No statement should be believed because it is made by an authority.
Robert A. Heinlein link
Captain Sully-He commands respect!
When Campus Crusade for Christ changed their name to CRU, people were stymied. What did it mean? Nothing, really. The leaders said that since it meant nothing, the Crusade staff could infill it with their own meaning. I propose that church leaders and pastors are doing the same thing with words such as complementarian, church discipline and authority. I will be writing more on church discipline and the law in the next week. In the meantime, here is one post we wrote on ill-defined church discipline a couple of months ago.
Complementarian doctrine is equally difficult for even complementarian women to define. For example, Mary Kassian, in this post claims to be the progenitor of the complementarian movement and says that being complementarian has nothing to do with homemaking. This leads me to believe that the complementarian movement boils down to no female pastors and elders and the man gets the tie breaking vote in a marriage. So why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on conferences and books on the matter?
Which leaves me to discuss authority in this post. Authority is defined as (Bing Dictionary):
right to command: the right or power to enforce rules or give orders
holder of power: somebody or something with official power
power given to somebody: power to act on behalf of somebody else, or official permission to do something
Therefore, someone who has authority is also the definer of rules, can give orders, has power and/or has the power to act on behalf of someone else. However, unless one lives in a totalitarian country, authority is limited by laws and guidelines. For example, the police have the right to stop you from speeding. However, they cannot tell you that you cannot move to Florida, brag about the fish you caught last week or that you can only drive with same gender in your car.
Problems arise when church leadership does not define the parameters of their authority. They just have "it," whatever "it" is.
Julie Anne Smith link, Spiritual Sounding Board wrote two posts 9Marks: Church Authority over Church Members link and 9Marks, Spiritual Abuse, and How Church Members Can Fall Through the Cracks link. She quoted the following "authoritarian" pronouncement from a 9Marks post titled: Pastors, Don't Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air link. First Julie Anne says:
I would first like to address an overall tone that I find prevalent at 9Marks. What do you think an average church member will think when they read that title? Look at the word “let” – it implies that a pastor is the one who decides, not the congregant. Once again, pretend you are a congregant when reading the following excerpts and see if you can read an underlying tone that church leaders own church members:
Then she quotes from the article.
WHY YOU CAN’T LET PEOPLE RESIGN INTO THIN AIR
When your church made that person a member, you were declaring to the world that this person belongs to the kingdom of Jesus (Mt. 16:18-19). By regarding this person as a member, your church affirmed that he is indeed a “brother” in Christ (1 Cor. 5:11-13).
If someone tries to resign mid-process in order to “escape discipline,” should the church just let them go? Of course not. That would defeat the whole point of church discipline. Instead, the church must retain the right to refuse someone’s resignation and send them out another way—through excommunication.
The upshot of all this is that a church should not accept a member’s resignation who is not doing what Christians do—in this case, regularly assemble with a church.
9Marks: The local church has the keys to authority
It is imperative to understand that 9Marks believe that they hold the "keys to authority" via the local church. What does this mean? Let's look at it in their words from a post called Church and Church Independence.
The church, meaning a local church, holds the keys to excommunication, remove someone from membership, receive people into membership, pick pastors and adopt a statement of faith.
The theological champions at the Westminster Assembly spent several days debating who in the post-apostolic age holds the keys that Jesus originally gave to Peter (Matt. 16:19), since they understood that the keys represent, at the very least, the power of excommunication. And the power of excommunication is the highest authority in a church, just as the power of the sword is the highest authority in a nation. All power in a nation derives from the authority to end a life, and, in the same way, all power in the church derives from the authority to remove someone from membership, including the authority to receive members, pick pastors, or adopt a statement of faith. Whoever has the power of excommunication has the power to do those other things, or at least to decide who does.
Staring down at Matthew 18:15-20, I would argue with the dissenters that Jesus places the keys squarely in the hands of the local church—wherever two or three are formally gathered in his name.
Then we learn that another key to the kingdom is teaching and oversight (another loaded term) which is found in the elders. Then he discusses some vague key belonging to the congregation.
Later in the New Testament, we learn that elders should be set apart for teaching and oversight, which suggests they ordinarily lead the church in using those keys. I would even say the church needs the elders to responsibly wield the keys. But finally the keys belong to the entire congregation. No text in the New Testament explicitly links the oversight of the elders with the keys of the kingdom in the manner that Matthew 18 so clearly links the keys with the whole assembly. Elder authority is real, but it is a different kind of authority than congregational authority.
These keys represent the authority to build the church on earth on behalf of Jesus.
I have argued elsewhere that the keys represent the authority to build the church on earth on Jesus’ behalf by declaring what and who belong to the kingdom of heaven—what is a right confession of the gospel, and who is a right confessor. Certainly, preaching is highly related to the exercise of the keys, and could even be said to form an implicit part of their exercise.
The church gets to decide who is a true confessor of the faith and who is a "citizen of the kingdom of heaven."
But, strictly speaking, I would argue that the exercise of the keys is the pronouncing of a judgment. It is a legal or judicial binding or loosing. It is a church’s decision about what constitutes a right confession and who is a true confessor.
