The strongest bulwark of authority is uniformity; the least divergence from it is the greatest crime Emma Goldman link
Ivory Throne of Ivan the Terrible-public domain
TWW believes that the evangelical church in America is on a downward spiral, if statistics can be believed. The Internet Monk says the church is existing in the "post-evangelical wilderness." We laid out our case for a declining church in Church Planting: Is It About the Gospel or Acquisitions? Link This post focused on three points:
- The church in America is on the decline.
- Mega churches are not making converts; merely shifting Christians from one church to another.
- This decline continue to occur in spite of the Conservative Resurgence and the rise of Neo-Calvinism. .
Over the next week, we will discuss whether the church has focused on the wrong priorities. These include, but are not limited to:
- Authoritarian leadership
- Pastorcentric/leadercentric churches, seminaries, associations and conferences
- An inability of leaders to accept critique, often attacking those who make suggestions.
- The non-involvement of the majority of the church membership in any significant decision making.
- Decision making is in the tightly controlled hands of a few leaders.
- A seeming unwillingness by leaders to embrace the concept of the church body as outlined in 1 Corinthians 12.
- An apparent focus by leaders on secondary doctrines while downplaying evangelism.
- An us versus them mentality when dealing with the culture.
- A marginalization of women and single people in the life of the church.
- An increasing emphasis on ill-defined church discipline for the "we all are in this together" sins such as pride, arrogance, etc. as opposed to serious sins such as discussed in Corinthians.
- We believe that all of this has developed as an effort to control/marginalize members who ask questions or have suggestions since these might be considered a challenge to the "vision" of the "real" leaders.
One of our alert readers, Janey, picked up on a post at The Gospel Coalition here which originally appeared at 9 Marks here called Wendell Berry and the Beauty of Membership written by Matt McCullough. TWW believes that the hierarchical culture at 9 Marks is dedicated to an authoritarian role for the leadership which emphasizes a disciplinary posture towards the church membership. That is why we were somewhat startled by the use of Wendell Berry as the poster boy for encouraging church membership; especially church membership as defined by many of those who employ the strict culture found in many 9 Marks churches. In fact, we think that Berry might find this co-option of his thinking somewhat amusing, if not downright misrepresentative.
In an interesting post, Wendell Berry and the Church link written by Rob Dreher at The American Conservative we read:
I just finished a good essay from the writer D.G. Hart, who reflects on the by now familiar claim that contemporary Christianity should study Berry and learn from him. Hart agrees, but contends that Berry has been too quick to dismiss the institutional Church.
Note that Hart claims that Berry is no great supporter of the institutional church. Why is that?
Hart — who is a historian and a Reformed Christian — calls Berry’s critique of American Evangelicalism astute, because it focuses on how the Evangelical style is so amenable to a culture of rootlessness and a disembodied spirituality. Hart quotes from a Berry passage about economic exploiters (versus nurturers), from Berry’s The Unsettling of America:
"The exploiter typically serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place. The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, “hard facts”; the nurturer in terms of character, condition, quality, kind."
Let's look at this again. Berry looks s economic exploiters versus economic nurturers. As a side note: Berry in a conscientious environmentalist and , as a farmer, supports an agrarian society and bemoans the urban culture.
- Exploiters: serve an institution, emphasizes numbers and hard facts.
- Nurturers: serve the land community and household while emphasizing character.
There is no question that Berry emphasizes the value of community to combat an entrenched individualism, combined with rootlessness, that is inherent in industrialized societies. This does not mean that he supports the development of another rigid entity that some call the evangelical industrial complex. I could be mistaken but I believe that Berry would look in horror at today's megachurches, complete with satellite beam in of a charismatic pastor and people sitting in auditoriums, watching a great performance up front.
My guess is that Berry would shake the dust off his feet if confronted by a member of some pastoral team who would tell him that he should be coming to meetings instead of tending his farm, along with caring for, and enjoying, his neighbors. Berry had a view of a community in which neighbors helped one another through hard times and rejoiced together in good times. Somehow, I do not think Berry would appreciate a neighborhood leader, marching around, pointing out the pride and arrogance of the lowly townspeople.
Here are a few points from the 9 Marks/TGC post. We especially thank Janey for drawing our attention to them.
9 Marks and the author believe in the formalization of membership.
In other words, even if you attend, give money and volunteer, you are not "really" a member. In fact, you may be a bad Christian by not "signing on the line" just like they did in Acts…or did they? I cannot seem to find a reference but I am sure it must be in there somewhere because 9 Marks assures us that they "go by the Book."
Here are the reasons you are not following the Gospel if you do not officially join a local church.
You will not deny self.
This means if you serve the poor, help your neighbor, attend a church, give money for ministry, etc. you do not cut it because you are self centered. You officially become other centered as soon as you sign on the line.
You will not experience "liberating submission."
You forgo liberating submission which can only be found in serving your neighbors, which in 9 Marks lingo means that you have signed a piece of paper that you are a member. Now remember, this "liberating" submission means, in some 9 Marks churches, that you are not allowed to resign your membership until you join another church or the pastors "let you go." In Wendell Berry's world, one can always sell the farm but in the church world, you can't leave.This is liberating?
You have selfish ambition and an exalted self image which prevents you from joining the church.
You exhibit selfish ambition and create an exalted self image that drives you:
to subordinate all things to our personal gratification or our relentless effort to build a name for ourselves
In other words, if God has called you to work with children with special needs, and "the church" does not have such a ministry, you need to subordinate that selfish ambition to the betterment or a particular local church. As for "building a name" for themselves, there are a few pastors who might fit that description but, since they are pastors, they get a pass. Selfish ambition is alive and well in those who have "signed the document." Ditto on the exalted self image. Church membership does not deal with that issue.
However, the following statement really jumped out at me.
Too often we try on new churches like we try on new clothes and for much the same reason. We’re looking for style and fit, for what meets our needs and makes the appropriate statement about who we are. We put our churches in service of our desire to be somebody and our commitment doesn’t outlast the better options of Elsewhere. But this posture—beside its offense to the cross—leads to self-absorption, restlessness, and isolation.
An offense to the cross…really? I have been writing this blog for 4 1/2 years. I have heard story after story of abusive church practices. We had a particularly moving post written by a former member of a 9 Marks church who was not allowed to resign from his church. This author talks about members who are trying to find churches that "fit" them. Could it be that some of them are trying to find churches that love and treat their members with respect?
Also, aren't there churches which style themselves to fit a particular viewpoint of the pastors? How many pastors come to a church and tell their members that they are wrong and sinful in how they do church and that they need to change? So the pastors get to change the "style and fit" of a church and it is good because they got an MDiv? If these guys change the style of the church, they are changing it simply to the glory of God? For the member looking for a particular type of church that suits their view of the church, it is selfish ambition?
Side note: Any church in which the current elders or the current pastor recommends the next batch of elders is an authoritarian, leadercentric church. That includes any church in which a prechosen slate of elders is put forth for a vote before the congregation.
It is this pastorcentric/authoritarian view of the church that we will be challenging in the days to come.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Kings 3:1-4:17 Acts 14:8-28 Psalm 140:1-13 Proverbs 17:22
“That is why we were somewhat startled by the use of Wendell Berry as the poster boy for encouraging church membership; especially church membership as defined by many of those who employ the strict culture found in many 9 Marks churches. In fact, we think that Berry might find this co-option of his thinking somewhat amusing, if not downright misrepresentative. ”
I agree.
