some emails about pastor level folks leaving the Calvinistas. Several blogs are starting on the issue. Deb is doing some legwork and we ill get this out to folks next week. Did you see the statement I just posted on a comment from Acts 29?
“We are not egalitarians and do believe that men should head their homes and male elders/pastors should lead their churches with masculine love like Jesus Christ.”
What in the world is MASCULINE LOVE?????
Headless
You are one interesting person! But, we do know that there is a spiritual realm so angels, good and bad, are part of the story. One of the better books on the subject was by believe it or not, Billy Graham who wrote on Angels-God’s Secret Agents. the title could use some work but the book was interesting.
Eagle
Like all things, the pendulum swings in all sorts of directions. People latch on to a new idea and carry it to an extreme. Once it becomes extreme, cooler heads prevail and things begin to moderate. For example, look at the Left Behind fad-Jesus is coming now stuff of the 70s. It is interesting that within the Calvinista set there is little love for this stuff. You can read the statements at Acts 29.
Piper started off OK. I like his book Experiencing God. Then the whole YRR stuff starts and suddenly Piper is autographing ESV Bibles at conferences. All men have their limitations and I think that Piper has exhibited his. I think the problem with Calvinistas is their extreme belief that they, and they alone, KNOW God and His sovereign nature. Those who disagree with them are probably reprobate or stupid (bless their little hearts).
I always find it amusing when someone comes onto this site and says if I really read such and such author I would have to admit that: you name it-Young Earth is correct, a certain eschatology is correct, or 5+point Calvinism is correct. Here is what I say. Brilliant theologians, who dearly love God and His Word, disagree on this matter. And you think you can prove your point beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Eagle, I love the Lord. In HIm I find answers to most of my questions. The Bible makes sense when I view the world around me. But I am still questioning some things. We are faced with a limitless God who created everything. He is beyond this dimension and what we see is limited. I am a three dimensional being with average intelligence. Some day, in eternity i will know more. But even then, He is God and I am created.
Calvinistas have their equations. But, I think some of their calculations need work.
“What in the world is masculine love? How is it differentiated from feminine love? Does God only love with masculine love”
So the converse must be true: women cannot be Christlike. There is a pink and blue spirituality in their salvation which is not to be found in any scripture. We see this thinking all the time from these patriarchs…..it is jsut that few people analyze it.
They are liars. And the father of lies is who?
Dee,
Great exposition of and response to the kind of behavior I see all the time. Like when people find that I, as an evangelical Christian (Baptist), left the R party in the 1960s and have not gone back because they were too extreme then and are even more so now. Contradicts to me what Jesus said. But then, others disagree, and are entitled to that. Just don’t call me unChristian because I believe that the govt is the only org that can actually meet the needs. We just need to do it more efficiently.
Arce
I attend a nondenominational church in a university town. We have members from all political stripes yet all of them get along even if they disagree at the ballot box. That is what is meant by Christian unity. I hope you enjoy the video today.
I have been spending the day with my daughters, so I apologize for being behind in reading and responding to comments.
Thanks for a lively discussion.
At the risk of raising the ire of our noble bog queens (the appellation is sincere by the way), I would submit that advanced academic credentials are no guarantor of intellectual moxie. In support of my point, I offer the case (profiled on PBS) of a New Hampshire stone mason who devised a simple and yet elegant method for raising a 70 ton granite obelisk where a prestigious engineering prof. from the UK failed. Academia is chock full of those who can obfuscate to the nth degree Taylor polynomial. I salute the ones who can elucidate and simplify, they are the true mental titans.
I have problems with John Piper, particularly his mind-boggling support for Rick Warren, who seems to represent all that Piper supposedly abhors. If it’s because (and this is speculation) he identifies with Warren’s “success,” this is to be deplored. And IF Piper encourages people’s adulation of him, this is to be deplored also.
But, Anonymous, Piper as a “silly little shock jock”? Are you sure you’re not thinking about Driscoll?
I am genuinely sorry if Piper’s work has in any way contributed to anyone’s depression. I suffer from depression. Piper’s “When The Darkness Does Not Lift” is one of the most accurate and compassionate writings on the subject I have ever read.
In short, in some ways I don’t recognize the Piper discussed in these comments. I certainly have not read everything he’s written or seen every video he’s done, but I think I’ve read and seen enough to get a pretty good idea of him.
There are hard things in the Bible. Is it possible that some who are critical of Piper have problems with what Scripture says about God’s sovereignty? I still have some problems with it, but when Scripture is clear about something, I think we have a duty to believe it whether or not we like it, and to ask God for illumination.
I see a tendency in the comments to blame God when bad things happen, and to “solve” the problem by limiting God’s knowledge and power. Is this Biblical? Doesn’t Scripture say and show over and over again that God allows bad, even horrific, things to occur for His purposes, even when we don’t know what they are? Is it beyond His ability to prevent these things from happening? If the answer is “No,” can we still agree that He is good?
Certainly, Piper, or anyone else, is sometimes guilty of saying something in an insensitive way, but I think we need to separate that from Biblical truth. And if he, or anyone, strays from Scripture, then he (they) deserve to be criticized.
So much good stuff here today, and so little time to read. Dee, you mentioned Calvin cutting off heads. Modern fans Commend him for Wanting to chop Servetus as a more humane extermination than burning alive, as was actually done.
HUG re Islam and Mormons… I used to live near Frank Peretti … Maybe his books rubbed off on me… So maybe we could say both Mo and Joe were inspired by their own vain imaginings, and each brought fictional angels in for support, and they’re alike in that way?
Jeff
Wow, this one is going to be hard for me because I sense you think you are trying to be empathetic. For that, I give you props.
You said “There are hard things in the Bible. Is it possible that some who are critical of Piper have problems with what Scripture says about God’s sovereignty? I still have some problems with it, but when Scripture is clear about something, I think we have a duty to believe it whether or not we like it, and to ask God for illumination.”
Now, I appreciate you trying to empathize with readers who have trouble with Piper, et al, in spite of your allegiance to Calvinism. However, this very comment shows the problem with some in that camp-the ones whom my co-blogger and I call Calvinistas. You say “when Scripture is clear” Clear to who? It is clear to you and you now know the truth and those who do not see it clearly, as those who have commented on this blog, must have a problem. So, all the other theologians in the faith, who do not see it as Piper and you do are clearly not following the obvious case of Scripture. is this not a tad arrogant? Whoops-I do remember a statement by Piper about how, when it is obvious, it is not arrogant. And whatever is obvious to Piper must be the truth. So Piper is in the clear, right?
You say “I think we have a duty to believe it whether or not we like it, ” So, you know what the verses say and now you say we all have a duty to believe it exactly as you do because you know exactly what it says. So, if we don’t see it and therefore don’t follow the line of reasoning, we must be shirking our duty, right?
Then you say “and to ask God for illumination.” What makes you think people have not asked for said illumination? How do you know what people ask for? I certainly do, every-time I read the Bible. Or, do you know that if people truly asked for God’s illumination, they would believe as you do? I went through this with a Mormon man. He kept asking me to ask for God’s illumination and then I would see that Mormonism is correct. So, in his presence, I did so and then told him that God did not seem to be illuminating me in the way that he so desired.
You say “I see a tendency in the comments to blame God when bad things happen, and to “solve” the problem by limiting God’s knowledge and power.” How wrong you are! There are many who who struggle with this question and do so honestly. But, they must not be “Biblical” because truly Biblical people would understand it exactly the way that you do. There are agnostics on this blog who are truly seeking. One of them was deeply hurt by some Calvinista sorts. Could you please let them work through their thinking and stop casting blame on the process? I can well assure that there are many people who believe exactly as you do who one day will struggle with what seems so obvious now.Get back to me in 10 years.
Do you not see your assumptions? You are Biblical. You understand God’s sovereignty. You have God’s illumination.You have struggled and it is now saliently clear and if only these poor slugs would get with the program, they, too, would see things Piper’s way. I know you don’t mean it that way but you are so immersed in the system that you don’t see how your words can be both painful and arrogant.
“And if he, or anyone, strays from Scripture, then he (they) deserve to be criticized.” You see, you think that he is Scriptural and those who disagree with him obviously must not be Scriptural. So, are you trying to bring people to the Lord or bring people to Calvinism? Or, are they one and the same for you?
Please dig a little deeper into your heart and go beyond the Calvinista rhetoric and see the honest struggle of many people who love the Lord dearly .
Muff
Jesus, at the start of His ministry, did not call the scholars. He saw the dignity and complexity of those who plied their trade on the open waters. It is the ones who can simply say the complex who bring understanding.
Appalled
So, I guess if it happened today, Calvin would allow for a simple injection of sedative mixed with potassium. That would be even more humane. 🙂 How civil of him.
“But, Anonymous, Piper as a “silly little shock jock”? Are you sure you’re not thinking about Driscoll?”
Nope. I have met Piper on several occassions and he is tiny. I was always amused because isn’t he a ‘giant” in the patriarchy/women’s roles movement. I also was thinking of such things as “Scream of the Damned” which is theologically unsound, “Christian Hedonism” which is redefining terms simply for shock value and to sell books and his teaching that if women MUST give driving directions to men they must not appear to be “teaching”. (We have had a ton of fun with that one).
There is much more. I should keep a list of Piperisms for followers when they ask. He is silly. If you took away his flowery speech, there would be little there.
“I am genuinely sorry if Piper’s work has in any way contributed to anyone’s depression. I suffer from depression. Piper’s “When The Darkness Does Not Lift” is one of the most accurate and compassionate writings on the subject I have ever read.”
Thanks anyway but I do not suffer from depression nor has Piper contributed to any ailment I have had…that I am aware of. Perhaps he sneezed on me when I met him and he gave me a cold?
“There are hard things in the Bible. Is it possible that some who are critical of Piper have problems with what Scripture says about God’s sovereignty? I still have some problems with it, but when Scripture is clear about something, I think we have a duty to believe it whether or not we like it, and to ask God for illumination.”
Interesting. Let’s take this further, Jeff. Why don’t you describe what you think Piper teaches about God’s Sovereignty and juxtapose that with the percentage of time Piper spends on the subject with his audiences outside his church in speaking, books, etc.
Is scripture also clear about God’s perfect Justice? His Grace? Mercy? Wrath? Also is scripture clear that this sovereign God emptied Himself and came to earth in the form of a lowly human, God in the Flesh? (Would you agree scripture is clear on those points, too?)
“I see a tendency in the comments to blame God when bad things happen, and to “solve” the problem by limiting God’s knowledge and power. Is this Biblical? Doesn’t Scripture say and show over and over again that God allows bad, even horrific, things to occur for His purposes, even when we don’t know what they are? Is it beyond His ability to prevent these things from happening? If the answer is “No,” can we still agree that He is good?”
So, in other words, God orchestrated and planned for the Penn State boys to be raped. Sure, we understand the Calvinist god. That is where the Piper/Calvinist focus on God ends up, friend. It is determinism and the Islamization of Christianity. You should tell the boys God did this for them for His purposes if you really believe such things.
“Certainly, Piper, or anyone else, is sometimes guilty of saying something in an insensitive way, but I think we need to separate that from…”
Come on Jeff, now you are condescending as you have your entire post. Sorry but most Calvinist do this. Dee is right, you are assuming we are ignorant of scripture because we question Piper. Bring us specific issues to discuss from a scriptural point of view….like Sovereignty. Not insults that we simply don’t like what scripture says or do not hve the Holy Spirit illuminating truth to us like you do.
Jeff,
You, and Piper, et al., misunderstand the sovereignty of God. Sovereignty is the ability, the power to do whatever one chooses to do in one’s realm. God has the power to do whatever he chooses. But the Scripture is also clear that God is not only sovereign, but that he is a God of grace, mercy, and love, a self-sacrificing love, and of justice. So God chooses, not to be the author of evil, but to allow humans to have choice, so that they may choose to love him in return, because without choice, there is no love, only automatons. That is why the Calvinista view that we are living out a predetermined script is a heresy contradicted often in scripture. It is a result of misinterpretation of the Word that has the effect of turning a God of Love into a monster who creates for the pleasure of torture and destruction, without justice, without mercy. But the Bible teaches as much that God is a God of mercy, justice and love as it does about his sovereignty and his power.
Jeff — your God is not deserving of worship, and your worship is nothing but a robotic farce, since you have no choice, and no way of knowing whether you are elect or not. My God is a God deserving of adoration, love, and worship, and he provided me with the ability to choose to follow as a disciple of Christ, and provided me assurance, in John 3:16, among other places, that my choice to follow him will be rewarded in eternity. He has the power to protect me and keep me safe — that is his application of his sovereignty — providing a choice and saving and protecting those who choose his way.
Dear Deb and Dee,
Glad you chose not to name the “megapastor” on this post.
His challenge is then to respond to the content of your commentary on theological grounds.
He has had about 2 years to come up with something thoughtful.
It will be interesting to see what he has to offer.
I am wondering what this mega pastor might think that the daughters of the blog owners he talks about this way in his sermon are in his congregation? Might it soften his heart?
Anonymous
I am relatively certain he knows.
I am not a Piper cheerleader; I am weary of Mohler; shocked by Mahaney; disgusted by Driscoll.
But I must say, poor Jeff says he has problems with Piper, writes two contingencies (Piper’s motives being possible fame, possible adulation), and says that if these are true its deplorable. He seems to me to be saying that his understanding (admittedly partial) of Piper is not as starkly bad as some others (like calling Piper a silly little shock jock). He mentions that one of Piper’s books was very helpful to him in terms of depression.
So Jeff is a Calvinist and thinks sovereignty of the Piper variety is clearly taught in the Bible – it seems like many other readers are just as convinced that that theological position is clearly unbiblical and false (surely both have been held by great Christians through history).
I must confess to not seeing Jeff’s comments being worth the types of insults that have come his way. He’s casting blame on the process? “Get back to me in 10 years”?! Why, because his theology will fall apart and he’ll have to admit that you’re right and he’s wrong? His words are painful and arrogant? Dig deeper and get beyond the rhetoric?
But, Piper is small, and shocks people to sell books? He is silly and there is little there? Jeff was condescending in his entire post, as are most Calvinists? He’s just being insulting?
And then, no reading between the lines (at least Jeff’s arrogance was inferred!), “You and Piper et al misunderstand the sovereignty of God.” Jeff thinks its clear (which is arrogant), but then to categorically state he and Piper are wrong isn’t? The God of Calvinism isn’t worthy of worship (and therefore a false god), and Jeff’s worship is a farce?
Honestly, I agree with so much I read on this blog, but who are the ones being condescending and arrogant in this exchange? It seems like someone like Jeff isn’t allowed to holds his beliefs with conviction, but those who disagree are.