In other words, the keys are put into practice whenever
a church decides upon a confession of faith that will bind all church members,
a church admits a member,
a church excludes a member.The holder of the keys—the church—is being called upon to assess a person’s life and profession of faith and then to make a heavenly sanctioned and public pronouncement affirming or denying the person’s citizenship in the kingdom and inclusion in the church.
Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the means by which the church controls the membership. If they say you are not in, you cannot be baptized or take the Lord's Supper.
In the same way, the independent authority of the local church makes the rule of Christ’s kingdom visible on planet earth as it exercises the keys, which it does through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The ordinances are what make the receiving and dismissing of members by the authority of the keys visible. Call them Christian passports.
Only the local church can dispense the Lord's Supper.
Christians should belong to local churches. Christians do not have the authority to declare themselves Jesus’ representatives. The church has this authority, which it ordinarily exercises by dispensing the Lord’s Supper to its members. (Which is not to say that church cannot provide the Lord’s Supper to visiting members of other churches for the sake of acknowledging the wider body of Christ.) Plus, maintaining the credibility of one’s profession of faith requires a believer to remain under the oversight of a church.
9Marks in a post called Regulative Jazz says that the local church gets to decide what the gospel is and who is a gospel citizen.
The gathered local church is authorized in Matthew 16, 18, and 28 by Christ’s keys of the kingdom to make an international declaration about a what and a who: what is the gospel, and who is a gospel citizen?
But, how is this authority applied in real life?
This all sound nice and orderly, doesn't it? However, the devil is in the details. How does one define said authority and to what is it applied? The following is a list of true circumstances. They show the real problems of not defining the rules of the game when it comes to authority.
- A pastor, along with his buddies, the elders, suddenly decided to tear up the church constitution and make everyone reapply for membership. Some people have been devoted "gospel believing" members for years and helped to build the church which is now being redefined. Hundreds leave the church.
- A pastor does not declare his intent to change the entire church structure. He was hired with the belief that he supported the current church polity. When he tries to change it, he declares all those who disagree with him, "unregenerate." Said "unregenerates" are not. They love the Lord but disagreed with the former pastor.
- Church members decides that they disagree with the church leadership which supports and sells the books of a pastor with whom they deeply disagree. They make their theological disagreement known. They are not allowed to resign from the church until they "join" another church. They wish to resign as a matter of conscience. The pastors refuse to remove their names from membership.
- Several members resign from a church due to the mishandling of sexual abuse case and decide to join another church. The former pastor calls the current pastor and claims they have left their church under a cloud. The new pastor, a closet buddy of the former pastor does not let them join the new church.
- A woman repents of a sin and makes reparations. She is not allowed to take communion at her church because she must first apply to become a member to do so.
- A pastor tells other pastors to never, ever admit that they are a Calvinist to a search committee.
- A small group which has been meeting together for years celebrates communion several times a year. They are now told they cannot do so because they have members from other churches and only churches can do communion.
- Small groups are told they cannot study the Bible. They must teach from the books written by their pastor.
- A pastor in a certain groups of churches declares two members to be full of pride and declares they cannot take communion for 6 months.
- A pastor, when asked how he came up with his interpretation of a particular passage, declares that the person asking the question has the sin of "sinfully craving answers."
- Two churches in the same town disagree on the issue of baptism. Since both have the keys to authority to declare a statement of faith, and both have differing views, did one of them pick the lock and sneak in? Or are there many paths up the mountain of authority? For that matter, with many, many denominations, who does, and does not, get the keys. Do they all get it and does that mean the majority of them are totally screwing it up?
Jonathan Leeman attempts to define good authority.
Jonathan Leeman attempts to define authority over at Julie Anne's blog here. He does recognize that there are abusive church "out there." His answer falls flat because he continues to talk in esoteric terms. Authority, without well defined parameters, can, and will usually, result in abuse. I would be willing to bet that Leeman only needs to look at his own group of churches to find examples of authority gone wrong.
What’s worth recognizing, I think, is that in Genesis 1:28, God places authority into the hands of human beings. In subsequent passages, he places authority into the hands of people possessing specific institutional roles or offices (e.g. government, parent, pastor, church). Now, each one of these offices can be used for good or for ill. The tragic thing is, we often use them for ill. We “misapply” them, as you say. And that’s the story of humanity. God gives us a tool to build a house, but we use that tool to hit someone on the head.
Now, I would like to argue that the biblical solution is to learn to use authority well–to pursue a “redeemed authority.” You might disagree with me, and that’s okay. And you’d certainly be right to warn me about all the possible dangers of redeemed authority. Warn away! But hopefully this helps you to understand where I’m coming from. Look at the last words of David in 2 Samuel 23:3-4. There you have a picture of the life-giving effect of good authority. Authority should AUTHOR life. It should create, empower, embolden others, not diminish them. That’s how God has used his authority–to create. So should we. A good coach helps his team members run faster. A good mother helps her children grow in the knowledge of the Lord. A good pastor helps his members walk in the freedom of righteousness.