Wendell Berry is a neighbor of my cousin and their families long time friends. I can pretty much say that 9 Marks has twisted his thoughts. And I have to wonder why? Seeking a new market niche?
Too often we try on new churches like we try on new clothes and for much the same reason. We’re looking for style and fit, for what meets our needs and makes the appropriate statement about who we are.
When I first read this I was confused about why he is suddenly complaining at you doing what he said earlier you are supposed to do regarding your identity and church. It took me a while to figure out his real problem is that you think in the first place you have an identity the church did not give you and you are looking for a church that matches your pre conceived identity thereby making the “appropriate statement about who you are.” It violates his “we will tell you who you are” standard.
Because he says earlier,
“The book’s heroes reject the notion that you make your own identity rather than receive it.”
From which I gather he wants you to ditch your original identity and “receive” the one the church (or is the church leaders?) assigns to you. I guess this is what he means when he talks about self denial, since he talks so much about that? You become a sort of blank slate with no identity until the church (leaders?) assign one to you. And to do otherwise is selfish, then?
So then when he says,
To belong to a community is to be at its disposal, to have given over all you have to be used for whatever your community needs.
he means you to give over not just your assets, etc. but your actual “youness”?
You know, I think this is actually communism he’s talking about here. This is what they did in communist camps. They broke the people down until they had no sense of self anymore and could only “receive” what the commanders gave them, which was the group identity. I’m pretty sure that same practice is used in cults, too. One is broken until they become dependent on the cult for their very identity.
In any case, this is quite the contrary to what C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity:
At the beginning I said there were Personalities in God. I will go further now. There are no real personalities anywhere else. Until you have given yourself up to Him [not the group, Anon] you will not have a real self. Sameness is to be found most among the most “natural” men, not among those who surrender to Christ. How monotonously alike all the great tyrants and conquerors have been: how gloriously different are the saints.
It is true you must “receive” or be given an identity. But that must come from God alone and not from the group. You can express your God given identity in the group but you cannot be given your identity by>/i> the group. But McCullough does not ever say or even allude to God being the giver of identity. Rather, he strongly suggests it is the group from which you “receive” your identity.
Thus the group does not represent God, but replaces Him as the giver of identity.
Oops. I messed up my italics. That last one should stop after “group.”
I’m glad the church is in a downward spiral
Once the pharisaical edifice dies, what remains of the real church can move on unhindered by it, and hopefully absorb the lessons of the past. Much like God’s EVER-EVOLVING ORGANISMS of nature.
I wish I didn’t have to wait 50 years to go 50 years into the future. It should be long gone by then.
Just read Exodus International is closing it’s ministry….it has not been a good week.
http://t4g.org/cj-mahaney/
Casey wrote:
They are closing as Exodus but will be forming a new ministry that will not focus on reparative therapy.
I wonder what Wendell Berry’s take would be on the latest Gospel Coalition post on poverty. TGC uses a photo of a shanty-town and spins the topic of wrenching poverty to be a post on the dangers of wealth and why it’s important not to drive an old car just to look pious. The number of logical contradictions and doublespeak in this article are incredible.
Honestly, have the Gospel Coalition people ever read the Bible as is without their spiritual blinders?
Here are some examples of author Betsy Childs’s and the TGC editors’cluelessness —
Or this lovely section that reminds us that it’s all about us rich Christians —
In fact, it’s really great to be poor! —
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/07/01/gods-preferential-option-for-the-poor-in-spirit/?comments#comments
Mark wrote:
WOW! Thank you for that link Mark. That’s incredible.
A letter from C. J. Mahaney!
Click the link to see the rest…
Mark wrote:
Mark, that is how it works. Put a “pious” face on it. T4G was simply NOT prepared for the Facebook responses from their statement on CJ. Such responses are allowed from the plebes!? They will never admit they have been wrong about CJ because they agree with him but they are in damage control mode behind the scenes. Lots of dollars at stake. T4G conferences are big business.
I just tweeted on Mahaney’s withdrawal from T4G. I believe that there was pressure applied behind the scenes. The T4G statement from the “leaders” will go down in the history of the Neo-Calvinist movement as an epic fail.
This doesn’t have to do with today’s post, but it does have to do with Wendell Berry, and is tangentially related to Casey’s comment, and more so related to events from the previous week…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/15/bulletin-from-the-mad-farmer-liberation-front-wendell-berry-on-same-sex-marriage/
@ Josh: Interesting-do you think TGC and 9 Marks know of Berry’s thoughts?
http://www.newsoutherner.com/Wendell_Berry_interview.htm
An interview with Berry that will help folks understand his thinking better
Note: The T4G conference from which Mahaney is withdrawing is April 2014!
dee wrote:
Dee and Deb — This is a testimony to a handful of discernment bloggers. Now you can wear the label proudly. Congrats on a small victory — a victory for all who care about child sexual abuse victims.
And phooey on The Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today main news site, and World Magazine, who never brought to light the nature of the graphic allegations made public in the May 14, 2013, amended lawsuit. Shame on them.
Here’s my public service announcement for the hundreds of new visitors to this site who have no idea what I’m talking about:
+ + + + +
Know the Basics of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Child Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Allegations in 15 Minutes or Less
1. ABC TV Overview + discussion of defendants who have already been convicted for other child sex crimes (4 minutes, ABC TV affiliate WJLA) – http://www.wjla.com/video/2013/05/church-sex-abuse-allegations.html
2. ABC TV Update on the lawsuit (2 minutes, ABC TV affiliate WJLA)) – http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05/sovereign-grace-ministries-class-action-civil-lawsuit-involving-child-sex-abuse-88894.html
3. Huffington Post article about the evangelical pastors who are standing up for Mahaney, the key defendant- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/c-j-mahaney-scandal-evangelical-leaders-defend-pastor-accused-of-abuse-cover-up_n_3334500.html
4. Christian Post article featuring updates from Boz Tchividjian, grandson of Billy Graham, and Janet Mefferd, Christian radio host. Discusses the surreptitious change in the statement by C. J. Mahaney supporters Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and Ligon Duncan, as well as ongoing criminal investigations and appeals by those alleged victims who have already turned 21.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/billy-grahams-grandson-responds-to-sovereign-grace-ministries-lawsuit-97590/
+ + + + + +
I can testify to the validity of your post. I sent an email to the elders of my 9Marks church in Dubai on March 6 informing them I was resigning my membership over issues of conscience having to do with their promoting C.J. Mahaney’s books. I have yet to be removed from their membership roster. I recently queried them as to why I have not been removed. I received this response from an elder of UCCD on 30 June:
“The reason your membership wasn’t addressed at the last members’ meeting was that leading up to it the elders did not have clarity on which church you had decided to commit to”
The response was factually correct. As to receiving any clarity from me, read Ephesians 3:6. That will be all the clarification I will provide. It has been nearly 4 months since I quit!
On a side note – I thank God that Mahaney has quit Together 4 the Go$pel. Dare I think that after Peter Lumpkin’s resolution passed at the SBC Mark Dever and Al Mohler told Mahaney they had to end their affiliation? 🙂
A friend of mine who received Baptist 21 emails wrote and asked to be removed from their list because of their affiliation with CJ Mahaney. A person wrote back to him that CJ was not guilty of anything wrong. That is a how deep the lack of thinking and arrogance is on this issue. My guess is that there was a lot of pressure put on him to back off as the outrage kept growing. The fact that the leadership of the SBc tried to keep the part about leaders promoting such people under such a cloud taken out of the resolution showed a lot of people just how bad it really is out there in these leadership circles. They have NO shame. The arrogance is astounding. Stop giving them money!