I am very, very sorry for the pain these “Calvinista” church groups have caused; SGM Survivors broke my heart when I found my way there a few years ago. I am horrified by the response (or lack of response) by their churches. I am very sorry for the personal insults and ad hominem attacks you have received. So I do not say this lightly: it is understandable to be gun shy, but the responses to Jeff (in my perhaps more neutral judgment – although that does sound condescending) are way over the top. His comments are so understated compared to the lambasting that followed.
Listen, I’m not in the cheap seats (I’m actually not even in the stadium), so my opinion doesn’t really count too much. Just someone who has been reading ever since the summer (the Mahaney debacle led me here), who has agreed with much of what’s been said, but who thinks that one Calvinist got hit a lot harder than he deserved given the content of his comment.
Grace and Peace to Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike!
Steve
I am neither a Calvinist or an Arminianist. I think it is far more complex, kind of like God. I have no dog in this hunt. One of my best buddies is a Calvinist, another is pure Arminian. What really, really irritates me is when someone takes a secondary issue and uses it to hammer others over the head. Please reread my concern with his comment. He made assumptions about people They need to pray for God’ s illumination. They are not obeying Scripture. As for the ten years comment, I have a reason for saying this. How much do you know about the growing disillusionment by some in this movement? we will be writing more on this. And I hope Calvinistas get a clue.
Welcome to the world of being bashed ladies. This has been happening to me for over 5 years, but you know what that means to me when they bash me?
I laugh, I really do! Why? Because they know I know what I am talking about and adds credibility to what you post.
Don’t take it personally because if you do you will miss a major comical moment and lots of smile and laughs in the future with all of us other basement bloggers!
Dee,
I think that likely you and I are on two sides of the same coin about many things.
I have reread his comment. I must confess that I think it can be interpreted in a negative way, but it doesn’t at all have to be. He even admits to struggles with the doctrine. He says when we struggle we need to pray for illumination – which is true, and which seems to apply equally to those on both sides. As you mentioned in your reply, you do pray for illumination (as we all need to do). I didn’t take him to be saying only non-Calvinists need to pray for illumination (perhaps I’m wrong – I’m just saying how I read him).
My only concern, and if you would speak directly to this I think it could be helpful, is that there seemed to be an awful lot of ad hominem attacks, insults, and a touch of arrogance and condescension tossed his way in the replies to his comment. Am I wrong about that? I honestly believe that if you took Jeff’s comment, and then the replies to it, and read them to a philosophy class, they would see far more ad hominem attacks in the replies than in the original post. I’m not saying he’s right theologically; just that in my judgment there was a number of kettles calling a pot black.
In the interest of even-handedness and fairness, you said he was arrogant, etc. Did any of the replies exhibit those tendencies and attitudes too (in your opinion), or was it only Jeff?
I don’t know anything about the growing disillusionment in the movement from personal experience, of course. I do know my own disillusionment has been growing with some of these folks for years. But that’s part of why I think the replies to Jeff overshot the mark: I think a lot was read out of what he said that might not have been there, but was assumed to be there given your own experiences. I only wonder if Jeff got tarred with a broader brush than was fair.
This blog has been very helpful to me over the last few months, and I want to say a sincere thank you.
GA Blogger,
We can definitely take the bashing. Hopefully, our readers are getting a close up and personal look at the Calvinista movement. When things don’t go their way, they take matters into their own hands. Makes you wonder whether they really trust in the sovereignty of God.
Guess where my family and I had dinner this evening… Cracker Barrel.
Blessings.
steve,
Welcome to TWW. I am grateful you have found our articles to be beneficial. We are discovering new information we’ve never shared before, so we should have some very interesting stuff to post soon.
Hope you’ll continue reading.
Looks like the “blogging in your mama’s basement” comments are making the rounds in the PCA, too. Take a look at this comment made by an elder in a PCA church (names have been deleted).
“Gentlemen, I just talked to … who is familiar with the guy writing this blog – he was a trouble maker who was critical of the PCA church’s in Ohio while … lived there. The blogger is from near Dayton, Ohio – probably living in his Mom’s basement.”
Geez! What a bunch of copycats!
More to follow on this saga in a PCA church soon, along with links.
Steve
This blog has attracted a fair number of people who have been beaten down by authoritarian churches. Many of these churches adhere to a Calvinista perspective. Such people find a friend in this blog. I know some of their stories. The last thing they need is someone telling them, once again, to pray and seek illumination from God in order to understand the Scriptures in the correct fashion. Correct is now defined as exacting Calvinistic theology.
When I saw Jeff’s comment I told my husband that this would not go over well. His comment was typical of a Calvinista approach. He is so locked into his system that he cannot perceive the effects of his words. He is so used to the lingo of the movement because Calvinistas self talk and rarely learn to communicate with others because they are used to being “correct” about all things theological.
I think it is important for the Jeffs in the world to see how deeply this sort of palaver actually affects people. Until Calvinistas step down from their self imposed theological high places and show a basic understanding of the pain that is out there, the divide will continue. Plus, I have found the Calvinista crowd does just fine with a full court press. They are a pretty self assured bunch.
Deb
These guys have little originality. They speak each others lingo, theologically and otherwise. They have a problem with us since, as you brilliantly said, We are the mothers!!! We are well dressed and I blog in my kitchen, watching the beautiful birds in my backyard. I never, ever eat Cheetos unless I am on a road trip and then they must be crunchy. They, on the other hand, are guilty of robotalk. yawn……..
“So Jeff is a Calvinist and thinks sovereignty of the Piper variety is clearly taught in the Bible – it seems like many other readers are just as convinced that that theological position is clearly unbiblical and false (surely both have been held by great Christians through history).”
I did not make my point well. Yes, God is Sovereign. The difference is the EMPHASIS made on that ONE attribute to the detriment of HIs other attributes. That is the problem with Piper and other Reformed celebrities. And there is a reason they make that the emphasis….instead of say, Justice or Mercy.
How they define Sovereignty is also the question that must be discussed. In Piper’s defintion (How he teaches it) God is the author of evil. They just won’t admit that is the logical conclusion of what they teach. As in God planned and orchestrated the rape of the Penn state boys. How is their view of Sovereignty not really teaching this?
Many of us are also used to Piper followers and know how it works. He is like a god in the Reformed movement and it never occurs to them he might be wrong about anything or that his emphasis might become a problem.
Jeff was using the old “if only you could see the light, too” method of debate. That is ad hominem. We simply responded to that. Jeff did not ask for explanations or defintions of any of the topics such as Sovereignty. He was not here to interact.
At one point in my comment, I was going to write, “Of course, I could be wrong,” but I assumed that was a given. Now I wish I had written it.
It meant a lot that one person, Steve, detected the tone that I intended and didn’t assume things that I didn’t say. And was not outraged that I wrote things that he didn’t necessarily agree with. Steve, I thank you.
I wrote it too hurriedly and could have been more clear, but I still think the response was over the top.
Yes, I’m a Calvinist, although I think that they are way off in their eschatology and their belief in paedobaptism. I’m also a consistent critic of those who call themselves Calvinists who major in sin and minor in grace, Mahaney and his cohorts in particular. On this and other blogs, I have written of my disgust with the Calvinist big-shots who have circled the wagons around him and don’t even allow negative comments about him on their blogs. On one Calvinist blog, I wrote some angry comments in response to people who called what’s happening at SGM a tempest in a teapot, and recommended that they read the blogs that focus on all the people who have been damaged.
I notice that several people seem to think that I’m arrogant because I’m too sure about what I believe. Pardon me, but you guys do not exactly come across as not being sure about what YOU believe. And what’s so wrong about that anyway? Did God intend that we not be REASONABLY sure about anything in Scripture? Is everything up for grabs? And if we disagree, can we be civil about it?
I was criticized for saying that some things in the Bible are “clear.” Come on, folks, is that a controversial statement? Is Scripture unclear about God being all-knowing? Eagle, I don’t know the details of Piper vs. Boyd, but I think Open Theism should be criticized. Does God not see the future infallibly? (BTW, I think Piper was stupid and Falwell-ish about the tornado-church incident.)
Is He not all-powerful? Could He not have prevented the Holocaust or those boys at Penn State from being raped? Maybe I’m wrong, but I get the feeling from some of the comments that some think that God doesn’t at least ALLOW everything that happens to happen. That doesn’t mean that He necessarily approves of it, or that He doesn’t sometimes grieve over it. And it doesn’t necessarily mean that people who believe this about God approve of it and don’t grieve over it. It also doesn’t mean that believing that God has a purpose for everything He allows, including our own suffering, is fatalistic or hard-hearted.
God is incredibly merciful, but He doesn’t prevent every evil thing from happening. “I will show mercy to whom I show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
Calvinism doesn’t believe that God designed every thought and every word and every action that a human being will think, say, and do. That’s Hyper-Calvinism, and it’s not Biblical. For one thing, it makes God the author of evil. God’s sovereignty allows for human freedom. NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THAT WORKS, AND IF ANYONE SAYS HE/SHE DOES, HE/SHE IS A FOOL. (When I wrote that Scripture is “clear” about God’s sovereignty, I didn’t mean to imply that it tells us everything about it, but I should have been more “clear” about that.) However, Calvinists believe that Scripture emphasizes God’s sovereignty more than it does human freedom. If that makes a person unfeeling, the problem is in the person, not Calvinism.
It seems that the C-word itself is enough to make some people see red. Part of the reason is the foolishness and arrogance of certain Calvinists (but aren’t there foolish and arrogant Arminians?). But, and I know you’ll hate this and see me as being superior, sometimes the problem is that people accept the stereotypes and don’t do the work required to understand it.
If I’m coming across as arrogant, all I can say is that I don’t intend it.
I wrote: “Is it possible that some who are critical of Piper have problems with what Scripture says about God’s sovereignty?” What I meant is that I think that he is pretty accurate on this particular subject, not on everything in the Bible.
I singled out the subject of God’s sovereignty because the comments about Piper mainly focused on that. Piper and other Calvinists, and Calvin, actually do talk about mercy, grace, etc., also. Not the pseudo-Calvinists, but the real ones.
Dee, you wrote: “Then you say ‘and to ask God for illumination.’ What makes you think people have not asked for said illumination?” What makes YOU think that I think that people have NOT asked for said illumination? I was just mentioning something that was true and obvious.
I wrote: “Certainly, Piper, or anyone else, is sometimes guilty of saying something in an insensitive way, but I think we need to separate that from Biblical truth. And if he, or anyone, strays from Scripture, then he (they) deserve to be criticized.” When I wrote the second sentence, I meant “anyone” to refer to other Calvinists. I should have made that clearer. But I don’t understand how you arrived at this: “You see, you think that he is Scriptural and those who disagree with him obviously must not be Scriptural.” Isn’t it clear that “he” in the second sentence refers to Piper?
I appreciate your seeing that I was attempting to be empathetic.
I will do more research on Piper. Maybe he is a “cancer” and a “silly little shock jock,” but I think it’s more likely that he’s a flawed human being who is genuinely, and in good faith, trying to understand Scripture. I hope all of us fit that description.
Jeff talks about letting the Scripture illuminate us. Here are a few things that I have learned from the Bible;
God is love, and loves us just the way we are.
He enjoys us, and sorrows with us.
He hurts with the least of us, and when others sin against their brother and sister.
In my own experience, He teases me. I don’t really know what verb to use to describe a recent set of events. I’ve always been interested in China, and was reading a novel about Pearl Buck. Yesterday, I went to the local art museum where they had a special exhibit of Fu Baoshi’s paintings. I was intoxicated by his work, which was strengthened by the novel, the fact that I didn’t know much about that style, and the knowledge that had things been different, it would have all been lost in the fires of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.
(I also ache for my brothers and sisters who are Chinese and struggling to worship freely)
I believe it was my response to Jeff that led to some of the criticism. I was merely holding up a mirror to his statements and showing the logical conclusion thereof and pointing out an alternative. To me, to make God the author of evil is heresy, plain and simple, and I believe that the theology that supports that is not of God but of the devil. Sorry to offend. Just telling it like I see it. And I have been studying the Bible for almost 60 years. The first teaching I received, more than 60 years ago is summed up in two songs — Jesus Loves Me and Jesus Loves All the Children of the World — and one verse — For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life. I still believe what I was taught at my mother’s feet at 3 years old.
Jeff said:
“Calvinism doesn’t believe that God designed every thought and every word and every action that a human being will think, say, and do. That’s Hyper-Calvinism, and it’s not Biblical. For one thing, it makes God the author of evil. God’s sovereignty allows for human freedom. NO ONE KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THAT WORKS, AND IF ANYONE SAYS HE/SHE DOES, HE/SHE IS A FOOL. (When I wrote that Scripture is “clear” about God’s sovereignty, I didn’t mean to imply that it tells us everything about it, but I should have been more “clear” about that.) However, Calvinists believe that Scripture emphasizes God’s sovereignty more than it does human freedom. If that makes a person unfeeling, the problem is in the person, not Calvinism.”
Jeff,
Thanks for clarifying your position. I agree with your statement: “God’s sovereignty allows for human freedom.” What’s difficult for me is to distinguish between ‘normal’ Calvinists and hyper-Calvinists. Truly, it’s hard to tell the difference.
I consider myself to be 3.5 on the TULIP scale. I absolutely disagree with LIMITED ATONEMENT because I believe Christ died for everyone; however, I don’t believe everyone with be with Him in glory because I believe Almighty God allows us to choose Him in RESPONSE to His first reaching out to us. I reject open theism and get very frustrated with Calvinists who label those who do not believe in a limited atonement as open theists.
Furthermore, I have difficulty even understand irresistible grace, so I give it a half a point. If I could fully comprehend what it means, I could either move down to 3 points or up to 4 points.
BTW, I have always found this point system to be so __________. Here are some of the words I could use to fill in the blank: elementary, “wooden”, systematic, exclusive, frustrating! There are many more words…
Why are we always trying to put God in a box? He is our all-powerful, magnificent, loving creator, and we will never figure Him out on this side of heaven. On the other side, we will likely be in such awe of Him that we no longer have the desire to understand all of this. We will just worship and adore him for eternity.
Hope that gives you some understanding of my theological bent.
When I first read Jeff’s post, I was interested to see the reaction. I’ve never seen anyone on this sight who wasn’t either completely against Piper or for him. I thought Jeff was moderate on Piper, and wanted to see the response. It wasn’t quite what I thought it would be.