@ TW:
Mahaney only resigned from the 2014 T4G Conference. It doesn’t appear that he resigned from the organization itself. He mist be keeping a lower profile for a bit 😯
Anon 1 wrote:
And how will that damage control affect next April’s conference? Will any of the remaining speakers address the controversy concerning C.J. Mahaney? And will Mahaney withdraw from other speaking engagements as well?
singleman wrote:
Great questions. My guess is that this is a bone they are throwing out to shore up their base of supporters. I doubt they ever thought they would need to shore up their base but it was starting to crumble. A lot of those folks will see this and think all is ok. Mahaney is not going anywhere. If you look at his career he has been the master of reinventing himself.
Hey, I cannot find the T4G statement of support for Mahaney on their site. I was checking to see if it was still there after seeing Mahaney’s letter. Interesting. Makes total sense for damage control. I wonder if TGC has theirs still up?
What Matt McCullough writes is so full of horsesh!t.
Yeah, become a church member and start feeding the machine that generates this closed system of a community (as well as his paycheck) and you’ll have no time or energy left for the bona fide communities of the real world, your neighborhood, your workplace, your city, etc.
What fanciful world does Matt McCullough’s mind occupy? “Liberating submission”…. yeah, that’s right, once you become a member we won’t let you leave, and if you do we’ll hunt you down for the sinner you are. How dare you try and escape from liberation?
Control Freak City
(anything to feed the food chain of a dying industry of salaried dockers & polo shirts who don’t know how to do anything else)
dee wrote:
If they do, I am sure they are hoping the general public doesn’t find out.
@ JustSomeGuy:
“I’m glad the church is in a downward spiral
Once the pharisaical edifice dies, what remains of the real church can move on unhindered by it, and hopefully absorb the lessons of the past. Much like God’s EVER-EVOLVING ORGANISMS of nature.
I wish I didn’t have to wait 50 years to go 50 years into the future. It should be long gone by then.
++++++++++++++++++
yes and amen. and wow, what material for the history books! Unwittingly givin’ them (so many) something(s) to talk about.
would somebody please tell me what happened to my religion?
@ elastigirl:
anything to feed the food chain of a dying industry of salaried dockers & polo shirts who don’t know how to do anything else
That is classic, elastigirl, I love it. Esp. considering many of the Big Named pastors didn’t go much beyond high school. Even in my (old) little church in Canada the salaried staff without any real-world experience far outnumbered the staff who did have education and experience (our pastor liked his staff young).
Jesus can I hang out with you? You know that club they created that’s supposed to be all about you? Using your name & all, for effect? I think it’s creeping you out as much as it is me. Let’s go to the beach tomorrow. I think we both could use some liberating.
@ Val:
“…considering many of the Big Named pastors didn’t go much beyond high school. …the salaried staff without any real-world experience far outnumbered the staff who did have education and experience …”
++++++++++++++++
amazing sense of entitlement. god, i’m tired of rolling my eyes.
right now I really want to be Dick Proenneke and build my own cabin Alone In The Wilderness of Alaska, chop firewood, plant tubers, go blueberrying, fishing, read, draw, paint,…
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes, still up.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/05/24/why-we-have-been-silent-about-the-sgm-lawsuit/
Since C.J. Mahaney, beleaguered defendant in a sexual abuse lawsuit, has stepped down from speaking at the T4G conference in April of 2014, I am attempting to find out if he will still be speaking at this conference in Louisville, KY in December 2013. Mahaney’s presence has not, to date, been a hindrance to 11 individuals from UCCD and Redeemer Church in Dubai also listed as participants. One would hope a discerning Christian leader may wish to rethink an invitation which includes Mahaney on the venue, but if past actions are any predictor of future actions it will be full steam ahead.
The skeptic in me wonders if round trip airfare is provided to conference participants, and if so would that enter into the equation when deciding whether to accept a speaking engagement with a known blackmailer and alleged sexual abuse cover-up man? Probably not, it’s all for furthering God’s kingdom.
http://crosscon.com/speakers/
I’m glad the message about C. J. Mahaney is having some repercussions. But there will always be hangers-on who close their ears to the truth and stay with their leader and tribe. Some are naive or want to avoid conflict or are overly optimistic or just fear change. Some had bad childhoods and they don’t even recognize abuse when they see it. Or they’ve been charmed into believing they are in the inner ring.
TW wrote:
The lure of paid airfare for both husband and wife who are listed as speakers must be compelling. Get out of the heat, rub elbows with like-minded leaders, and get in a little shopping at WalMart! And all-expenses paid vacation.
Anon 1 wrote:
Oh my, yes, Together for the Gospel took down the Mohler, Dever, and Duncan support letter for Mahaney. However, here’s a screenshot I took on June 8.
https://www.evernote.com/shard/s302/sh/26d6db39-9a41-44e2-954b-0447c61b7428/55f9b27491b28034bea01e343e7d97fa
elastigirl wrote:
Slavery is freedom.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
WAR IS PEACE!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
Janey wrote:
Sez the Megachurch Men-o-Gawd with their mansions, private jets, and entourages of Armorbearers. TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!
@ Casey:
I don’t wish to hijack this thread or start an argument; but I cannot let this thoughtless statement pass. The “transformation” of Exodus is VERY good news to me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-robertson/just-because-he-breathes-learning-to-truly-love-our-gay-son_b_3478971.htm
And, no, I don’t happen to be gay.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep. Vote with your feet and with your pocketbook.
Matt McCullough wrote, “To belong to a community is to be at its disposal, to have given over all you have to be used for whatever your community needs.”
And who determines “whatever your community needs?”
Of course! The self-appointed head, the vision-caster, who is surrounded by his chosen ‘yes’ men. He will “use” you alright. You are a part of his narcissistic supply.
elastigirl wrote:
It’s called doublespeak, and it is such a tired and obvious rhetorical device, I am surprised anyone would seriously publish it to the ‘net (at least not without prefacing it with two paragraphs of adulation for Kim Jong Il). It’s actually rather embarrassing. I am truly sorry to see the direction 9Marks has gone in the last three years.
@ Janey:
Lol. Just got back from Dubai. Believe me, Louisville is no vacation! I suspect capitalization and brand value are the goals.
@ elastigirl:
” yeah, that’s right, once you become a member we won’t let you leave, and if you do we’ll hunt you down for the sinner you are”
Welcome to the Hotel California….
The membership policies remind me of Loki’s speech in the Avengers:
“Kneel before me. I said… KNEEL! Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.”
I always think of a lot of little guys in green suits running around demanding obedience.
elastigirl wrote:
Boy is this ever true. Thing is, most of the ones I have known were educated beyond high school but in a bible college and then seminary. They have theological degrees. But not enough to teach. Pastor career is all they know. I know a few low level ones fired who have tried to make it out in the real world and it is not pretty.
But you nailed it. It is a dying industry even if it does not look like it now. Our seminaries are churning them out like pancakes and as they become more and more desperate for a following it will get worse.
In looking for something to listen to while ironing, I found these audio sermons by the late Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones on revival. In Part 2 he draws attention to Exodus 33 vs.7-11. Apparently in the history of the Christian church, no revival has started in an institutional church, but has always started after ordinary Christians have “gone outside the camp to inquire of the Lord”. Maybe all of us non-church members and Nones, who are seeking and inquiring of the Lord, are actually an indication of the Holy Spirit preparing for a coming revival. 🙂
Here is a link to these sermons:
http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=34
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
I know! But the doublespeak really makes sense to them because they live in a bubble and are rarely challenged. They are indoctrinated to think this way. Once they get out of the bubble and are seriously challenged they immediately revert to ad hominem. The process is so typical, I can set my watch by it because I live at ground zero and see it all the time.
Once people are liberated to question the doublespeak becomes more obvious. But it is hard to be liberated when you are immersed in it. That is why you are not allowed to leave.
elastigirl wrote:
That reminds me of…
1. Hotel California (you can check out but you can never leave)
2. Islam. The penalty among some branches of Islam for Muslims who leave Islam is death.
3. Terminiator movies. If you are on the Terminator’s hit list, he will never, ever stop looking for you. To quote Kyle Reese, Terminators also don’t feel remorse or pity.
It also reminds me of a gender complementarian essay I read by a woman who was trying to explain to women that being a traditional woman is more liberating than being another kind, or being a feminist.
Her blog page had something to do with CBMW, if I recall correctly – they either linked to it, or she is one of their members.
She got into an analogy discussing women and their roles that used fences, fields, and boxes.
She said she knows at first glance running around in that wide open field with the flowers, fresh grass, and in the sun shine, even if it has a fence round it, looks so liberating and freeing, but you will have more freedom inside the confining box of gender complementarianism.
Now, I totally get the idea that in some ways, rules can be paradoxically freeing – like you tell your five year old kid to look both ways before crossing the street, because it’s for his own protection, so he won’t get hit by a car. I do appreciate the analogy on that mark.
But, I found the gender comp “you’ll be happier and healthier inside a box than you would a pretty, daisy- filled meadow” analogy defeatist.
I don’t see why I’d prefer a “box” to a pretty field with flowers.
It’s funny how some gender complementarians will tell you how more empowered you will be as a woman by being forced to give up your equality /rights/ personhood. It looks to me as though that is less empowering.
I googled around to link to that essay for you all but couldn’t find it. What I did find was a CBMW page that is opposed to women being boxers and specifically female- on- female boxing matches (would they prefer male- on- female boxing?) Here is a link to that by Owen Strachan:
Women Bludgeoning Women: On the UFC and Femininity
He tries to depict a sporting event, a boxing match between women, as culture supporting women being “preyed on.”
I tried living by his understanding of a woman always being “gentle and quiet” (which he mentions in the page above) and it made me very unhappy. Since I’ve walked away from a lot of Christian rules and expectations on female roles (and other things) I have found tremendous relief and am a lot more at peace than I was previously.
Also, I guess if a woman is to live up to his understanding of being a “quiet and gentle spirit” and John Piper’s 1952 feminine ideal, women can never do anything fun or physical, or put it to use if they do, such as boxing or martial arts. Ridiculous.
Anon 1 wrote:
…and pancakes they quickly become once reality hits them :p
My post right above is in moderation.
The original post said:
I’m sure that is the case and am not disputing it (the Neo Reformed guys in particular seem to spend more time giving lectures to already-saved people than to Non Christians).
However, running parallel to that, is another harmful trend going on in many churches in the USA: seeker-friendly churches who have the opposite problem; they are more concerned with attracting Non-Christians than in helping established Christians.
The Bible does say Christians should seek converts, to go after Non Christians with the Gospel, but it also tells Christians to support other Christians and for preachers to feed the sheep (people who are already Christian).
There are churches whose preachers admit to not caring at all about helping Christians grow in faith and maturity.
They only care about drawing and attracting Non-Christians to their churches, which is why they use gimmicky things, such as fancy rock bands and huge video screens.
When people who have been Christians for years complain in private to the preachers of such churches that they feel neglected and would like the preaching to go deeper into the Word, these preachers mock them for this! This has caused a lot of spiritually mature Christians to leave churches.
The book “Quitting Church” discusses this problem.
From page 104:
“They [preachers] are more into marketing modes for growth, but growth for growth’s sake is the philosophy of the cancer cell.” -quote from Patrick Reardon, professor
From page 124 (contains comments from author Alan Jamieson of A Churchless Faith, a book about why so many Christians are dropping out of church attendance):
More important to them [preachers] are the people coming in the front door.
But this is incredibly shortsighted, he adds, as the average leave-takers are in the prime of their lives, at the height of their earning power, skilled workers, and mature in the faith. “As they leave, all the resources they have to give to the life of the church and mission go with them,” he wrote.
While church leaders bemoan the lack of labor for their outreach ministries, the very people appointed by God to fill such slots “have now slipped out the back door. Imagine the depths of commitment, maturity and trust in God these people would bring to our churches. Losing people like this is nothing short of a tragedy for the church.
… “Working hard to bring new people into the church while letting longer-term highly committed people slip out the back door achieves little,” he wrote. “It’s time the EPC [evangelical- pentecostal- charismatic] church leaderships woke up.”
This page also discusses the issue:
For Whom Do Pastors Exist?
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Ha ha! It wouldn’t be my choice for a vacation spot either, but coming to the U.S. and maybe visiting the stateside kids and the grandkids on someone else’s dime is a factor, too.
Now the good news:
Evangelical Christianity is not the only game in town. There are others forms of the church. Maybe evangelical Christianity has so much wrong at the core that God is shutting it down?
Maybe we are rather at the start of a new revival, a new movement of God in restoring the historic church?
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, the big focus in the seeker movement was what they called the “unchurched” as their target audience for growth. So what does that mean? It was not “unbelievers” they were targeting but the unchurched. And there is a reason for that. Being in church was more important than what you believe.
Off topic & yet not off topic:
Round out your reading lists with Wendell Berry’s Jayber Crow.
It’s one of those “worth it” books in which a yarnin’ man tells us all what it really means to be human.
@ Anon 1:
that may be true for some of the seeker friendly churches, but I have read that some of them are looking for non believers. They go so far as to remove crosses from the sanctuary and avoid using religious terms, or references to hell, sin, etc, so as not to offend or turn off non-believers.
Someone who is already a Christian is not going to be put off or offended by a cross hanging on the wall in the worship area, or references to being lost without a savior.
elastigirl wrote:
Elastigirl, amen, amen, and AMEN!!! Our society is quickly changing. Over the past generation of baby-boomer pastors, we have seen some of the worst leadership of Christianity ever witnessed in history. And the subsequent generation seems to be even worse. What you’ve said about dockers and polo shirts (GAG!) reminds me about what I’ve been thinking about the young men who enter the ministry. I mentioned this in one of the threads on Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board:
“I’ve been noticing the reduction in the quality of preachers that evangelicalism has been producing over the last generation. More and more, we less of the old classic servant country preacher, men such as Peter Lumpkins. We used to have more men in our pulpits who were intellectuals with humility, and smart intelligent men used to want to go to seminary and be trained for ministry. Now, we still have some of those types of men, but they are becoming rarer. Instead, we have charismatic personalities, jocks, men who like to be liked, motivational speakers, authoritarians, narcissists, and in some cases psychopaths. We have the likes of Mark Driscoll, Steven Furtick and Voddie Baucham. Where have all of the young humble intelligent men gone? Largely into studying the Maths, the Sciences, Medicine, Engineering, and Business. The seminaries are now left trying to train men who have personalities that are not qualified for the position of pastor.”