Let me display my ignorance of American politics: many people think S. Palin is an idiot, and some think she’s wonderful. Others think she has some good ideas, but would never, never support the Tea Party. It would be completely inaccurate to hear them say: “I think Palin is right at this point” and then have some respond along the lines of “The problem with all you Tea Party people is…”
The majority of people I know are moderate on Piper. They would agree with him on somethings, but they would be a laughably bad fit as “Calvinistas.” I think Jeff was replied to as a card carring Calvinista, where the problems of a whole general movement where dumped onto the individual. I don’t think that’s charitable or even a fair reading of what he said.
Dee: I still don’t understand the criteria or standard for arrogance. Could you please explain why Jeff’s comments failed the test, but the replies didn’t? I mean, if Jeff said “The proble is that Arce and the TWW blog queens misunderstand sovereignty” he’d be torn apart – why does someone else make that comment with different names and get a free pass?
Perhaps we’re just going to disagree on the tone and nature of the comments. But let me offer a plea: there are many, many people who are moderate, who would overlap into the Piper circles and into your circles. I think you are working on very, very important issues, things that must be brought into the light. I worry that perhaps some people who would listen to you are going to be driven away by intemperate accusations.
I reread Jeff’s comment at your request; will you reread the replies to him, and honestly tell me what makes them so different?
To me, much of the controversy is not over the words in the bible, but how we choose to interpret them and make sense of all of the complexities that are there and, on the surface, seem to be contradictory to each other. To me, that is why a “systematic theology” (usually another term for 5 point Calvinism) is an impossibility. God is truly beyond understanding.
BTW, hypercalvinists label as an “open theist” anyone who believes that God answers prayer and acts to change what happens on earth. They say that that means that God has to change in response to prayer which, they say, is heretical. That would include the sinner’s prayer prayed by anyone not of the pre-deteremined eletc. But God could be unchangingly responsive to those who seek him and ask for his forgiveness.
To me it is a leap to go from God knowing all that can be known, including his own plans for the world and for us including all the different things we may choose to do and how he will respond in the event of each, to God having scripted everything in detail because he knows it in detail from creation.
Jeff
First, thank you for clarifying. I am also glad to hear that you are critical of those circling the wagons around Mahaney.My question is this. What is it in the theology of men like Mohler, Piper, Duncan and others that would make them protect Mahaney and not be concerned about the people hurt? Tom e, theology is not some random discussion of details for the sake of argument but is a study to understand our Father and how we then respond in our day to day lives. For me, who care if one is a Calvinist or otherwise? It is more important to se it lived out.
I believe in God’s sovereignty but I might view it a bit different than a Calvinist or an Arminian. That does not mean I have any lesser view of God than a Calvinista. I did not like the “pray for God’s illumination”comment. It is true and obvious. Why not say pray for God’s peace, His love, etc.? Lots of people have prayed and have not received the same sort of illumination that would lead them down the road to believe exactly as a 5 pointer.Do you know how many people have been told they are lesser Christians, or, even worse, not christians, because they struggle?
One thing i assume when I am talking with people is that they have doe the obvious: read the Bible, prayed to receive jesus, prayed for His wisdom, and prayed for his guidance. Because, most people who spend their days struggling through things on a blog such as this, really, really care about their faith and some have been abused in the pursuit of the faith.
That is why I tend to get testy if i am concerned someone might be denigrating their heartfelt journey. So, it seems I have misread you and I am sorry. There are terrific limitations in the blogosphere. But, we now have a good comparison point for true arrogance. Have you read Ronnie’s comment? Now there is a guy who has learned well from his man.
Steve
I rarely correct the responses of people to provocative comments. If I spent time doing so, i would be changed to my computer 24 hours a day. This is a bit of a free for all. The only thing that i ask is to try to contain the language a bit. Far too many people have not been allowed a full voice for their feelings and thoughts. They have been beaten down by the Ronnie’s of the world who trivialize their concerns. I do pick and choose who to respond to. I knew that Jeff’s comment would not be well received and attempted to head it off at the pass. And look what happened! A great conversation ensued. In fact, I think everyone goes away a bit changed. Whoops-late for a meeting. More later.
“However, Calvinists believe that Scripture emphasizes God’s sovereignty more than it does human freedom. If that makes a person unfeeling, the problem is in the person, not Calvinism.”
Jeff, I am not sure if you are really hearing what the celebrity Calvinists are really teaching. It is so subtle that most don’t catch it. But when you combine the emphasis of Sovereignty with Gospel everthing you come up with a doctrine that completely leaves out sanctification. You will hear things like “Gospel marriage” or “Jesus obeys for us”. They have combined subtly Justification and Sanctification. (Except Piper has a different view for women)
When you are saved in this “New Calvinism” (And it is very different from Calvinism) you remain totally depraved, a worm who cannot do anything to please God. (Unless you are a woman and then you please God by submitting to a male) You do not become a new creature in Christ. There is no new birth for you because you are unable to do anything even though you are Justified. They do not move on from the Cross.
Start listening closer. Eagle linked to a post by the late Michael Spencer that goes into this a bit from another angle. It was bothering him, too, and he was just putting his finger on it. I could relate because Spenser comes from the evangelical seeker type background and was beginning to see the problems in the New Reformed movement.
If I misread your comment, I apologize. But I have to tell you it sounded like the typical Calvinist response I see on blogs everywhere.
And just to qualify, I take Piper as in ALL he teaches. His teaching on women is ridiculous. No, they should not take “abuse for a season”. Not only that but he never says whether it is abuse from a professing Christian husband or not. And if a husband asks his wife to be part of a threesome…NO the wife should not say. “Honey, I want you to be my leader but I cannot sin”. That is ridiculous. If her husband asks her to be a part of a threesome she has MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS than his “leadership”. Yes, Piper is silly and a false teacher!!!!
In fact, not long ago, Mohler made a video with the Gospel coalition where he basically said that if you are theologically minded and want to see the nations rejoice for Christ then you have NO WHERE to go but Calvinism.
This thinking is everywhere in the Reformed movement. The NC is great for men who love the flesh but horrible for women.
Dee,
Just because I don’t do church anymore and probably never will again, does not mean that I don’t agree with the admirable effort you ladies put forth here at TWW. The goal is a noble one, trying to reform the “reformed” so to speak, and make the institution of church more humane. Godspeed and kudos!
Muff –
Your terms “do church” and “institution of church” pretty much sums up what church has become for many. So, where do you stand as far as a relationship with God? Because Jesus came to restore man’s relationship with God and anyone who comes through Jesus is in the Church of Jesus and also part of the Bride of Christ (a term Driscoll may have problems with – ha!). If I’m being to nosy – just ignore, but I’m just curious to know where you’re at.
I think there is a big, big difference between going to church services and actually being. the church, though obviously, the services themselves have the capacity to help that come into being.
Although my perspective is a bit different, since I come from a liturgical church background (Lutheran), and certain kinds of services are part of “being the church” in a way that is particular to certain beliefs – communion especially. (Since the emphasis is not just on the local body of Christ, but on what Roman Catholics call “the mystical body of Christ” – the church worldwide is another way of putting it.)
The churches of today are not what your Grandma grew up with. The modern day church has ruined many men and women.
You do not need to be a part of a “Church” to get into heaven – remember that.
It is all about a “personal relationship” with Christ and the church is an after thought just as is baptism. I just happen to think – NOT when it come to going to a building and following a man! The church is being a part of other believers and with other believers, I just prefer not powered to be powered by any one certain “MAN” and any one certain “church”. It is to risky nowadays.
Judging from your responses, I seem to have communicated better in my second email than I did in my first. Steve, you somehow understand me better than I communicate.
First of all, about boxes. Deb, I’m glad you said that “we” all do it, because that’s true. When we say, “Why are you putting God in a box?”, aren’t we really just saying that we don’t like the other person’s box? God is infinite and we are not, so, to some extent, we are forced to use boxes.
However, God wants us to know *some* things about Him, so He gives us Scripture (in addition to what we can know from His Creation and from our conscience). Even in Scripture, though, we encounter a Being beyond any in our experience, so we still use boxes, though the boxes may be closer to the truth. When, for instance, someone says, “God is love,” that person is putting God in a box. When someone says, “God is judgment,” that person is putting God in a box. There is truth in both, but only partial truth. We have to come to terms with the fact, in Scripture, that God both loves and judges. We don’t naturally connect the two, but they are somehow connected in God. He is different from us.
Anna A, you wrote, “God is love, and loves us just the way we are.” With all due respect, I think that’s a misleading statement, if, by “just the way we are,” you include our sins. I apologize if that’s not what you meant.
Arce, I agree with everything you wrote about Hyper-Calvinism. You also wrote: “I was merely holding up a mirror to [Jeff’s] statements and showing the logical conclusion thereof and pointing out an alternative. To me, to make God the author of evil is heresy, plain and simple, and I believe that the theology that supports that is not of God but of the devil.” In my first comment, I deplored HC and specifically wrote that it made God the author of evil. I don’t see how my statements lead logically to HC.
Deb, I think the main difference between HC and Calvinism is that the former does not take into account human freedom, which Scripture says is a reality, and the latter does. From this comes a whole host of difficulties.
Limited (or Particular) Atonement is too big a subject to go into here, but some of the verses that I think support it are John 6:44, 65, 17:6, 9; Eph. 1:3-12, Heb. 9:15.
Irresistible (or Effective) Grace, in brief, describes what the Holy Spirit does in salvation. The Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Holy Spirit applies. “Irresistible” means that the Spirit will apply salvation to everyone whom He has called.
As many probably know, the five points were not written by Calvin. Almost 50 years after his death, the followers of James Arminius, who had also died, wrote “five articles of faith” based on his teachings. Calvin’s followers later wrote the five points to refute them. So, if the points sound “wooden,” at least they are the response to five earlier points.
Dee, I really don’t think there is anything in their theology that makes people like Mohler and Duncan defend Mahaney (I have not heard of Piper defending him) and ignore those who have been harmed by him and others. Part of it is simply ignorance, probably willed ignorance. A Calvinist blogger I read frequently said that it looked like merely a disagreement between Detwiler and Mahaney. When I wrote that it was much more than that, he replied that he will set aside time to read through all the documents. I told him that will not be enough – he needs to read the personal stories on the blogs, which I named. Mohler and Duncan also concentrate only on the documents.
They laugh at Detwiler’s made-up sin of “unentreatability,” but they don’t realize that the sin-sniffing is a symptom of the problem. IOW, they really have to do some work to see what’s been going on.
I speculate that it’s willed ignorance partly because of the extraordinary and unexpected “success” of Calvinism in the past decade. Some of the leaders have probably become used to the star treatment, and don’t want to risk it being taken away because of the trouble one of them has gotten into. It’s inexcusable, but it’s human. By which I mean that I don’t think it’s inherent in their theology.
From what I know, I don’t think that Calvinism is inherently a male-oriented theology, but I think they may have twisted it to be that, and may have gone beyond what Scripture says about the roles of men and women. Authoritarianism, or, at least, sympathy for it, may be the result.
I wrote “pray for illumination” because the subject was specifically about the meaning of Scripture. Of course, we should pray for many other things.
Anonymous, thank you for distinguishing between “New Calvinism” and Calvinism. I’ll look into what you wrote about their view of justification and sanctification. Thanks for pointing out that link.
Not that I don’t believe you, but would you tell me where I can find Piper’s views on how a wife should respond to abuse? If those are his views, they are horrendous. And maybe the link to the Mohler also?
I very much appreciate the apologies, and, of course, I accept them. I apologize again for not being more clear in spots.
I was attending Covenant Life Church for a few months before I realized what was going on – mainly the publishing of Brent’s documents started it. I had left a congregation, which I had been going to for over 20 years, because of problems similar to the ones at SGM, CLC, and elsewhere. (It was not Calvinist; I had started going there before I knew what Calvinism was.) So I know the effects of authoritarian abuse. I understand the anger that results from it. But we must use it constructively and not let it overtake us. Easier said than done, I know.
Dee,
You mentioned someone named Ronnie. Where can I find his comments?
Jeff,
Thanks for your thoughtful replies to various commenters, including me. I am grateful that you challenged a Calvinist blogger (I’m fairly sure I know who) regarding the Mahaney debacle. It’s so much bigger than an interpersonal conflict between two men.
I will be giving what you shared some thought.
When you write things in public, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get critiqued in public. High profile pastors need to stop whining every time somebody says something bad about someone on the internet. At the same time, if you run a blog that is based on calling people out, don’t be shocked if someone takes exception.
Jeff,
Here are Ronnie’s remarks under the following post — Mark Driscoll Versus Scripture: Analysis of Song of Solomon.
Ronnie said:
“it seems alot like everyone on the website is a bored housewife who cant help but gossip about useless junk. no offense, but don’t you think that reading and praying over sos would be more productive than writing book-length comments about your opinion of its interpretation? driscoll wasn’t wrong in what he said. he even used the bible. if your point is that he didnt cover everything that the book means, like its countless allegorical meanings, then you should probable stop listening to anyone talk about scripture. no one will every fully, rightly describe the scriptures and it isnt productive to have an entire website devoted to commenting when humans fall short of encompassing everything about a text of scripture. why dont you do something with yourselves? honestly 95% of what i read was just gossip and idle talk. one would do well to listen to what jesus said about idle words.”
As you might imagine, there have been quite a few responses sent in his direction.
Scott,
I can assure you, we can handle it.
The purpose of this post was to set the record straight. If someone wants to debate us, that’s fine; however, we will not allow misrepresentations of what we write to go unchallenged.
Muff
Well, you have not forsaken the gathering of the saints. There are quite a few of them over here and we are glad that you join us!
Jeff
He commented under a Mark Driscoll article. here is what he said. Enjoy
Submitted on 2011/11/26 at 03:49 am
it seems alot like everyone on the website is a bored housewife who cant help but gossip about useless junk. no offense, but don’t you think that reading and praying over sos would be more productive than writing book-length comments about your opinion of its interpretation? driscoll wasn’t wrong in what he said. he even used the bible. if your point is that he didnt cover everything that the book means, like its countless allegorical meanings, then you should probable stop listening to anyone talk about scripture. no one will every fully, rightly describe the scriptures and it isnt productive to have an entire website devoted to commenting when humans fall short of encompassing everything about a text of scripture. why dont you do something with yourselves? honestly 95% of what i read was just gossip and idle talk. one would do well to listen to what jesus said about idle words.
Scott
One thing that works in our favor is that controversy causes more people to read our blog. We are NEVER surprised when we get called out. We have a running list we keep on what we have been called. You should see what we have been called. But, we have far more people who support our POV. So, all is well and rather exciting.
Jeff,
One video by Piper about how a wife should respond to abuse is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFPkN3zKN2s&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Mohler said:
If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed — basically being something like this New Calvinism, or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing.
And: There just are not options out there; and that’s something that I think frustrates some people. But when I am asked about the new Calvinism, I will say, basically, where else are they gonna go? Who else is going to answer the questions? Where else are they gonna find the resources they need? And where else are they gonna connect? This is a generation that understands they want to say the same thing Paul said; they want to stand with the apostles. They want to stand with old, dead people. And they know they are gonna have to if they want to teach and preach the truth. (transcript courtesy of The Arminian website…who obviously disagree… Trusting they didn’t misquote it.). The video: http://thegospelcoalition.org/videos/15887245
Appalled,
Thanks for sharing Mohler’s words. I believe the Together for the Gospel conference is one of the the primary instruments being used to craft the New Calvinism denomination – and it IS a denomination! From what I understand, they are hoping for at least 10,000 attendees to whom they can “teach” their particular brand of theology.
The “techniques” being used are not unlike those employed at huge AMWAY conventions. In fact one of the kingpins from my area holds his conferences at the KFC YUM! Center. I’m fairly sure the crowd he drew numbered over 15,000.
The similarities between the methodologies being used by these two groups – New Calvinists and AMWAY – are frightening! Both groups are looking for explosive growth in their movements.
Jeff wrote: However, God wants us to know *some* things about Him, so He gives us Scripture (in addition to what we can know from His Creation and from our conscience). Even in Scripture, though, we encounter a Being beyond any in our experience, so we still use boxes, though the boxes may be closer to the truth. When, for instance, someone says, “God is love,” that person is putting God in a box. When someone says, “God is judgment,” that person is putting God in a box. There is truth in both, but only partial truth. We have to come to terms with the fact, in Scripture, that God both loves and judges. We don’t naturally connect the two, but they are somehow connected in God. He is different from us.”
Jeff, this is what I was meant earlier about the total focus on Sovereignty from the NC guys. It ends up putting God in a box. But they will tell you it is everything and we must start there. Ignoring the fact that in His Sovereignty He emptied Himself to become God in the Flesh…. and all His other attributes. You might not think they ignore them but I recommend you listen closer with fresh ears. They do.
“Anna A, you wrote, “God is love, and loves us just the way we are.” With all due respect, I think that’s a misleading statement, if, by “just the way we are,” you include our sins. I apologize if that’s not what you meant.”
I totally agree with you. Jesus’ first sermon was “Repent and believe”.
” In my first comment, I deplored HC and specifically wrote that it made God the author of evil. I don’t see how my statements lead logically to HC.”
The New Calvinism is just as bad. It has promoted Sonship, ESS, hyperauthoritarianism, salvic roles for women, a caste system of authority in the Body and is bred on the cult of personality. NC’s can quote Calvin, Puritans, Grudem, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, etc, but rarely take as their souce the scripture that is not filtered through their favorite guru
“Deb, I think the main difference between HC and Calvinism is that the former does not take into account human freedom, which Scripture says is a reality, and the latter does. From this comes a whole host of difficulties.”
The NC are selective in human freedom. Disagreeing with the pastor/leader is one area they define as human freedom. In actuality, they are teaching that even after you are Justified by Christ, you are a worm and totally depraved. And you need them because of this.
“Limited (or Particular) Atonement is too big a subject to go into here, but some of the verses that I think support it are John 6:44, 65, 17:6, 9; Eph. 1:3-12, Heb. 9:15.”
Only if you define “world” differently. :o)
“Irresistible (or Effective) Grace, in brief, describes what the Holy Spirit does in salvation. The Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Holy Spirit applies. “Irresistible” means that the Spirit will apply salvation to everyone whom He has called.”
Then why were the Epistles written? They were not written to unbelievers but to believers. And they are chock full of instructions, admonitions, etc. Sanctification is synergistic not mongeristic. Justification is mongeristic. This is where the NC fails. They combine these two things.
“As many probably know, the five points were not written by Calvin. Almost 50 years after his death, the followers of James Arminius, who had also died, wrote “five articles of faith” based on his teachings. Calvin’s followers later wrote the five points to refute them. So, if the points sound “wooden,” at least they are the response to five earlier points.”
And written by man as a systematic theology. Where is the Holy Spirit?
“Dee, I really don’t think there is anything in their theology that makes people like Mohler and Duncan defend Mahaney (I have not heard of Piper defending him) and ignore those who have been harmed by him and others. Part of it is simply ignorance, probably willed ignorance. ”
But there is. It is the focus on authoritarianism. Look at what Mohler came out and said to the secular media almost immediately after Mahaney announced he was stepping down. Now read this piece and tell me that it is not basically promoting authoritarianism.
Mohler added: “Any time you’re going to take on the role of leadership, you’re going to have critics.”
Mohler also supported Sovereign Grace’s highly centralized leadership structure in its churches, with “very strong pastoral direction” and internal discipline. “It’s something clearly called for in the New Testament,” he said. Mohler said he knew this practice has had online critics for years.
“Basically there are people who are very uncomfortable with the strong kind of spiritual direction that comes through the Sovereign Grace Ministries,” Mohler said. “It’s very hard to criticize it on biblical terms, as you’ll see on most of those Web sites. It basically comes down to the criticism, ‘I don’t like that.’”
http://blogs.courier-journal.com/faith/2011/07/12/mohler-backs-mahaney-dismisses-accusations-of-abusive-leadership/
”
“They laugh at Detwiler’s made-up sin of “unentreatability,” but they don’t realize that the sin-sniffing is a symptom of the problem. IOW, they really have to do some work to see what’s been going on.”
No, you have it wrong. They are outraged that Detwiler had the nerve to dare confront CJ. You see, Mohler is known as the tyrant of SBTS. No one dares crosses him including his trustees.
“I speculate that it’s willed ignorance partly because of the extraordinary and unexpected “success” of Calvinism in the past decade. Some of the leaders have probably become used to the star treatment, and don’t want to risk it being taken away because of the trouble one of them has gotten into. It’s inexcusable, but it’s human. By which I mean that I don’t think it’s inherent in their theology.”
When they do it, it is human. We all get that. But it only shows that there is one standard for the celebs and another for the followers in the NC. Now, we both know it is not spiritual or scriptural….and it only means they are not qualified for leadership. So if what you write above is true about them…why so many followers? You miss the fact that it IS inherent in their theology which promotes authoritarianism in the Body.
“I wrote “pray for illumination” because the subject was specifically about the meaning of Scripture. Of course, we should pray for many other things.”
Perhaps you could suggest to the NC gurus they pray for illumination. They are enabling the sins of each other.
“I was attending Covenant Life Church for a few months before I realized what was going on – mainly the publishing of Brent’s documents started it. I had left a congregation, which I had been going to for over 20 years, because of problems similar to the ones at SGM, CLC, and elsewhere. (It was not Calvinist; I had started going there before I knew what Calvinism was.) So I know the effects of authoritarian abuse. I understand the anger that results from it. But we must use it constructively and not let it overtake us. Easier said than done”
I have to wonder why you think people are angry. This is another tactic of NC that is ad hominem. It is simply an attempt to paint the messengers as emotional so others will not listen to their critique of a system and it’s guru’s.
Appalled
I think you will be very interested in some new statistics that are coming in on the effects of Neo-Calvinism on the beliefs of evangelicals. I am planning a post for Wednesday on this. I think Mohler, et al will not be happy. Mohler does not understand me or many others who are theologically minded and believe in the Gospel. We could all get along if people would just stop saying there is only one way to view things. I believe that this is something that Mohler cannot tolerate. He is beginning a new battle that i predict will eventually lead to a split within NeoCalvinism. He also believes there is only one view of creation if one is a “serious” student of the Bible and that is a rigid adherence to a young earth. And many of his Calvinista buddies are divided on this issue. Mohler wants more than just rigid Calvinism and that will be his downfall over time.
I also want to reiterate that I have no trouble with traditional Reformed thinking.My beef is with a certain subset whom I call the Calvinistas.
RE: Bridget2 on Sat, Nov 26 2011 at 05:02 pm:
There are three things which form the core of my faith. Jesus’ virgin birth (no human male DNA involved in conception), his bodily resurrection from the dead, and his bodily return to earth at some future point. The rest of the stuff from the Nicene fathers (and medieval theologians) onward is largely conjecture from my viewpoint.
Although I can respect your belief (if you indeed hold to it) that fellowship with God was severed for humans at the fall, I do not share that belief, nor do I believe in an alledged “spiritual death” at the fall.
Muff –
Well, that then leads to what do you believe happened at the fall, as we call it?
If there was no spiritual separation from God, then what was the purpose of OT sacrifices and Jesus coming to earth? (You do seem to believe in his birth/death/resurrection.)
Is there a need for people to be saved by believing in the life/death/resurrection of Jesus if you don’t believe the fall separated man from God?
I believe that there was a separation spiritually, but God was immediately restored that broken relationship because of His great love for the man and woman that he created in his image.
I’m not trying to argue about beliefs in any way. I’m just curious about your reply.
I quoted 4 “who else?” and “where else?” questions by Mohler last night, and his assumed answer was “no one and nowhere else” therefore we must stand with with “old dead people”.
I suppose answers are demanded, so how about this, “Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ”. Not amongst the old dead people, last I checked.
Eagle –
HA!! You better watch yourself. You be speaking sacrilege in many circles. I, on the otherhand, think it’s hilarious. 🙂
Bridget2, I (obvy) can’t answer for Muff, but – not unlike him – I don’t believe in some of the elaborations on the doctrine of the Fall as taught by many in the Western church.
More specifically, I do not believe in total depravity. (Can’t even see how it’s possible, in fact.)
I’m pretty much a Nicene Creed kinda gal.
Eagle, I don’t get it. I watched it. I thought Piper was a Calvinist and the elect are the elect no matter what. He does do the passionate thing well.
Thanks for the replies.
Deb and dee – Thanks for posting the Ronnie comment. It was just silly. Anyway, I always suspect people who are too lazy to press the Shift Key.
Appalled – Thanks for the video links (which I’ll watch soon) and the Mohler transcript. My respect for Mohler continually decreases. I wouldn’t even call the “Old Calvinism” the “only,” though I’d call it the “best.” (Sorry.)
Eagle – Thanks for the link.
Anonymous – “Jeff wrote: However, God wants us to know *some* things about Him, so He gives us Scripture (in addition to what we can know from His Creation and from our conscience). Even in Scripture, though, we encounter a Being beyond any in our experience, so we still use boxes, though the boxes may be closer to the truth. When, for instance, someone says, “God is love,” that person is putting God in a box. When someone says, “God is judgment,” that person is putting God in a box. There is truth in both, but only partial truth. We have to come to terms with the fact, in Scripture, that God both loves and judges. We don’t naturally connect the two, but they are somehow connected in God. He is different from us.”
“Jeff, this is what I was meant earlier about the total focus on Sovereignty from the NC guys.”
You’ve done more study on this than I have, so I’ll take your word for it as I study it more. In “Old Calvinism,” the emphasis on sovereignty is a big distinctive, but it’s not the only one. If they’re stressing it too much, and undervaluing the others, that’s wrong.
“NC’s can quote Calvin, Puritans, Grudem, Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, etc, but rarely take as their souce the scripture that is not filtered through their favorite guru.”
I’ve noticed this also. Calvin always quoted Scripture to back up his claims.
“The NC are selective in human freedom. Disagreeing with the pastor/leader is one area they define as human freedom. In actuality, they are teaching that even after you are Justified by Christ, you are a worm and totally depraved. And you need them because of this.”
This is certainly the case with Mahaney and Co., and with Mohler, and there are at least hints of it with others, so, yes, I agree.
I will definitely not get into the “world” thing here. I appreciate the “happy face.”
I wrote: “Irresistible (or Effective) Grace, in brief, describes what the Holy Spirit does in salvation. The Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Holy Spirit applies. “Irresistible” means that the Spirit will apply salvation to everyone whom He has called.”
You wrote: “Then why were the Epistles written? They were not written to unbelievers but to believers. And they are chock full of instructions, admonitions, etc. Sanctification is synergistic not mongeristic. Justification is mongeristic. This is where the NC fails. They combine these two things.”
Irresistible Grace only has to do with salvation (justification). But if they are combining justification and salvation, that’s wrong. I think it’s true and biblical that we must keep reminding ourselves of the gospel (all that the triune God has done for us). However, if they distort it by saying that we’re never more than “worms,” and never really progress in sanctification (except for the leaders), that’s cultish.
You wrote: “As many probably know, the five points were not written by Calvin. Almost 50 years after his death, the followers of James Arminius, who had also died, wrote “five articles of faith” based on his teachings. Calvin’s followers later wrote the five points to refute them. So, if the points sound “wooden,” at least they are the response to five earlier points.”
You wrote: “And written by man as a systematic theology. Where is the Holy Spirit?”
“I don’t think that a system of theology is wrong if it’s backed up by Scripture and if it’s helpful in revealing God’s truth so that we can worship Him in truth. Let’s face it – all of us interpret and organize Scripture in some way. Sometimes people say, “I only want to go by what’s in Scripture.” I think that’s what we all want, but, because of sin, we don’t get unmediated truth every time we open Scripture. Without the Holy Spirit, we wouldn’t get anywhere, but we still have inherent biases, etc. So we must interpret. I think there are better and worse ways to interpret, but no way is infallible, and no system is infallible. But we’re going to be fallible anyway. I don’t see a problem in looking at the work of people who have studied more than we have; we can get valuable insights from them. But what they say has to be backed up by Scripture.”
I wrote: “Dee, I really don’t think there is anything in their theology that makes people like Mohler and Duncan defend Mahaney (I have not heard of Piper defending him) and ignore those who have been harmed by him and others. Part of it is simply ignorance, probably willed ignorance. ”
You wrote: “But there is. It is the focus on authoritarianism. Look at what Mohler came out and said to the secular media almost immediately after Mahaney announced he was stepping down. Now read this piece and tell me that it is not basically promoting authoritarianism.”
I should have been clear in saying that, by theology, I meant OC, not NC. I have to remember that, in certain aspects, NC has supplanted OC. So, yes, you are, sadly, correct here.
These Elders (who should not be called Pastors) are forgetting that they are supposed to be *servants*. That’s why the job is so demanding and why there are relatively few who do it well.
I wrote: “They laugh at Detwiler’s made-up sin of “unentreatability,” but they don’t realize that the sin-sniffing is a symptom of the problem. IOW, they really have to do some work to see what’s been going on.”
You wrote: “No, you have it wrong. They are outraged that Detwiler had the nerve to dare confront CJ. You see, Mohler is known as the tyrant of SBTS. No one dares crosses him including his trustees.”
Yes, there is that aspect, and it’s a major one. But I know of at least one fairly influential Calvinist who has laughed at that and used it to dismiss the whole thing. I think he represents others who read the documents without knowing the mindset of SGM over the years.