What I’m noticing about the Neo-Reformed crowd is that they HAVE to pick on someone. They can’t now legally persecute people who are different race or skin colour or sexual orientation. So they are turning their wrath inwards towards the meek, the women, the children, the disabled, the trusting.
We have to learn psychology folks. WE HAVE TO!!!! We need to learn about destructive personality types such as narcissists and psychopaths and superficial people and keep them away from our churches. We need to make life difficult for such personalities. Otherwise, they will destroy Christianity.
Ryan wrote:
What do predators eat when there is no more prey?
Anon 1 wrote:
Just like in the 1950s.
(When church attendance in America peaked.)
Daisy wrote:
“He who was born in a cage
Yearns for his cage.
With horror I understand
That I Love My Cage.”
— Yevgevny Yevtushenko
Love this thread for about 1,000 reasons, but Dee’s point deserves to be repeated endlessly:
“An offense to the cross … REALLY?” Those were my exact words as I was reading that 9 Marks/TGC drivel.
Also@ Phoenix:
Phoenix, I agree with you. A hearty buh bye to Exodus, don’t let the doorknob hit you on … the way out. 😉
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Exactly
Ryan wrote:
Well said, Ryan.
TW wrote:
I am dying to write a post called “Bye, Bye Dubai.”
Look at today’s post. Dever loves Mahaney and let him run from church to church even when he was under discipline. What a pile of codswallop!
@ Janey: This people are taking advantage of the system and do not question a seriously flawed system. It is very sad.
Janey wrote:
i was up until the wee hours looking for the statement. i figured they had sent it to a difficult to find location so they could claim they just moved it, not deleted it.
We enlisted the help of a few folks to try to find it to no avail. These patriarchs have absolutely no shame. We just wrote a post about it.
@ Janey: It is still up along with the particularly despicable part of the statement which refers to a threat by a young woman who was assaulted. They are wussy and pretend to be biblical men.
JustSomeGuy wrote:
Oh yeah, Wendell Berry would approve of a church that won’t let a decent man resign! Can you imagine? Go Todd!
TedS. wrote:
That is why I found the co-option of Wendell Berry’s thoughts ridiculous. Berry is not a user and I think he would have a stroke to think that his words would be used to advocate for authority by such men. Good night!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Between your comments and moniker, you never fail to make me laugh!
Brian wrote:
Our great commenter, Todd Wilhelm, is being held in captivity by a former church in Dubai. If they do not let him go, i intend to launch an internet campaign called:
Let Todd Wilhelm go!
complete with T shirts, letter writing campaigns, etc. Do they allow picketing in Dubai? I have always wanted to visit…
Anon 1 wrote:
You know, church plants are not going so well. I wonder if there are any stats being gathered on the failure rate. Even Stetzer’s plants (3) all failed and he is the planting guru.
rubytuesday wrote:
You never know. I promise that any revival with which I am involve will include chocolate.
Ryan wrote:
It is far more fun and self exalting to focus on the sins of others instead of doing the hard work of loving others.
dee wrote:
Tell me about it. It is the best kept secret concerning SBC money. Too bad the pew sitters are still kept totally clueless.
May I add to the list of accusations that are often leveled at people who won’t sign on the dotted line for church membership? I’ve heard it said that people who won’t join a church and stick with it must have a consumerist mindset toward church, and their reluctance to place membership (or, in some cases, their decision to go to another church) is an indication that they are using church like a product instead of committing to a body of believers.
@ Ryan:
Ryan, I have thought a lot about the same sort of thing written in that quote from Julie Anne’s blog you cite. I grew up around the humble but educated type preachers who were not seeking fame or wealth but truth and love. They were not amassing followers for themselves.
I know what changed because I was there and helped it along: The church growth movement and the marketing niche world of Christendom. If you think about it, it is a natural outgrowth of mass communication/technology and was also a backlash to the changes in our culture. It is a complicated subject with many twists and turns.
But the same mass communication/technology which started the trajectory will also help along its downfall. The pew sitters have access now, too.
What bothers me the most is that as Americans who should understand and love liberty we tend to check our brains at the door when it comes to “church”. Why is that?
Anon 1 wrote:
Pay, Pray, and OBEY! OBEY! OBEY!
sad observer wrote:
sad, the reason they are harping on this to the point of insulting us is that it is not going well in quite a few places concerning church plants and church growth and there are tons of young men coming out of seminary to employ and amass followers. The gurus need to see the growth. The ridiculous rules they are trying to convince folks are biblical are really about numbers and control. That is it.
Same rules did not apply to Mahaney nor to others. Al Mohler misses church all the time. But he is important and off doing great things for God. See how it works?
Spoiler: I’m a pastor!
Not trying to cause trouble (really!), but I believe I have a consideration that bears….considering. If a congregationally/member led church does not have some sort of requirement to discern who is a member and who is not a member, how can that church conduct actual, legally-binding business? Legally, it can’t, in the eyes of many local jurisdictions. Someone, a distinct group, person, etc., has to be responsible to conduct “business” and engage in the utilities and processes of the local culture, and enter into contracts. That’s just the way it is in this culture. The question is, who will that person(s) be? For instance, say the issue is the management of the church building itself–say it’s a large, very valuable piece of real estate. Should just anyone have the right to come and advocate for their own opinions about that building? Someone has to do business with the city/county/local culture. Or, say it’s a smaller church, but has lots of financial reserves, and come budget time (assuming there are no formal membership requirements), a bad leader or leadership team simply brings in his/her people, from the outside, to join this borderless congregation and vote for his/her generous salary increase, or perhaps ownership of the building? Believe it or not, I know of at least one church where that very scenario actually occurred; a building actually came into the owndership of the pastor’s friends, and soon the church was closed down, and re-opened as a “new” church. I think there is wisdom in Paul’s distinction between those “within” and those “without” (cf. 1 Cor 14), and the fact that he wrote most of his letters to a distinct, definable membership (ie, “to the church at Corinth,” or, “the church at Thessalonica,” etc.) Finally, Berry really rocks (!), but it should be remembered that his ideal of community commitment and service and agrarianism, etc., is based on the proposition that groups of people do in fact enter into formal agreements that tie them to their neighbors and families, often simply by purchasing land, or choosing to remain on it despite the many difficulties of community. Perhaps the church is more like Port William than we think!
I posted this on 9 marks website. I wonder it will be taken off?
Concepts like authority, exclusivity, and discipline just don’t sound right on a pre-reflective, aesthetic level. They evoke a yuck factor ingrained in us by the often unnoticed influence of our western culture—literature, film, music, pop psychology—and its celebration of the unfettered individual. (Chapter 1 of Jonathan Leeman’sThe Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love is helpful for tracing out examples of this influence.)