I wrote: “I speculate that it’s willed ignorance partly because of the extraordinary and unexpected “success” of Calvinism in the past decade. Some of the leaders have probably become used to the star treatment, and don’t want to risk it being taken away because of the trouble one of them has gotten into. It’s inexcusable, but it’s human. By which I mean that I don’t think it’s inherent in their theology.”
You wrote: “When they do it, it is human. We all get that. But it only shows that there is one standard for the celebs and another for the followers in the NC. Now, we both know it is not spiritual or scriptural….and it only means they are not qualified for leadership. So if what you write above is true about them…why so many followers? You miss the fact that it IS inherent in their theology which promotes authoritarianism in the Body.”
Once again, I confused OC with NC.
I wrote: “I was attending Covenant Life Church for a few months before I realized what was going on – mainly the publishing of Brent’s documents started it. I had left a congregation, which I had been going to for over 20 years, because of problems similar to the ones at SGM, CLC, and elsewhere. (It was not Calvinist; I had started going there before I knew what Calvinism was.) So I know the effects of authoritarian abuse. I understand the anger that results from it. But we must use it constructively and not let it overtake us. Easier said than done.”
You wrote: “I have to wonder why you think people are angry. This is another tactic of NC that is ad hominem. It is simply an attempt to paint the messengers as emotional so others will not listen to their critique of a system and it’s guru’s.”
I didn’t want to get into this, but I mentioned anger, and you asked a reasonable question. Please realize that what I’m about to write is written without any anger, because we have gotten to a better place.
I’m not exaggerating when I say that I was shocked at the response to my first comment. Dee and Deb and other bloggers are more used to it because it’s a part of their everyday life. I’m not saying that everything I’ve ever sent to a blog has been greeted with unanimous approval, but this response was, for me, unprecedented.
I knew that I was writing against the grain on the subject of Piper; I’m familiar with this blog. So I tried to be as mild as I possibly could. Unfortunately, as I’ve said, I wrote it too hurriedly. But, still, the disproportion in tone between what I wrote and the responses to it (with one exception) was great.
Some people spoke of me as if they knew me from top to bottom. “It’s obvious that Jeff…” I saw a “Jeff” that I didn’t recognize. I’m not saying that there was no truth at all in what people wrote, but the level of outrage was unexpected. It was like I had dropped a match into gasoline.
Now I’m actually glad it happened – I learned so much from the experience. As I said in my last comment, I truly appreciate the apologies (and I am not asking for any more!) And I’m very glad about the change in tone.
I said, also, that I’ve experienced the pain of authoritarian leadership, and I know the anger that results. But we must be better than these “leaders.” We know what it’s like to be belittled, so we mustn’t belittle others even when they say something that we think is incredibly stupid. Not that we shouldn’t correct them.
I’m writing this to myself also, because I’m not a naturally benign person when it comes to disagreements about things I really care about. There was a time, not so long ago, when I would have responded in kind.
I respect the people who run the blog and those who write in. I know that I would not be able to head a Christian blog for more than a few weeks without going nutty in the head.
Eagle
Just got back from a family celebration. Thank you for a very good laugh. Since men have caused and conducted most of the wars on this planet, they are therefore easily provoked which leads them to the sin of divisiveness. Therefore, they should be subordinate to the women who are the natural peacekeepers.
This winsome statement “They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.” is by far the most Gospel approach to Biblical men’s roles. Changing the oil in the church van is no lesser a role than the frequent conferences the female pastor can attend.Sure, the woman’s role seems more glamorous but this is only because men are gullible and have been tricked into thinking that sweeping leaves is less important. Women must do a better job in praising men when the keep the roof well shingled so the rain does not drop onto the female pastor’s well coiffed hair during her exposition of Biblical gender roles. On Father’s Day, the women should show their appreciation by taking the men to a Durham Bulls game. They need to smile benignly when the men rip off their shirts and run onto the filed during the 7th inning stretch.
I’m sorry – I really should have reviewed this better before I posted it. Here’s how part of it should read:
I wrote: “As many probably know, the five points were not written by Calvin. Almost 50 years after his death, the followers of James Arminius, who had also died, wrote “five articles of faith” based on his teachings. Calvin’s followers later wrote the five points to refute them. So, if the points sound “wooden,” at least they are the response to five earlier points.”
You wrote: “And written by man as a systematic theology. Where is the Holy Spirit?”
I don’t think that a system of theology is wrong if it’s backed up by Scripture and if it’s helpful in revealing God’s truth so that we can worship Him in truth. Let’s face it – all of us interpret and organize Scripture in some way. Sometimes people say, “I only want to go by what’s in Scripture.” I think that’s what we all want, but, because of sin, we don’t get unmediated truth every time we open Scripture. Without the Holy Spirit, we wouldn’t get anywhere, but we still have inherent biases, etc. So we must interpret. I think there are better and worse ways to interpret, but no way is infallible, and no system is infallible. But we’re going to be fallible anyway. I don’t see a problem in looking at the work of people who have studied more than we have; we can get valuable insights from them. But what they say has to be backed up by Scripture.
Jeff
I had an interesting conversation with a man who came onto this blog to comment after i critiqued his wife’s blog post on several counts. One was her absolute insistence on a young earth. If you have read this blog for any period of time, you will understand that I am an old earth proponent. The husband came onto this blog to reassure me that he had no problem with me believing in an old earth and that I had misunderstood his wife.
He then went onto to say he would “pray for me to listen to the Spirit.” He proceeded to tell me he used to believe as i did but the Holy Spirit had convicted him that the earth was young. So, I asked him how the Holy Sprit could tell him the earth was young but not tell me the same thing. I then speculated that what he was was really telling me was that young earth was the “correct” approach (after all the Spirit doesn’t lie) and that therefore, I was wrong. But, he would allow me my unspiritual interpretation and pray that the Holy Spirit would set me straight. Needless to say, that did not sit well with me and i told him he was playing fast and loose with the Holy Spirit illumination thing. After all, the “Spirit seems to have illuminated all sorts of people and that is why we have thousands of denomination-all convinced they are right and the others are screwed up.
I have come to believe that when there is significant disagreement within a community of committed theologians, then I think the Bible is not dogmatic on those points. If God really wanted us to “know” such a thing, we would see it clearly. For example, none of us disagree on the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc. But we sure disagree on the age of the earth, eschatology, and certain theological constructs such as Calvinism, etc.
For each and every person on one side or the other in the debate of, let’s say eschatology, there are flying Bible verses on both sides. Have you ever sat through the debates? I have. And I realize that these things are not clear in Scripture.
“Yes, there is that aspect, and it’s a major one. But I know of at least one fairly influential Calvinist who has laughed at that and used it to dismiss the whole thing. I think he represents others who read the documents without knowing the mindset of SGM over the years.”
Jeff, you don’t get it. The Reformed guys AGREE with the mindset of the SGM system. You think if they knew, they would not support Mahaney as they have done. You are wrong. The only way they will stop supporting Mahaney is if it becomes too embarassing and their followers start revolting against them. They will start to “see”.
Dee,
I just watched the video of this sermon. It’s one thing to hear the audio, but SEEING and HEARING the pastor is quite revealing.
You will “see” the pastor holding a little black book, which obviously contains his sermon transcript. Starting at the 29 minute mark you will see him reading from his sermon notes what he claims to have read on our blog.
Here’s my sincere question — How can I trust a pastor who grossly misrepresented what we wrote to interpret the Bible correctly? Trust is earned. I previously wrote a post in which I commended this pastor, but now he has lost my trust by twisting what he read here at TWW.
The “techniques” being used are not unlike those employed at huge AMWAY conventions. In fact one of the kingpins from my area holds his conferences at the KFC YUM! Center. I’m fairly sure the crowd he drew numbered over 15,000.
The similarities between the methodologies being used by these two groups – New Calvinists and AMWAY – are frightening! Both groups are looking for explosive growth in their movements. — Deb
Stepping into Godwin’s Law country, foreign observers described the Nuremberg Rallies as “Giant Revival Meetings”. And I assume AMWAY is also plugged using “revival meeting” techniques.
Also, my writing partner (a burned-out preacher) has told me tales of his run-ins with Hyper-Calvinists, many of them “Young, Restless, and Truly Reformed.” To some of them, even God is nothing more than a puppet on the strings of Utter Predestination. God is not God, Utter Predestination is. My writing partner refers to this as “Socratic Atheism”.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
Time is definitely on our side as these Young, Restless, and Reformed types show their true colors. They want us to pay attention to them via their sermons, conferences, blogs, etc. and we are definitely are!
Anonymous
Well, if ALL of them know in some detail what’s been going on at SGM over the decades, and they all think it’s fine, then the situation is much worse than I thought.
Maybe I’m naive, but I find it hard to believe that people like Sproul, James White, Phil Johnson, and even MacArthur, are in, or head, churches that are like SGM ones.
I think they, at most, read the SGM Constitution, or whatever, find it and its churches sufficiently Reformed, and leave it at that. And if they don’t do some investigation, they don’t find out how the doctrines are distorted in practice. So they think the complainers are cry-babies who will not accept legitimate leadership.
However, as I’ve said, you’ve gone into this more than I, so I could be wrong.
I heard that, some years ago, at a conference (probably Ligonier) headed by Sproul, CJ made such a fool of himself, and was so embarrassing, that they never invited him back. It’s only a feeling, but I think most of the Calvinist leaders see him as a kind of “poor relation” they have to put up with. For one thing, they have had a lot of formal schooling, and CJ, from what I’ve read, barely got through high school. There’s a tremendous gap.
I know formal training isn’t everything, but CJ might have avoided some of his mistakes if he knew Reformed doctrine in depth and could see when/if it deviated from Scripture.
However, to get back to the first subject, if all of these educated men don’t see Mahaney’s mistakes as mistakes, as is the case with some of them, then there’s something really rotten, and I don’t think it’s in Geneva.
Jeff,
Mahaney has spoken at all of the Resolved conferences with John MacArthur. Mohler, Duncan, and Dever defend their T4G buddy Mahaney, who provides the entertainment at their bi-annual conference, and the young, restless, and reformed leaders like DeYoung, Challies, Ortlund, etc., publicly defend CJ.
These guys know there is a problem, but they will not address it. Hmmmm… sounds like a cover-up to me.
Jeff –
I don’t know how to break this to you friend, so here is the brutal truth. I am in an SGM church and have been for many years. I have never seen an SGM Constitution – don’t think one exists. So we could just start there and say why? And why have none of these “leaders” come alongside to help? What are they really all about?
All “leaders” and their knowledge are nothing if they do not have love. Take a look at their fruit. Now I don’t expect perfection, but when leaders appear to be so high and mighty that they don’t seem to be able to relate and empathize with the flock, then I can’t respect them. There is not a special calling to some leaders that places them on some different level of Christianity. I have to say that I know men who have said this very thing, “I have a calling and most Christians won’t understand it.” These men are some of the worst at being with people that I know – yet they want to be leaders of leaders of leaders! Personally, I don’t see the tiered system of “servants,” as Jesus referred to leaders, in God’s Word.
RE: Bridget2 on Sun, Nov 27 2011 at 06:28 pm:
I believe the fall brought about physical death for humans, nothing more, nothing less. I no longer believe that humans are the tripartite (body-soul-spirit) entity as taught in classical theology. I now believe it to be a construct of Greek Hellenism passed on to us by Augustine & others. I now take a Jewish view of body & soul; namely that they do not have a separate existence and that they are an integral unit, the only separate thing being God’s life-force (spirit) given to all living things.
I no longer subscribe to the “satisfaction” doctrine set forth by Anselm of Canterbury. To me it makes God a cruel monster who orchestrated an horrific death by torture of his beautiful son in order to satisfy some warped view of sovereignty and perfect justice.
Once again, I can respect your belief system as I do others who comment here, but I no longer share it. I know the standard retort will always be: “this is what the Bible teaches”
But for me, over the last decade, the viewing angles of Scripture no longer line up with what I once accepted without question.
When John Adams was asked about his lapsed Calvinism late in life he replied that his religious creed could be summed up in just four short words: “… be just and good …” I share the same sentiment.
Muff and Numo –
Thanks for sharing a bit of what your beliefs are and aren’t. It’s always good to know some background on people whom you converse with on a somewhat regular basis – including Blogs! I could sit here and speculate over some of the things you say that I might not understand, but I’d rather just ask :). Thanks again for the reply. Look forward to continued conversation with both of you whether we agree on points or not!
Bridget2 – thanks for being so open-minded. A lot of people seem to get upset when someone comments on a blog like this one and says anything other than the “party line” as taught in their church, or in certain churches, or… you get the picture. (And you already know a good deal about that, I’m sure.)
I’m no longer feeling as fit to decide who is Christian and who isn’t… 😉 that’s quite a leap from where I was not so many years ago. I could have cited this, that and the other down to the last dotted i and crossed t. (Well, except for some of the peskier passages in both the OT and NT.) I was so certain – which, of course, means that I was somehow right in my beliefs and pretty much everyone else wasn’t.
Which is not really what the Gospel is about, is it? (I now think.)
dee – I think that the Spirit revealing things in Scripture must be joined with the study of Scripture. Even then, of course, people come to different conclusions. I agree that we can’t be dogmatic about everything.
Don’t know enough about the young earth – old earth controversy to comment intelligently about it.
BTW, when I mentioned asking the Spirit to illuminate something difficult in Scripture, I did not mean that I hoped the Spirit would reveal things that are in line with Calvinism. I was speaking in general.
“For example, none of us disagree on the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, etc.” Well, there are some in these very comments who disagree with some of the fundamentals. I’d like to know what your policy is about that. Is it okay to engage them or would you prefer that we not do so? Or just decide on a case-by-case basis? I hope I’m not opening up a can of worms here, but I think it’s an important issue. I’ll abide by what both of you say about it.
Deb – Do you mean that CJ officially provides the entertainment, or that they’re entertained by his clowning? Or both?
I hope MacArthur is learning the truth about CJ, because, among the big-shots, he seems to be the least afraid to speak up. He publicly criticized Piper for backing Warren. So did Phil Johnson and some others, but MacArthur is much more visible and influential.
Bridget2 – I should have realized that an unaccountable entity like SGM would likely not have a constitution. Do you know if its churches have them? I assume that all churches do, but who knows?
Yes, it takes a lot of love to be a servant-leader. If they don’t have it, it’s inevitable that they will lord it over others.
Bridget2,
I too thank you for your tolerance & live and let live spirit! There was a time back in the day when I thought I had it all figured out just as neat as all the lock-stock-and-barrel big guns in evangelical land.