Thanks for your post. I belonged to a church in Northern Ireland for ten years that practiced concepts like authority, exclusivity, and discipline which resulted in several people losing their faith and leaving most of the rest in spiritual pain and brokeness. The motives of the leadership was a reaction to what they felt was the too free and easy approach found in the other churches. It did not work out well at all. The church became elitist, self righteous and exclusive while at the same time bringing the members into a bondage which was cult like. The Lord stepped in and brought it to an end with the elders repenting of sins such as using their position to manipulate and control others and taking glory which was the Lord’s, among other things. Jesus is the shepherd of the church and undershepherds must always remember that. They must be willing to lay down their lives for the flock, not the other way round! This is what makes me very concerned with the new authoritarian churches which are springing up because I can see them falling apart in perhaps 5-10 years time. Take care how you go.
Ryan wrote:
We have to learn psychology folks. WE HAVE TO!!!! We need to learn about destructive personality types such as narcissists and psychopaths and superficial people and keep them away from our churches. We need to make life difficult for such personalities. Otherwise, they will destroy Christianity.
Hmmmm. I’m guessing their deflection is…. Nouthetic Counseling. Interesting how all the pieces fit together once one starts to look into the fishbowl from outside it.
@ Andrew Kenny:
Thank you. That’s a good history lesson.
@ Ken J Garrett:
Ken — I think you and the rest of us are on a similar wavelength. There’s no doubt that membership is a good thing (and maybe necessary) for entering legal or financial contracts.
But the Gospel Coalition article by Matt McCullough that Dee/Deb are referring to (
Here’s the TGC article.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/06/26/wendell-berry-and-the-beauty-of-membership/?comments#comments) basically says that only bad people resist becoming a member of a church …
1. You aren’t a member because you cannot deny yourself (paragraph 3 of the TGC article).
2. You aren’t a member because you are self-centered (Para 3)
3. You aren’t a member because you aren’t willing to sacrifice yourself to help your neighbors (para 5)
4. You aren’t a member because you have an exalted self-image (para 8-9)
5. You go to other churches because you want to make a statement about who you are. (para 13). [I guess they don’t think you are looking for a church that offers a loving community that reflects the way God is working in your life.]
That’s what I and others object to. (We also object to Wendell Berry’s much loved novel being co-opted to say something he probably disagrees with.)
Ken J Garrett wrote:
I agree with you. I found this out the hard way, in fact. For reasons I don’t want to go into I find myself stuck at a church I would much rather leave, but that has been made politically difficult through no fault of my own, except this: Because there is no means whereby to declare a commitment to this assembly via formal membership there is also no means to declare a more casual stance either. There is no way to measure “in” or “out” except by showing up or not. Therefore, it was not mutually understood between me and my spouse that this was a nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live here. And I’m not so sure about the nice place to visit part, either. The reason it was not understood is because I could not put my finger on exactly why I didn’t like it and he does not like to shop for anything let alone a church, so since I didn’t have to say one way or the other, I didn’t. Until it was, I won’t say too late because I’m not defeatist, but I will say that conversation should have happened much earlier and while I should have taken the initiative anyway, I could have used the help of needing to decide on membership or not to make it happen.
Well, let’s just say things have gone from bad to worse and now it is very difficult to leave (and there is still the question of where we would go, but that is another issue) due to reasons beyond my control, though in that case I did make my feelings known.
Had we had to make a decision whether or not to join, that would have forced the conversation I thought I could semi-comfortably avoid and we might be in a much better position now because there is no way on God’s green earth I would ever formally join this church, and I never would have at any point along the continuum. So now it is harder to leave this non-membership church than it ever was to leave either of the membership churches I belonged to before. The irony of this is incredibly perverse. But there it is.
On the other side, though, there is membership and there is this Hotel California authoritarianism. So what do we mean when we talk about church membership? I know for myself I have always been comfortable in a congregational ruled membership church with voting, and committees, and nominating committees made up of folks voted onto it by the rest of the congregation, and congregational meetings that are not just one way information sessions. In other words, checks and balances.
@ dee:
Amen!!!
For dark chocolate, a rededication might be in order!!!
@ Ken J Garrett:
Who might those “without” be, according to I Cor 14? The barbarians (foreigners) of v 11, the idiots (unlearned) of v 16, 23, and 24, or some other group? If some other, what is the reference— and where’s the reference to those “within”?
Ken J Garrett wrote:
We do not object to a church having membership requirements based on a set of basic beliefs (think Nicene Creed). We do object to the use of membership requirements to impose ill-defined, legalistic church discipline or to not allow a person to leave a fellowship at will. However, there is a local SBC church with several thousand attendees that does not have membership requirements.
Also, membership requirements are not necessary to conduct legally binding business. Most churches have a board of trustees to take of those requirements. These folks are different from the elders or the members in a congregation.
Ken J Garrett wrote:
Do you think he was discussing those within FBC Daytona and those without who attend Daytona EFC? I believe he was talking about those within the church and those who were not saved. I am not sure he foresaw the day that we would have a bunch of churches vying for the limited number of Christians in a community. That is how churches grow these day. Getting people to switch from one church to the next.
Ken J Garrett wrote:
Who is my neighbor? Is it the landowner?s it the migrant worker who stays for the harvest time only? What about the college student who takes a job in the summer as a lifeguard? The homeless man on the street corner?
Wendell Berry would not be pleased by the authoritarian nature of many of today’s churches and pastors. Can you imagine him approving of a 9 Marks church refusing to let a member quit until they say he can do so? Especially when he did nothing wrong except to disagree with them pushing CJ Mahaney books?
Andrew Kenny wrote:
Awesome comment.
@ Ken J Garrett:
“I think there is wisdom in Paul’s distinction between those “within” and those “without” (cf. 1 Cor 14), and the fact that he wrote most of his letters to a distinct, definable membership (ie, “to the church at Corinth,” or, “the church at Thessalonica,” etc.)”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
perhaps it’s reading too much into things to take Paul’s addressed letters as instructive for the idea of “membership”. I mean, really, “the church at Corinth” was, I imagine, simply people who came to so & so’s house(s) to eat & drink & do something religious (as opposed to dinner party only).
I’m sure we impose 21st century images & ideas of “church” (with all its gloss-on-the outside / complicated-bureaucratic-business-political-tangles on the inside) on 1st century things.
@ dee: Holy Chocolate – bring it!!!
@ elastigirl: Totally agreed.
someone else mentioned people having a consumerist mindset: well, that’s no surprise, since so man evangelical/charismatic churches are actually like fast food franchises in most every respect.
I don’t think elders or elder-recommended leadership is the problem. I happen to belong to such a church, but we have plenty of checks and balances (certain percentage of the congregation need to vote and approve), any non-recommendation from a congregant for a candidate is seriously reviewed, and town hall meetings are conducted where membership suggestions and/or complaints are taken seriously. I have been in some totally congregationally-driven churches where nothing is ever accomplished because people are always voting leadership in or out. I don’t think the church in Acts was a democracy, but Acts 6 and the Jerusalem Council show us that wise leadership listen to their people, pray and take appropriate actions. By the way, I am a member of my church, and although I haven’t always agreed with the leadership, I have never been afraid to approach them with a concern.
anonymous wrote:
The post specifically dealt with stacked elder boards. I will be writing on this in more depth soon. I did not say elders are the problem.
Let me give you an example from real life. We discussed a long standing issue with a pastor in a former church. He disagreed with us which is fine. So my husband said he would bring it to the elder board. The pastor laughed and said the elder board had only disagreed with him 2 times in 28 years. That is a serious problem.
This church had the elders recommend the next batch of elders. Supposedly nominations were taken from the congregation but none of those recommendations were ever accepted. The elders presented the slate to the church membership and the church membership routinely voted for the recommendation. i have yet to ever attend a church meeting in which the slate was ever rejected.
Next situation. The 10 man elder board of a large church is made up of 5 pastors-the lead pastor and 4 other pastors appointed by the lead pastor. The other 5 are elders from the congregation which are recommended by other elders. This system insures a pastor centric system in which the lead pastor will never have any serious challenge.
This perpetuates a pretend representative system which is set up to insure pastor authority. It is frankly a joke.
As for you never being afraid to approach anyone in leadership, I am so glad for you. You are like I was until 6 years ago when I first bumped into an authoritarian. I had no idea such churches existed. I do now and that is why this blog exists.
And the early church was likely a republic like system in which representatives were sent from local churches. The US is a republic, not a democracy.
@ Anon 1:
You know Anon 1,this is all similar to when Jesus beat the moneychangers out of His Father’s temple. As we know, the gospel is not mere merchandise to be bought and sold. One of the few places where the marketplace should apply is in the sale of academic theology resources.
Also, as a political libertarian it puzzles me why people would what freedom from secular government and at the same time want to be under authoritarian rule in church. It is not a consistent belief system.
You mentioned that the church-growth movement is the beginning of this. That is true in part, but the real beginning IMHO is with the charismatic movement, which then infested other parts of evangelicalism. However, others are to blame as well, such as Jack Hyles, and his authoritarianism in the modern fundamentalist movement. There are others too. BTW, have you ever watched the documentary about Marjoe Gortner? You see in that documentary how back in the late 60’s & early 70’s it was all about money.
anonymous wrote:
The problem is that we confuse the word “elder” as used in scripture with the Western concept of leadership. A true elder would look like a huge loser to the world and sadly, most Christians in the West.
dee wrote:
Great point.
I have been in a ton of elder led churches from megas to medium size and have never seen one yet where the pew sitters were actually informed and had input. Some of the nominations and votes were like political campaigns. Some were nominated by existing elders who rotated off.
However, I have been in congregational churches that operated well because every single member was considered equal and an adult able to make choices and give input. Yes some contentious business meetings but a vote was respected.
I will never ever again check my brains at the door in an elder ruled er…led… church. Ever. And that is because I have seen too many who think elder is the same thing as the Western concept of leader as a chain of command. I have also known a ton of elders and I am wracking my brain to think of just one who was actually “spiritually mature”. At most mega’s elder boards are made up of the local businessman club.
@ numo:
consumerist mindset… churches like franchises…
with Chuck E. Cheese or Ronald McDonald himself on the big screen for all the glassy-eyed minions to gaze at and say “Whoooooah”.
Well, what does anybody expect, what with the silly format & all? I mean, the minions show up Sunday morning (or Saturday night), take their same seat as always, and simply receive. Is there really any other opportunity BUT to consume??
Sure, the chosen ones get to play instruments and sing and pray and make announcements, and the lead so & so drums up something to talk about (I’m afraid we’ve all heard it all before — all of it).
But 99% of the minions simply receive and consume because that is the only reason they are wanted in the first place. The salaried dockers and polo shirts need someones to consume their wares after all. And the more minion consumer someones, the more evidence. Evidence of success. Justification.
“Welcome! Come in! Now sit down and shut up.”
Numo
Those “within” get the best chocolate.
dee wrote:
(This is a different anonymous than the one Dee is responding to. I wrote the comment above about being trapped in a non-membership church.)
Dee,
It sounds like this system is only representative to the degree the elders/pastors represent each other. They are not representative of the congregation at all, since the congregation had no say in putting them where they are.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1, I completely agree with everything you said here.
This is the whole thing right here:
However, I have been in congregational churches that operated well because every single member was considered equal and an adult able to make choices and give input. Yes some contentious business meetings but a vote was respected.
I’ll take a contentious business meeting over being told how it is any day of the week.
anonymous 8:58AM
It is interesting that those who participate in this system would claim that the elders/pastors are accountable to the congregation because they have some sort of vote on the preselected elder slate.In the politica world, I rarely vote in the primaries in which there is only one candidate from my party for a particular slot. It is frankly a waste of time. Why bother in the church? To pretend I have input?
I have never been involved in a congregation in which the slate for elders has been contested. Of course, they pretend to ask the congregation for input into the character of the individualsm prior to the vote, but that has already been vetted. They do the same things in the wedding. “Anyone here hasve any reason why these two should not join in marriage?” They like to call this unity. I call it secular boardsmanship. And it is effective. How many of those reading this comment have ever seen a presented slate voted down?
I was a member of a church in which people routinely submitted names for elder but the names were never considered because the elders knew better. In other words, even though you know that Joe the plumber would be a better elder, Harrison von Smythe, the head of the local bank, is the obvious choice since he throws money around and hires private jets for the pastor or makes sure the pastors and elders get a special interest rate on their homes, etc.
In my opinion, the congregation is totally marginalized in this process. And this is to the detriment of the church. These churches ignore 1 Corinthians 12 which is often viewed as a pesky chapter that is to be overcome with more important theology dealing with authority and discipline.
I am planning on discussing my concerns with this system in coming post.
The mega-church of which I was a member submitted a slate of elders for congregational “ratification”, and gave two weeks before the vote to comment as to their character. Most of the time it was just the same men recycled after their mandatory year off the board. In my last two years there we finally started to see some new names on the slate, but I for one had no idea who they were. I knew of nothing about them that would disqualify them, but by the same token I knew nothing about them whereby I could have confidence in their fitness for leadership. I usually voted “no” in these cases, but I knew it would only be a symbolic gesture since most of the congregation had been conditioned to trust the elders.
anonymous wrote:
Amen. I was actually thrilled to leave the elder rule…er led system to attend my first contentious business meeting at an SBC congregational polity church. I studied the budget before the meeting (I only got to see the budget at megas because of my position…most pew sitters NEVER see a budget) and ask questions. Since the questions are expected no one is offended to explain things. We voted on pedantic things like new faucets for one of the men’s restrooms and then voted on donating our church van to a needy family. We discussed mission projects and voted on budgeting for some new ones. What joy! To be considered an adult part of the Body capable of input and making decisions. The pastor did not lead the meeting and only spoke when offering explanations as other staffers did. He gets a vote, though. :o) Just one of the priesthood. LOVE IT!!!
I will never go back to a dictatorship church ever again. Tip: Never join a church that won’t let you see a budget up front. As believers we must be transparent as a Body.
@ Lee:
Lee, The most bizarro world experience I had with a mega was when a candidate for elder had bumper stickers made up for his elder”ship” campaign. He won. How else do you get your name out to 20,000 people?
@ dee:
‘Ken J Garrett wrote:
I think there is wisdom in Paul’s distinction between those “within” and those “without”
Do you think he was discussing those within FBC Daytona and those without who attend Daytona EFC? I believe he was talking about those within the church and those who were not saved.’