From then until now I found (for me anyway) that trying to systematize the Bible is like cooking a pound of spaghetti, draining it in a collander, and then trying to cobble it end to end with needle and thread.
Jeff,
Here’s are two clips of CJ Mahaney in action at the Resolved conference.
CJ Mahaney’s Score Card
Mahaney at Resolved
I would say CJ entertains by clowning around. What do you think?
Jeff,
One more video for your review. Here is Jonathan Rourke impersonating CJ Mahaney at the Resolved conference.
Jonathan Rourke as CJ Mahaney
Jeff
Everyone who posts here knows what we believe and we would say that we are in line with much of evangelical theology. Unlike many conservative blogs, however, we welcome those of differing beliefs. Anyone who comments here is aware that they can be questioned about their beliefs and thoughts. The only thing that we ask is that it is done with kindness and respect.
The greatest joy I get from this blog is the friends that I have made across a wide spectrum of beliefs. I have learned so much from everyone who posts here. My time before I fall asleep is spent praying for the people who comment and email me.
So, query away. I will be interested in the dialog. I always learn something.
Muff
Now that is a word picture worth considering-threading cooked noodles.I am always glad when you comment here-you make me think!
Deb –
That first clip sounds more like a butter up job – much flattery flying around. In all of the clips CJ seems very pleased with himself and with the opportunity to entertain. On another note – he looks almost sickening thin. I have not seen him in person for some time, but I know he didn’t look that thin. — hmm
Jeff –
Most, if not none, of the churches have no constitutions. Maybe a few churches (or the pastor I should say) have made them on the fly.
re. SGM and church constitutions, I’m not sure that Mahaney and Co. could imagine such a thing existing in this universe.
Numo
That is so funny!
Numo and Dee –
People would be able to hold them accountable if they had a constitution and CJ wouldn’t be able to hide behind his “I’m constantly changing my thinkin” or “change is here to stay.” This kind of environment makes it is for someone to do as they please and then call it the “leading of God.”
Disclaimer to all – iphone typing leaves much to be desired. Please ignore the typos. I figure it’s the content that’s important and not perfect spelling and grammar (as I see my double negative above – sheesh) 🙂
Dee – thanks (it was meant to be), but sadly true, as you know.
Bridget2, I spent way too much time in churches that have too much in common with SGM (discipleship movement roots, etc.). So I’m pretty familiar with people doing what CJ has done in terms of what I might call “progressive revelation.”
Deb
Thanks for the links. I like to think that MacArthur was annoyed during the “score card” thing, but who knows? The “Resolved” one was obviously an entertainment break. Rourke did a good impression of him. I don’t like Mahaney’s style of preaching – too much of a performance and focus on him. And he’s kind of…strange.
Bridget2 – I’ll try to find out if Covt. Life has a constitution.
dee – I noticed early on that there was an unusual openness on your blog, and I appreciate that. Concerning people with unorthodox views of the fundamentals: If they’ve heard all the arguments to the contrary, and they still hold on to them, there’s probably no point in repeating the arguments. However, I don’t know if that’s the case with everyone, so I’ll hold off for a while and try to see where they are coming from.
Jeff –
I know that CLC is in the process of drafting a constitutiion now. I don’t know if they are re-writing or working from scratch. It would be interesting to see an old one if it existed.
Jeff
There is an old saying “Seek first to understand rather than to be understood. ” We evangelicals have a penchant for lecturing and talking past others. I want to listen and learn from people who have had some tough experiences with the church. Most of them are quite willing to discuss why they think the way that they do. I am just glad they are willing to tolerate me.
There’s also the matter of application. A church may have a set of by-laws that are basically pro forma, drafted so the church can continue to be recognized as a non-profit that qualifies for 501(c)3 status but that may or may not bother to enforce or apply a lot of the by-laws that are technically on record.
It’s sort of like the U.S. Constitution, just because Congress is supposed to make a formal declaration of war doesn’t mean the Executive branch hasn’t spent the last half century authorizing military ventures that don’t involve a formal declaration of war much of the time.
WTH –
That is so true. Seems one can get around the rules if one desires to. You would just hope that leaders in a church would not take that road. But, we’ve all seen it happen I’m sure.
“Maybe I’m naive, but I find it hard to believe that people like Sproul, James White, Phil Johnson, and even MacArthur, are in, or head, churches that are like SGM ones”
Jeff, I guess you did not follow the Ligoneir scandal from a few years back. they sued a blogger. it was in USA Today and the Orlando Sentinel. Instanpundit wrote about it, too. It was a huge deal because it was one of the first lawsuits against bloggers. And if they could have found the blogger they were set to sue according to Ligoneir attys. Ligoneir is a big mess if you had been reading bout their financial scandals. And Jr.s tax fraud and excommunication was also another interesting angle. too bad he took his biography offine. it was quite interesting in how Ligoneir came to be.
Anonymous
I keep forgetting to do a story on the Ligonier scandal. I think some people would surprised by the story.
Oh yes, R.C. Sproul, Jr. – BFF of Doug Phillips… Need I say more?
Jeff – I think it can be very hard to communicate with others when we’re mainly looking at them (or what they say) through our magical Doctrinal Orthodoxy Glasses™.
My own experience – after years of wearing them – is that they can severely distort the wearers’ vision without them realizing it. (Kind of like mental astigmatism, I think…)
At any rate, I believe it really helps to listen to others as fellow human beings first. The rest – including whether they do or don’t meet our personal indices of True Believer traits – is optional. (Ever read Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer? It’s very interesting in light of many, many things that those of us who’ve been detoxed – after years of various kinds of Kool-Aid – have experienced…) 🙂
So I take the Ligonier scandal isn’t the same as the EIN fraud scandal or church discipline fracas with R. C. Sproul Jr? I heard about that EIN controversy one because I used to work in non-profit fundraising but the blogger scandal passed me by. That was around the same time there was controversy about Doug Wilson’s church/school allegedly avoiding telling church and public that a convicted sex offender held a prominent role in the school.
WTH
UI did not know that about Doug Wilson. That would be an interesting one to discuss as well. Thanks
“…At any rate, I believe it really helps to listen to others as fellow human beings first. The rest – including whether they do or don’t meet our personal indices of True Believer traits – is optional. (Ever read Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer? It’s very interesting in light of many, many things that those of us who’ve been detoxed – after years of various kinds of Kool-Aid – have experienced…)…”
Preach it sister!
Yes, please do a post on Ligonier. I vaguely remember hearing about it, but that’s all. And I’ve read nothing about Sproul, Jr. being in any kind of scandal. Or Doug Wilson. Or EIN. I’m definitely being educated on this blog.
dee – Yes, you’re right, and I’m going to try to follow that more.
muff – I really just want to understand. You don’t think mankind suffered a spiritual death and separation from God at the fall? If that’s accurate, is there any other way that you believe accounts for sin? And you don’t believe the Father willed that His Son should be crucified? Does that mean that you don’t believe His death was an atonement for the sins of all those who believe in Him?
I don’t intend for this to sound like the third degree. Just would like to know where you’re coming from. That doesn’t mean that you have to tell me, of course.
numo – Haven’t read Hoffer’s book, but I have a pretty good idea of the concept of the True Believer. I’ve known some in the secular world.
Please realize that I’m talking about what I believe are the sine qua nons of the faith, according to Scripture. If believing that there *are* sine qua nons makes me a True Believer, then I plead guilty.
Jeff – I’m not trying to make you (or anyone else) feel like they need to say they’re “guilty,” if only because I’m in the same category… I used to be very, very quick to the punch if I thought anything sounded the least bit heretical or heterodox.
I was almost like an attack dog in that respect, though more the kind that blusters and barks a lot than one that bites. (At least, I hope that’s the case….)
Things can happen in life (not just via church problems) that throw us into places where all are bearings are lost, or at least, seem to be. I do not think that God is “threatened” by our doubts and questions, or by our anger and pain. (Lots of all of those things in the Psalms, after all.)
A great deal of what I thought was true has been dislodged from its place… which has been, for the most part, a very good thing, if only because the things that got dislodged are largely quite hurtful (or were, to me and to many, many others).
I was raised Lutheran and although I differ somewhat with a couple of doctrines there, I have found it to be deeply refreshing to go back to the “fundamentals” of faith that I was taught while very young, mostly via the Gospels and the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.
One thing about the liturgical churches (of all stripes) is that they know people are going to mess up and have hard times in life. The church is always open to anyone who wishes to be part of it – and this is the total opposite of the perfectionistic demands made by many evangelicals and charismatics. (As if any of us will ever be “perfect” in all our thoughts and actions during this lifetime – ???) To some extent, I think that that kind of thinking originated (in the US) in Methodism and the Holiness movement… and the results have been (imo) not so great.
“all our,” not “all are.”
Oh well!
Hi, Jeff.
RE: “there are some in these very comments who disagree with some of the fundamentals. I’d like to know what your policy is about that. Is it okay to engage them or would you prefer that we not do so? Or just decide on a case-by-case basis?…I’ll abide by what both of you say about it.”
You are very polite and deferential — I appreciate that (I’m sure I’m not alone). Truly. You seem to be very kind and humble.
Which makes me curious about a few things.
It almost sounds like anyone whose conclusions are quite different from the “fundamentals” (or what you deem to be fundamental) is “not one of us” — to be wary of, & treated as a different breed. (perhaps I’m misunderstanding you — but I’m afraid that is what comes across)
I’m also curious to know why you would suspect it might not be appropriate to engage someone whose comments reflect that they disagree with “fundamentals”.
Do the other blogs you read/comment on have such rules?
Dialogue is only good when it’s honest. It’s only interesting, stimulating, and beneficial when other viewpoints enter the mix.
I can think of 3 reasons for making such restrictions:
1) keeping debate tidy to save time (so the blog moderator doesn’t have to enter into more of the fray than he/she wants to);
2) keeping debate tidy so the viewpoint of the blog owner always wins;
3) restricting information so as to control what the readers are exposed to.
As I see it, none of these reasons are good. So, all this to say why WOULDN’T we want to engage someone/anyone, even one whose viewpoints are different by degrees from our own (especially such a someone)?
Elastigirl
Are you saying that I don’t always win a debate?? What a way to ruin my evening. 🙂
uh…..uh…..
ok, i got it:
you win every debate in that you state your case impeccably and not without entertainment value, and are perfectly willing to concede a point to an opponent when warranted.
I mean this as a true compliment.
Elastigirl
You are so nice. Thanks for being a friend!
elastigirl – thanks for your post above. And Jeff, while I really do appreciate your respectfulness, I must agree with elastigirl’s question to you re. “the fundamentals.”
numo – I meant “guilty” ironically, but thanks for your concern.
“A great deal of what I thought was true has been dislodged from its place… which has been, for the most part, a very good thing, if only because the things that got dislodged are largely quite hurtful (or were, to me and to many, many others).”
I in no way want to minimize any pain you have experienced because of spiritual abuse. But, as I’m sure you know, truth can not be determined by our feelings. For instance, Paul said that the truth of the gospel is offensive to our pride.
Let’s say that some “leader” abused you by distorting a Biblical truth. That, of course, doesn’t make the truth not true. I think that the Enemy might want to use your pain to get you to come to that conclusion. If I’m off track, I apologize.
Some of the truths are fundamental truths, what I called the sina qua non truths, the ones without which the faith is no longer the faith. These are what I mean by the “fundamentals.” I think that Scripture makes it plain what those are. Briefly, they are the truths of God’s identity (not the *whole* truth; we are not given that), the truths concerning all that God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit have done for us, and the truths about ourselves that show that we *need* God to do all of these things for us. This is just a summation; of course, we have to be specific. Whether or not there is a rapture, what we believe about election, etc., are not, for instance, what I think are fundamentals.
I think that the rejection of one or more of the fundamentals *might* mean that one is outside of the faith. Scripture says: “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves.” It’s not up to others to determine this; it’s up to us.
elastagirl (cool name) – “It almost sounds like anyone whose conclusions are quite different from the ‘fundamentals’ (or what you deem to be fundamental) is ‘not one of us’ — to be wary of, & treated as a different breed. (perhaps I’m misunderstanding you — but I’m afraid that is what comes across)”
I think that what I wrote in the final paragraph to numo speaks to this. However, if someone says or writes something that leads us to believe that the person is rejecting a fundamental truth, I don’t think it’s wrong to *gently* inquire about that. Actually, it’s not only not wrong, it’s loving, if we have the right motivation. And it’s a risk; it’s easier to say nothing and avoid a heated confrontation. I’m sure there are verses that support this, but I’m too lazy to find them right now.
“I’m also curious to know why you would suspect it might not be appropriate to engage someone whose comments reflect that they disagree with ‘fundamentals’.
“Do the other blogs you read/comment on have such rules?
“Dialogue is only good when it’s honest. It’s only interesting, stimulating, and beneficial when other viewpoints enter the mix.”
I’m glad you believe this. Here’s why I wondered about it:
I don’t like bringing this up again, but, when I wrote my first comment, at least one person wrote that what I said was “painful” (I think that was the word) to people on the blog who have suffered spiritual abuse. Since what I wrote was just a mild defense of Piper, I figured that on this blog one had to be extra careful not to write anything that might cause someone pain. So that’s why I asked the question. You and dee have answered that that is not the case. So I assume that the same rules of civility apply here that apply on other blogs.
Jeff – I think maybe you are missing my point. Don’t ahve time to elaborate right now, though.
and thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Will just add one point: life is hard. We all encounter suffering and pain along the way – in many cases, suffering that can shake us (and our faith) to the core.
I would ask that we all take that into consideration when deciding whether a person is “in the faith” or not, though honestly – only God knows, and I don’t think it’s up to us to be deciding or calling people on this.
Jeff, I don’t know how old you are… loss (via illness and death) and grief and other common life experiences have a GREAT deal to do with where many of us (in general, not necessarily on TWW) are coming from.
Faith has its dark times. There’s just no way around that.
Jeff, one other thought: what equals “fundamentals” to you? Does your use of the word have anything to do with Lyman Stewart’s writing? (Not meaning to be combative; genuinely curious here.)
Thanks, Jeff, for your response. I understand.
…”biblical truths” — many things referred to as “biblical truths” are not so much truths as they are conclusions that come about by way of favored interpretations. One can slap the word biblical on such a conclusion and it suddenly becomes quite legitimate-sounding. (i think of it as intellectual bullying, like waving around some impressive sword with the word “biblical” inscribed on it and people go “ooooh! bib-li-cal!”) (I also think of it as intellectual cheating) The next thing that happens is that many people then give it an intellectual free pass into their minds. Public personna certainly helps make this happen.
I bet you don’t disagree. We may disagree about what things are truly biblical, though.
In my most recent crisis of faith (& the journey beyond it), I threw every notion, idea and assumption (except for God Is, Jesus Is, and Holy Spirit Is) into a big pot, turned it on high, and BOILED THE CRAP AND SNOT out of it for many moons. Only a few things emerged.
Hi Jeff,
Welcome to TWW. As you can see, we are an oasis of tolerance for all points of view, not just what will comport with one particular belief system. Your question is a fair one and it would be irresponsible of me to make statements about my own beliefs without offering reason(s) for them.
I began a different faith journey about a decade ago when I could no longer accept what I had been taught in classical faith traditions (aside from Jesus’ virgin birth, bodily resurrection & bodily return in future) at face value.
If one presupposes an angry God at the fall of humankind, then yes the systematic belief systems of the medieval theologians (both Catholic & Protestant) make perfect sense and one can make them fit together like clockwork just as R.C. Sproul does so adroitly on his radio programs.
If however, one sees God as a heartbroken and horrified parent, the whole game changes. Dee painted this picture movingly when she thought she had lost her baby son (on another thread). She could have no more broken off fellowship with him than she could with herself. She thought only of his rescue, not some fitting punishment with which she could get satisfaction.
I believe Jesus was a hapless victim at the confluence of Roman power and corrupt religious authority. His death was orchestrated and egged on by the powers of darkness who thought that once the vineyard owner’s beautiful son was killed, they could conduct business as usual. The OT is replete with examples of God’s abhorrence of human sacrifice. To say that the new covenant demands it, is for me no longer tenable.
Hi, Jeff.
I hope we’re making this a hospitable place. You’re nice to have around.
Thanks for the replies.
numo – In answer to your question, I am 62. If there’s such a thing as an “average” amount of suffering, I’m pretty confident that I’ve had more than average. (Admittedly, most people probably feel that way.)
Until God saved me almost 22 years ago, I saw human existence as meaningless and futile. I thought, and still do, that every attempt of man to make it meaningful and purposeful, was a failure. When I came to faith, I saw that there could be truths that I couldn’t see through, that were really true. Of course, it wasn’t just intellectual – I was a new person, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
To me, it’s comforting that the world makes some kind of sense, because my natural way of seeing it is as something unstable and chaotic.
So, yes, my experiences and my psychology make me particularly value the truths of the faith. I am much less rigid about them than I used to be, and don’t consider all of them to be equally important, but I still think that “the main things are the plain things.”
You asked what I consider to be the fundamentals. In my last email, I gave three categories, but I’ll be more specific.
I think that Michael E. Wittmer puts it well in his book, “Don’t Stop Believing.” Some of these comments are mine, not his, but, with one exception, I agree with him.
He has three categories. The first is the *minimum that we have to believe in order to be saved*: “I am a sinner.” “Lord Jesus saves me from sin.”
The second category is what we *must not reject* if we learn about it: The Tri-une nature of God; the deity and humanity of Jesus; the historical truth and significance of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Rejecting these would prevent us from being saved, I think, because we would be rejecting all that God is and has done to save us.
The third category is what we *should* believe, but that doesn’t affect our salvation: The Perfections of God; the Bible is God’s Word; Biblical story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation; Church is Christ’s Body; humans are the image of God. I would put “the Bible is God’s Word” in the second category, because, if that’s not true, then everything is up for grabs.
Never heard of Lyman Stewart. I’ll investigate.
elastigirl – Yes, people can falsely slap the word “biblical” on something; there have always been false teachers. But you agree that there are things that “are truly biblical.”
Your metaphor is, uhm, colorful, but what did you actually do to decide on the “few things” that remained?
Muff Potter – “I believe Jesus was a hapless victim at the confluence of Roman power and corrupt religious authority. His death was orchestrated and egged on by the powers of darkness who thought that once the vineyard owner’s beautiful son was killed, they could conduct business as usual. The OT is replete with examples of God’s abhorrence of human sacrifice. To say that the new covenant demands it, is for me no longer tenable.”
I’m genuinely curious as to how you reconcile this with verses like Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, and Rom. 8:32.
Hi, Jeff.
I’d like to do an honest job in replying to your comment above re: “few things that remained”. It may take a little time to collect my thoughts.
As to the perhaps reckless use of the word “biblical”, you mention false teachers. Actually, I can think of many people who know God (ie, “christians” –I hate christianese language so I try to replace it with words that mean more), who are good & decent individuals, who use the word “biblical” as I’ve described. They’re not false teachers — just using an unwise choice of words.
What I’m referring to is not really false teaching, but rather:
(1) careless or reckless use of the word “biblical” when I can tell they have not truly studied & researched their claims, but are merely regurgitating someone else’s claims without examining their viability (it’s sloppy scholarship, for one, but also manipulative);
(2)arrogantly presuming that one’s conclusions, no matter how expertly arrived at, are the only real & true truths, therefore “biblical”, thus condemning all other perspectives as silly nonsense.
So, even good & decent people who know God can still be sloppy scholars, manipulative, and arrogant. (I see it all the time, actually.)
Do I agree that there are things that “are truly biblical”? Well, i absolutely loathe the word “biblical” (no surprise). What I can say is that there are some things that one can extract from the bible which are truths all by themselves — sort of a periodic table of “God”. But I think it’s a short list — certainly too short to warrant the relentless stream of books that are ever served up at the christian book stores.
I mean really — just how many different spins on “love God and love your neighbor as yourself” do we really need???
Elastigirl
I, too, am deeply upset over how some of the authoritarian know it alls use the word, “biblical.” They misuse it in order to prove that their secondary issue position is the only “biblical” approach. I know I sound like a broken record but I will say this over and over again until someone besides a few of us gets it. The Council of “Biblical” Manhood and Womanhood is a joke. They are not the end “authorities” on what constitutes gender views within the church. Their view is no more “biblical” than mine is and I am weary of their egotistical self congratulatory name.
Hi, Dee.
Of course, I agree. And when I got a whiff of that proper noun “The Danvers Statement”…
HA! Talk about smugness cloaked in presumed honor — i’m quite sure they expected they were penning The Nicene Creed for the modern world, thus immortalizing themselves in the history of religion. Having the privilege of being among the elite to have their John Hancock on this most holy, sacred document, those paragons of the Manly Man. (can’t you just see the erect posture, the far away look in their eyes) I can see it all, them sitting around a conference table soberly discussing this most dire state of affairs, righteous anger in check, and how they alone are going to change the world. The pained but heroic facial expressions, the resolute body language, one by one walking up to lend their signature, the gravity of the moment profound.
Superciliousness maximus, emphasis on silly.
Prime material for a Christopher Guest film.
Jeff – thanks so much for your reply, and for being so upfront and honest about some of your personal struggles.
I am not so inclined to go with “should believe” as you, though – from my own experience – I can understand the desire for certainties.
And therein lies a paradox: all of the certainties you talk about are matters of faith, not of factual proof. As I mentioned some posts back, I believe what is stated in both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds (are you familiar with them), but even there, we have paradoxes – including that of the Trinity, as well as the nature of Christ. (Elaborated on more fully in later creeds of the church.)
As Dee stated in an earlier comment, paradox seems to be at the heart of faith. At least, it seems so to me, and has for a long time. maybe I am becoming more comfortable with some of the paradoxes?
I don’t know for sure, although I can tell you that it feels very, very good to live without the heavy burdens of legalism and perfectionism that were the constant refrain of all the “pastors” and churches where I spent years (feeling like I was stuck on a hamster wheel and couldn’t get off). and hey, i realize I’m mixing metaphors (etc.) but both images are a good reflection of what I’ve experienced.
As for the mention of Lyman Stewart, I wasn’t so much recommending him as citing his name – he was one of the folks who kicked off the “fundamentals” trend in Presybyterianism [sp?] during the 20th century. (Which ultimately led to some acrimonious church splits.)
Jeff,
Over the last decade I’ve realized that spin and viewing angle are everything. The verses you’ve cited are no different. We see what we want to see or what we’re told to see by others. For me and in my opinion, foreknowledge of how an event will play out does not in all cases mean that the Almighty planned it that way.
I still see the practice of human sacrifice as odious. God even stayed Abraham’s hand when he was all set to bleed Isaac out and get the bbq ready for a sweet savour.
Elastigirl – Thank you for your kind comment at 9:02 PM yesterday.
FWIW, I agree with everything you wrote about the misuse of the word “biblical.” As you know, the word “gospel” is often misused, esp. by SGM people.
Would you mind writing your “short list” of things you consider to be bib-, uh, Scriptural truths?
Your description of the CBMW is very funny.
numo – Sorry, I forgot that you mentioned earlier that you believe what are contained in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. Yes, certainly there are paradoxes that require faith. But, more so than in other religious texts, I believe, in Scripture are descriptions of people and events that are more or less verifiable through the study of history, archeology, etc. But it certainly takes faith to believe that God came to earth in the form of a human, and didn’t even die in bed surrounded by His loved ones, but in about the worst way possible. One reason I believe that Scripture was written by God is that I don’t think any human being would come up with that.
Yes, legalism and perfectionism are deadly. Sorry you had to go through that.
Muff Potter – “For me and in my opinion, foreknowledge of how an event will play out does not in all cases mean that the Almighty planned it that way.”
Some more comments, and then I’ll drop the subject if you want:
Acts 2:23 – Though He was delivered up according to God’s determined *plan* and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him. (HCSB)
Acts 4:27-28 – “For, in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, assembled together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, to do whatever Your hand and Your *plan* had predestined to take place.”
(HCSB)
Also, couldn’t God have prevented it if He wanted to?
Isaac would have died and *stayed* dead. Also, I think that what was important for God was that Abraham was willing to obey Him; He didn’t desire Isaac’s death. But, yes, even though Jesus didn’t stay dead, His suffering was great. But His love for His Father and for humankind was also so great that He agreed to it if it paid the price for human sin. And as for the Father’s love – John 3:16.
The plan of salvation is the plan discussed in the scriptures cited in Acts. That is different than saying that the entire life of every person was predetermined before creation.
Jeff —
short list… short list….
I’ll take a stab at it:
1. God exists
2. Jesus exists
3. Holy Spirit exists
4. Jesus is also the logos, by which things were created (but too deep to plumb the depths on this one)
5. That God loves is a truth, but woefully inadequate put in such words
6. God brings peace to minds, bodies, souls, spirits
7. God heals physical bodies
8. God heals minds and emotions
9. God communicates
10. God is ready to be involved in human beings’ circumstances, sometimes taking the initiative and sometimes at the invitation of the human being
11. God is kind
12. God enjoys our successes
13. God grieves
14. God gets angry (reserved for extreme situations, I think)
15. God is patient
16. God is generous
17. God places a high value on human beings
18. God wants to do this thing called life on planet earth together with us
19. God wants intimate connection with human beings
20. God hears and responds to us when we communicate with him
21. God responds to prayers of faith (as opposed to wishes)
22. Kindness is right
23. Generosity is right
24. patience is right
25. Forgiveness is right
26. Treating others the way you want to be treated is right
27. Helping those in need is right
28. habits that promote physical health are right
29. Courage is right
30. perseverance is right
31. being responsible with assets and family is right
32. justice is right
33. (goes without saying that the reverse of these what-is-right’s are hurtful to self and others, and are contrary to God, so as to cut oneself off from God)
34.
Alright, alright….. so it’s not such a short list after all.
Jeff,
God can prevent or unprevent anything that suits him. What if the vineyard employees had welcomed his beautiful son and started making changes, instead of being consumed with jealousy that quickly turned to hatred?
Ardent Calvinists will maintain that this path was not possible because humans inherit only a sin nature and never any spark of goodness. I have long wondered how reformed thought gets around Romans 2 in order to make the “T” in TULIP stick without actually abrogating the Scripture.
Arce – By “entire life,” do you mean every thought, word, and deed? As I’ve written before, this is Hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism. Yet I know that Hyper-Calvinism can exert its influence on Calvinism. If you know of any influential Calvinist(s) (who does not self-identify as a Hyper-Calvinist) who espouses this definition of predetermination, I would be interested to know who he/she/they are.
Elastigirl – Nice list (literally and figuratively). Of course, some words, like “success,” and “justice,” need elaboration, but that wasn’t called for. #18 is vague, and, to be honest, is written in a type of contemporary argot that I despise. (Nothing personal.)
At the risk of sounding like a typical male Calvinist, I notice that, with the exception of “God gets angry” (which is qualified), everything that God does in this list is something that would be desired by most everyone who believes in some type of god. It’s very oriented toward what most people want, I think. From that pov, what would ruin it would be to include “God hates sin” and “God judges.” And these two subjects aren’t hidden away in a few paragraphs; they are present throughout Scripture from beginning to end.
No quarrel with the rest of the list. I’m sure you’re relieved. Thanks for writing it.
Jeff – how about John 3:17?
I have a lot of problems with Isaac as a model here. but… *not* with the Second Person of the Trinity becoming incarnate and (cf. Jn. ch. 10) laying down his life for us. He chose to become incarnate, he chose to lay down his life… he did *not* come to placate an angry “father.” I cannot accept the whole “penal substitution” theology. One person of the Trinity became incarnate to save us, *not* to satisfy an angry god’s demands for vengeance.
I do not believe that the “god” presented by the neo-Calvinists (and by many traditional Calvinists, actually) is the God of the NT, especially as he is presented in the Gospels.
cf. also Jonathan Edwards'(in)famous sermon Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God.
This is a prime – and very unfortunate – example of what i believe to be Not-god.
numo – John 3:17 supports 3:16. God sent His Son so the world would be saved through Him. How? By taking on Himself the sins of mankind that God has to judge. The Spotless Lamb took on all of our “spots” and died in our place.
Why does God have to judge sin? Because He is holy.
Because He is holy, God hates sin. God is angry at sin. Ps. 7:11; Rom. 1:18.
When we’re saved, what are we saved from?
Jeff, don’t expect the answer “from God”. 🙂
But God loves the sinner, who is the crowning event of his creation, albeit with the ability to choose to sin and a tendency to do so. That is why God provides mercy and forgiveness that we do not deserve, aka grace, there merely for the asking.
Arce – well said!
Hi, Jeff.
I’m trying to collect my thoughts to respond to your previous comment. Having trouble mentally settling down — too much kid chaos at the moment.
But let me try this:
You said to Numo above, “Why does God have to judge sin? Because He is holy.
Because He is holy, God hates sin. God is angry at sin. Ps. 7:11; Rom. 1:18.
When we’re saved, what are we saved from?”
****
hmmm… something doesn’t seem quite right… what is it??
here I go: You call on the words holy, hates sin, angry at sin, saved. Yes, these words are in the bible. But they are…. annoying.