**** I had similar thoughts, wondering whether Paul would want Chloe’s household to think of Stephanus’ household as “without”. Or whether he’d want the Apollos faction to think of the Peter faction as “without”. Last night I asked Ken about where this “within” and “without” are found in I Cor 14 (I apologize for my sharp tone). They are not there! They’re in I Cor 5– and only there (i’m pretty sure) in all of Paul’s writing. Unless– and I think this is what Ken was doing– unless you’re reading the ESV! The ESV translates the Greek “Idiot” in Ch 14 as “outsider”, unlike all the other versions, which have unlearned, ungifted, uninformed, simple etc. Back to I Cor 5– it gives us the reverse way to try to apply Ken’s distinction. When Paul commanded Mama’s Boy to be put “without”, did he mean “without” the Chloe household or the Paul faction only, since that’s where he’d signed up as “member”? Of course not. He wanted him put out of all Christian households and factions in Corinth! God judges those “without” (and often restores).
Dee also wrote ‘Who is my neighbor? Is it the landowner?s it the migrant worker who stays for the harvest time only? What about the college student who takes a job in the summer as a lifeguard? The homeless man on the street corner?’
**** A few weeks ago on the Justin Taylor blog, one guy was pushing that your neighbor is ONLY someone in your same “faith community”. He even demanded to know if any scriptures indicated otherwise. TW, bless his soul, quoted at least a dozen of them. The fellow proceeded to explain every single one of them away!
@ Anon 1:
The same tip should go for the membership document: never join a church that won’t let you see a constitution up front. I was browsing the 9 Marks church locator when I found a church led by a member of my former congregation. I called him to ask for a copy of the membership constitution, because i had a problem with something in our current churches’ document, and he wouldnt give it to me. I hate to say it, but I no longer can trust what he says. My husband says its a sales tactic, waiting until you join to give you the full story. His words are “what are you trying to hide?”
dee wrote:
Given human nature as it is, I have serious doubts that the early apostolic church was the fuzzy feel good entity that our romantic notions of the Western dream would contrive it to be.
In my opinion, the U.S. is not, nor has it ever been a democracy or a republic, but rather a more or less benevolent oligarchy. And that was the true genius and legacy of our founders, they crafted machinery (government) able to restrain, and yet to a certain degree entertain our predatory nature as humans.
Lee wrote:
I may use your comment in a post next week. Good for you!
Dave A A wrote:
Great comment! Dave A A wrote:
I followed that comment thread. You cannot and will not win with these folks. They *know* they are correct. They use the Bible as a proof text for their pet theories.
Many of these churches spend 70%+ for pastors salaries. Then there is the building, expenses, conferences to attend, etc. There is precious little left over to care for “the least of these.” So, it is far easier to explain them all away. Therefor, you can appear biblical while increasing retention bonuses for the big guy.
@ Anon 1: At least another name was getting out. Weird, but effective. 🙂
Muff Potter wrote:
There is much truth to what you say. i often wonder if the megachurch member would have survived in the early church. And what would Driscoll have done without his Bose speakers and home theater?
Anon 1 wrote:
LOL
And in most of those “elder-led” churches, the “elders” are rarely informed or have input. They are merely window dressing for public consumption to create the illusion of “accountability.” Their main function is to rubber-stamp the decisions of the lead “vision-caster” and lend him a veneer of credibility.
dee wrote:
It was true back then and it holds true now:
…The weak are the meat which the strong do eat…
dee wrote (quoting DaveAA who was talking about another guy):
Holy Cow. 😯
That flies in the face of how Jesus taught the concept. A neighbor is anyone and everyone who needs your help.
That was rather the point in Jesus using the Samaritan as being the good guy in his story of how all the religious, pious, supposedly upstanding Jewish guys walked past the injured guy on the road.
Jesus chose to make the Samaritan (Samaritans being were very disliked by Jews) as being the one guy who did the right thing, while all the Jewish guys walked by and did nothing to help.
@ dee:
I asked an elder with whom I can do such things who the elder board is accountable to. He said the congregation. I said, “how?” He couldn’t answer that one. All he could say was it doesn’t work if you don’t have good men in the positions. But that is true no matter what the polity is. There is no polity that can completely protect against bad men (or women).
In my situation it is weird. They resolutely REFUSE to allow for the congregation to vote, so instead the elders went around asking everyone in the congregation to see how they would receive a pastoral candidate they were considering because they didn’t want to call someone the congregation didn’t want. I mean, that’s great on the one hand, but, you know, a vote would have taken care of that in one fell swoop. However, God forbid….
But here’s the rub. I was present for a conversation between an elder and a congregant where the congregant preferred another candidate. The elder proceeded to “sell” the desired candidate to the congregant. Sigh. 🙁
@ Anon 1:
I know! Isn’t it awesome to actually be able to say “I want this needy couple to have this van. I vote to give it to them.”? It really makes you feel like you have a part in the church, like it’s your church and you are responsible for it. Not to mention the importance of acting on your conscience. Plus, I always found the business meetings extremely helpful in learning where people are on something and why. You get a really good sense of who has a good head for what and can sort of pre screen in your own mind who would be good in what positions.
anonymous wrote:
You are making my point for me. The congregation is not involved but the elders and pastor pretend that they are.
Dee wrote:
So very very true. At my old church I was nominated and elected to be on the finance committee. This team of financially sophisticated people *thought* it would have a say, but we quickly learned we were there to rubber-stamp whatever the pastor wanted. We spoke up. We raised our voices. We questioned transparency. We whispered in the parking lot. We knew that we would end up in orange jumpsuits if we ever tried to pull the same stunts at a major corporation. But we got nowhere even after years. About half of us have left the church. That loss of tithe money was minor compared to the loss of visionary and godly lay leaders.
@ Daisy:
He calls our *mis*understanding of the parable “Stealing from Christ to give to the devil’s children”.
One *minor* problem with this is— WE simply don’t and can’t know WHO exactly is a “true believer”, to borrow his words, nor who may someday become one. Even if we only help “committed” people in our own local church, chances are one or two of them are really “the devil’s children” in disguise. At least I’ve known one or two. So before you give to someone or help someone you’ve got to sort out just who those tares are, who might be ANYONE. Then you may have an unbelieving spouse or child or parent. To support them or give them anything would be “stealing from Christ”.
@ Muff Potter:
Indeed. I do wonder what would ensue if we were somehow able to put time-travelling “bugs” (webcams, etc.) in places where the early church met and then spy on them. somehow, I think our fantasies about how perfect it was back then would end up in smithereens – very quickly, in fact.
@ dee: He would yell, just like he does now!
@ Daisy:
I wasn’t going to say anything but then, I couldn’t help myself. I read the piece you referenced and, as usual, the writer doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Boxing is about strength, skill, and endurance. People who write this kind of piece are always oging on about “biblical feminiity” or God-given feminiity” or femininity in general. I would like, just once for one of these “godly” fellows to define their terms.
What you should do if you find out the new church you are attending is authoritarian: run away.
And I Ran So Far Away, All Night And Day (music video) 🙂
Daisy wrote:
Exactly. Besides you won’t be missing anything you’d get at a non-authoritarian church, except excessive grief.
Dave A A wrote:
I’m afraid it’s worse than that in some churches. Here is how it works: your “neighbor” is someone from your own local church, aka your spiritual family which takes priority over your blood relatives, your next door neighbor and even other Christians b/c they don’t attend your “church.”
ForgivenMuch wrote:
You’ve nailed it. This sort of thinking has its roots in the shepherding model from the 70s
I think somebody decided that a church is like a business more than anything. And when you are in the business of having the most people be members and have you maintain control some great tools are guilt fear and the threat of losing the most meaningful things to you.
churches where you cant leave?—–welcome to the hotel california…..