Annoying because I’ve heard them tossed out a million times — like… like… like saltines to a very hungry audience who are really after something like prime rib, baked potato & sour cream and cheese and bacon, and crunchy steamed broccoli. (but the speaker has cast his spell and the air is thick with religion so the audience goes “oooooh ho-ly” “ahhhhh siiiiin”, and that’s the end of it.)
They are tossed out in a glib manner, as if those words are all-sufficient in and of themselves, as if they say it all, and satisfy every intellectual wrestling.
Well I say they are insufficient.
They are insufficient because when spoken they are usually left hanging there, as if that said it all. As if the speaker has just generously served up a satisfying chunk of meat. When really, they are intellectual saltines.
I mean, what the heck does “holy” mean, anyway? And if you give me a bible dictionary definition my response will be “So what??!”
These words have lost their meaning. They are cliches. Cliches because we’ve heard them a million times. And sung them a bazillion times — throw in some “holies” and any christian songwriter can wrap up the song they’re working on to fill their quota for the next album. (I’m so bored with it all).
HOWEVER — these words are deep. DEEP.
(I even think these words were cliches back in the OT and NT day — religious jargon & lables for deep things that got “lost in translation” — from when God moved and did and communicated, to when they were orally passed down in something of the game of operator, and then sort of remembered & written down and politicized and rewritten and copied and copied and politicized again and then copied again.)
elastigirl – good thoughts!
I have this sneaking suspicion that Jesus was working overtime, all the time, to help people see past the cliches and truisms… for no good father would give his son or daughter snakes or scorpions or stones instead of real, crusty, delicious bread, now would he?
it’s so easy to throw these words out into the air, but what do they mean? To me, it’s very much encapsulated in the phrase “Hate the sin, love the sinner.” And what we (I) mostly do is end up abhorring the “sinner,” especially because I can too easily view myself as more enlightened and, well… better than that person whom I’m judging as a “sinner.”
All the while, my own lack of compassion is on display.
Jesus didn’t come to teach and minister and LOVE – and die – for us to go around acting this way, taking his words (and life, and death, and resurrection) so lightly.
He loved us ’til the end, and loves us still.
If that was really, truly communicated from even 1/100th of the pulpits in this country, I believe things would be quite different than they are.
“… he first loved us.”
LOVE bade me welcome; yet my soul drew back,
Guilty of dust and sin.
But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning 5
If I lack’d anything.
‘A guest,’ I answer’d, ‘worthy to be here:’
Love said, ‘You shall be he.’
‘I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah, my dear,
I cannot look on Thee.’ 10
Love took my hand and smiling did reply,
‘Who made the eyes but I?’
‘Truth, Lord; but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.’
‘And know you not,’ says Love, ‘Who bore the blame?’ 15
‘My dear, then I will serve.’
‘You must sit down,’ says Love, ‘and taste my meat.’
So I did sit and eat.
– George Herbert
Another one…
The Pulley.
VVHen God at first made man,
Having a glasse of blessings standing by;
Let us (said he) poure on him all we can:
Let the worlds riches, which dispersed lie,
Contract into a span.
So strength first made a way;
Then beautie flow’d, then wisdome, honour, pleasure:
When almost all was out, God made a stay,
Perceiving that alone of all his treasure
Rest in the bottome lay.
For if I should (said he)
Bestow this jewell also on my creature,
He would adore my gifts in stead of me,
And rest in Nature, not the God of Nature:
So both should losers be.
Yet let him keep the rest,
But keep them with repining restlesnesse:
Let him be rich and wearie, that at least,
If goodnesse leade him not, yet wearinesse
May tosse him to my breast.
– George Herbert
WTH – No, I expect the answer, “From God’s wrath,” which I’m sure you love reading. But, like, who created hell?
Arce – Quite true. So, if God loves everyone, why doesn’t He save everyone?
Elastigirl – Your style is so entertaining that I like reading you even when I heartily disagree.
“Love” has been tossed around a gazillion times also. But you don’t tire of that. Why not?
As you say, “holy” is in Scripture, but that doesn’t matter because a lot of dumb speakers use it without saying (knowing?) what it means. That’s a shame, but, really, so what? IT’S IN SCRIPTURE! Are you going to let a bunch of stupid people turn you away from Scripture? If so, they have won.
You really don’t know what “holy” means? I find that hard to believe. Even if not one speaker bothered to define it, you, who seems to be an intellectually curious person, never bothered to look it up? Oh, that’s right, you don’t want a dictionary definition.
I’ll tell you what “holy” is. It’s the word that makes non-believers and believers uncomfortable with God. It has to do with “purity,” another word we don’t like. It means that God is not only the perfect friend who is always there to serve us, who tells us only nice things, who loves everything we do, who thinks we’re just peachy in every way, except for a few little things that aren’t that important.
No, “holy” leads to the stuff we hate, like judging, punishing, and the hating of sin.
I’m emphasizing the “negative” stuff because you guys only talk about the “positive” (from our point of view).
But, Elastigirl, I must give you credit. You’ve advanced an argument I’ve never heard, and I thought I’ve heard them all. You think “holy,” and words like it, were probably cliches BEFORE AND DURING THE FIRST CENTURY A.D.! Wow! What a discovery! By all means, alert the media!
Yeah, I’m being very sarcastic, but I think you have a sense of humor. I apologize if I’m offending you.
numo – Continuing my emphasis on the negative: Jesus talked about hell A Lot, probably more than any other single subject. That means he took stuff like holiness and judging seriously. In the future, He’s going to do a lot of the latter.
I don’t think I’ve ever read Herbert, so thanks for the poems.
A part of me, probably a big part, wishes that you guys’ and gals’ rose-colored view of Scriptures was all there was to it. But it’s not. It’s just not. And no matter how many speakers and teachers and leaders and writers have confused what it says, God is not the author of confusion. If He meant it to be confusing, why did He inspire it?
Jeff
We did a story about our disagreement with Rob Bell’s view of hell and salvation-well what we think is his view since he does seem to roll with it a bit. You might want to read it to see what your glam blog queens think about this subject.
I don’t believe in eternal conscious torment.
I do believe that a lot of contemporary views of hell have been very strongly influenced by mythology and folklore – something you *don’t* see in early Christian art are scenes of judgement and torment. (And, as became very popular in church art later on, lurid scenes of demonic creatures carrying souls off to hell.)
My guess is that mistranslation of the terms Hades, Sheol and Tartarus (in English-language Bibles) has more than a little to do with the popular evangelical conception of hell.
Jeff – glad you liked the poems… how about the content in both? 😉
numo, the lake of fire is where Hell gets tossed in at the end of Revelation so there’s a lot of assumptions built into Hell that developed from medieval Catholic theology. There are also several key passages commonly associated with “Satan” that didn’t originally refer to Satan at all. When dee/Deb post the postscript I wrote for the Driscoll series here I’ll touch on that, or you can read that at my blog. I would suggest all five books by Jeffrey Burton Russell on the devil in Western Christian thought. Everything Western Christians traditionally believe about Hell and devils developed during two periods, the intertestamental period (which the NT authors affirm without modification or question); and the medieval period (somewhat broadly speaking).
jeFF……
Alright, first off, who’s the “you guys” (who apparently only talk about the “positive”) and whose the us in “OUR point of view”, pray tell?
I’m SICK of the word love!!!!!! Cultural christianity reduces something that is beyond comprehending to a Hallmark card.
And Jeff, Jeff, jeFFF — i love dictionaries, and in fact just consulted one now — holy: exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness. I could have come up with something almost exact. It’s just too lofty a concept to be used as casually as christians do. Trust me, I get “consequences” on a spiritual level — i understand it and embrace the fact of them.
And mr. nice guy seems to be in Mr. Hyde mode here — I’m arguing for nothing. I just know that God is infinitely higher, infinitely deeper than the language in the bible. And I’m repelled & repulsed by neat & tidy theological systems all wrapped up in a dogmatic bow. God is much more than the words chosen by the writers of what is in the bible. And you did hurt my feelings. I know what I’m talking about and don’t expect many people to think on the plane I do.
No one is turning me away from scripture. It’s just not the most important thing to me, spiritually. I see much of American christianity as “Biblianity”. (this is from a previous comment of mine, to save time:) “Christian” has been redefined to mean “biblian” — in practice. Bow down to the text……Worship the text……Oh, the text means so much……Oh, the text is so wonderful……The text is the answer……Love the text with all you heart……Translate and parse without ceasing……Take off the old man and put on the information……to be more efficient, here, just put on MY information on the text.
This “Biblian” religion eats, drink, and digests the text, or the regurgitated commentary from someone else, day in and day out.
The net result is to make “the text” THE ANSWER. And therefore, THE ANSWER BOOK, about every aspect of human life on earth. But I, along with many others, don’t believe it is.
Rachel Held Evans had a post on her blog this past June entitled, “Idols of Paper and Ink”, in which she asks “When did your bible-shaped idol come crashing down?” One commenter Tiffany Bridge stated the following:
“The cracks in my idol came gradually over time, but the “plink-plink-plink-CRASH” came when I read the words of a Jewish friend, who has been going through a similar kind of evolution in her understanding of Judaism, and described the Torah as “the sacred story of my tribe” and “a springboard to the future.” It was at that moment when I finally understood what it meant to not read the Bible as a rulebook, but as the story of various peoples’ experience of God, and an ongoing conversation with my spiritual ancestors. I finally really understood what “the word of God is living and active” really means.”
(am I allowed to do this, quote people like this?)
Another commenter noted, “The big thing in our last church, the measuring stick, was, “Is it biblical?” But we’re not Biblians. We’re Christians, and the Bible, though important, is not a member of the trinity. Or a big life manual in the sense that we can look all of our questions up in an index and be directed to the page that contains specific instructions regarding our query.”
Conversation over.
Jeff,
Because he gave us the freedom to love and serve him, in response to his love. But that also means that we have the freedom to say no.
Jeff – hmm. “I’ll tell you what holy is” doesn’t fly too well here.
I’m trying to understand why you are so set on communicating about anger, wrath et. al, but I have to admit that I’m not getting it.
WTH – I hear you on the subject of “Satan,” the time periods you mention, etc. 🙂
elastigirl – Again, I’m sorry that I offended you. But your speculation – “I even think these words were cliches back in the OT and NT day” – seemed to me to be so tendentious that I found it amusing.
Okay, you said you didn’t want a Bible dictionary response, and I extrapolated that to all dictionaries. My mistake.
Also, I wrongly assumed that you don’t tire of the word “love.” Sorry about that too.
I attributed the rose-colored view to those of you, except dee, who have been responding to my last few emails, to varying degrees.
I should have taken out “from our point of view,” because it’s confusing. I only meant that what we see as positive and negative may not be how God sees it.
Thank you for being so candid about your view of the Bible. This answers any other questions that I would ask if I were going to ask any more, which I won’t.
numo – I hope you’re correct that there is no place of eternal conscious torment. But Jesus saying, “Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,” leads me to believe otherwise.
“hmm. ‘I’ll tell you what holy is’ doesn’t fly too well here.”
I didn’t expect it to.
“I’m trying to understand why you are so set on communicating about anger, wrath et. al, but I have to admit that I’m not getting it.”
I think I answered this in my last email: “I’m emphasizing the ‘negative’ stuff because you guys only talk about the ‘positive.” The reaction when I first mentioned “holy,” and what it implies, is one example of what happens when something unpleasant is introduced into the discussion.
Those poems are complex. I’ll have to take another look at them.
Arce – Quite right. My only point was that God can love people and still allow them to face judgment.
WTH – You encourage me to do more study on the subject.
dee – Thanks. I’ll take a look.
Well, that about does it for me on this thread.
I think it’s the way your response re. “holy” came across, more than anything else.
If holiness is solely related to judgment, then I think you might be missing some context as well as content. Not sure why you feel the need to lash out at people with whom you disagree, though.
Jeff, I may be Presbyterian but I’m a very bad sort of Calvinist who doesn’t care if other people are Calvinists or not. I got out of what Michael Spenser sometimes called “cage phase calvinism” almost as soon as I got into it. Calvinists aren’t the only cage-phasers (I’ve met cage-phase Anabaptists, cage-phase Catholic converts from Protestantism, and cage-phase Orthodox) but Calvinists seem to be a special breed when they get into this mode.
What can often happen in Calvinist-land is that someone will ask a series of essentially rhetorical questions that are also leading questions and assume the biblical texts back them up. Now for the person asking the rhetorical/leading questions they are totally sincere about it and probably don’t even stop to think that they are asking rhetorical questions from the script of a systematic theology. But jaded or cynical or people upset by any number of things from Reformed types know the script, whether the person asking the questions knows about it or not. Arminians have done this, too (I used to be one) … but Calvinists (and newer Calvinists particularly) seem to have much tighter production standards for their standardized scripts.
In other words, for people who have been hurt by pastors and church groups who judged them by a script they didn’t live up to a person working from a script won’t realize he or she is working from a script. Anyone who has been at Wartburg for even a week knows that in our very different ways we are all people whose lives and questions about life were measured by the script of some group of people with self-invested authority and found wanting. Or we got to a point where we realized that we no longer agreed with the script that was sold as prescriptive for all believers as described by this or that leader or group that we tried mapping out our lives by. In most cases, at least for people who have come to Wartburg, that map was sold to us as “what’s in the Bible” or “what the real, early church and all REAL Christians stand for.” You probably noticed that already, though.
fwiw, my supposedly “rose-colored view” of Scripture comes from having lived for many years (decades, actually) in a very, very dark place… that of legalistic, ultra-perfectionistic, judgmental, cruel, bigoted and generally intolerant “pastors.”
Jeff, of course there is plenty in Scripture about wrath and judgment. But it has to be balanced against the rest of what is said about God’s nature; the NT in particular.
If we fail to do that, we risk tying millstones around not only our own necks, but those of others as well.
Hi, Jeff.
Back in the conversation. Thanks for the apology fer hurtin’ me feelin’s over my thinking on cliches.
No other apology is necessary, though. Misunderstandings don’t have to be deal breakers (or conversation enders). Nothing wrong with heated dialogue (as long as it’s not personal, & insults & ridicule in word and tone are left out).
Perhaps heated dialogue where God and spirituality are concerned are inherehtly personal, in that we hold our views dear to our hearts (because of what they mean, how we feel about them, including how we feel about the crucible of pain that has tempered our views). But even so, dialogue (whether tidy or messy) is good.
“Jeff, of course there is plenty in Scripture about wrath and judgment. But it has to be balanced against the rest of what is said about God’s nature; the NT in particular.
”
I might be wrong, but I think Jeff’s point was that it was not balanced “here”.