Part of having authority, moreover, means applying Scripture into the specific situations of life. So the Bible says nothing about bedtimes. But the authority of a parent means they get to decide a child’s bedtime. The Bible says nothing about service times, but someone has to make that decision. This is where we enter the difficult territory of wisdom. It’s easy to take the Fundamentalist’s approach by trying to codify everything in rules; and it’s easy to take the Individualist’s approach, and say that everyone should do what seems best in his or her own eyes. But I think the better (and harder) path is the middle one, which establishes the few structures that the Bible puts in place, and then which tries to walk the path of wisdom which requires us to take much of life on a case by case basis. That means I avoid words like “always,” as in “In such and such a situation, a parent/pastor/prince must always…”
We are left with the question…what is authority? I leave you with some thoughts on authority that I wrote about 5 years ago.
If You Must Demand Authority, You Don't Have It.
There are individuals in our lives who COMMAND authority, while there are others who, unfortunately, must DEMAND authority. I have been in churches where pastors pound the pulpit, insisting that worshippers look intently at them and listen carefully to what they are saying. I have heard these preachers stridently claim to have “authority” over their church members. One pastor even informed a friend that he (the pastor) was like a “parent” while my friend was like his “child.” There are growing reports of pastors declaring absolute authority over their congregations, disbanding deacon boards, and disciplining church members who dare to question their actions. Note: such pastors must TELL us they are in charge because, for some reason, we don’t seem to recognize their authority as described in the Scriptures. Are we just rebellious children? Are we not following Scripture? Or is the issue far deeper?
When Bill Clinton was serving as President, Mother Teresa visited the United States and was asked to address a joint session of Congress. This diminutive, wrinkled lady spoke of her work amongst the desperately poor. Then she addressed the sacredness of life and the evils of abortion. Members of Congress spontaneously rose to their feet to give her a standing ovation, and the pro-abortion President and Mrs.Clinton were forced to follow suit. Why? Although Bill Clinton was the President of the United States, Mother Teresa had lived her life in service to the destitute.
Mother Teresa had no money, no fancy houses, and no admiring congregation. When people wanted to meet her, they would have to travel to the poorest sections of the world where they would find her comforting the abject poor. She never once had to pound a lectern and insist that people listen to her. They hung onto her every word, mesmerized. She never had to inform others that she was in charge; yet, the most influential leaders in the world begged for an audience with her. People just naturally followed her. They recognized this tiny woman had no ulterior motive. She was called to love and serve.
Then, there is Almighty God. The immortal took on our mortality. The Creator walked among His creation. And His creation flocked to hear Him speak. Materially, He lived a simple life. He didn’t have a huge church building with a fancy sound system. His followers were not part of an established power structure – they were just non-influential townspeople and fishermen. Yet, crowds surrounded Him wherever He went.
In spite of His apparent lack of social position, those in power feared Him. The religious leaders realized that Jesus easily usurped their authority, and it frustrated them to no end. He didn’t do things the way they had always been done. He even called some of them “snakes” and rebuked them for burdening His people with unnecessary rules. He scorned them for lording their power over those whom they were called to serve; however, even those who despised Jesus were drawn to Him. They just had to see this carpenter who came from the wrong side of the tracks and who was magnetically attracting the masses.
As Jesus Christ died on the cross, He did not demand that others look at Him. He did not lecture spectators about His authority… this Man, King of the Universe. He even spoke kindly to a thief on an adjacent cross. Yet generations follow Him. Why? Because Jesus had no ulterior motive. He did not seek power and wealth. He simply and beautifully loved His people and gave His life for them.
If you are in a church with leaders who insist you follow them, you can be certain they are not in the center of God’s will. The appropriate response would be to leave! If you are in church with leaders who are distant, demanding, and arrogant, please don’t tolerate such ungodly behavior. Leave! Find a pastor who draws you by his sacrificial service to his flock. Find a pastor who would rush into a burning building to save your life. Find a pastor who knows the names of the non-influential members of his church. Such godly pastors are out there because I have known some of these great men of God.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 17:1-18:34 Romans 9:25-10:13 Psalm 20:1-9 Proverbs 20:2-3
Has anyone seen the old, old Twilight Zone tv episode? The one titled “To Serve Man”? Aliens land on earth. They do lots of good. They convince humans they are here to serve mankind. That’s the title of the book they give to the UN, written in their Kanamit language. But Patti continues to decode the book & learns the book is actually…. a cookbook.
Sends shivers down my spine.
http://vimeo.com/37778819
@ A Mom: That is my favorite episode of all time. I have giggled more than once listening to a certain preacher who likes to tell his people how he serves them….and he does. He serves them up, well done.
Excellent article, Dee.
I love your illustrations of Mother Theresa and Jesus – that their authority commanded (not in an ordered fashion, but by their loving presence) a crowd voluntarily. I’ve talked a lot about this issue recently with regard to the husband/wife relationship in which a husband demands his wife to submit.
It really is not true submission if a wife obeys her husband’s demands to submit because that is not the real meaning of the word. Submission cannot be demanded. It is only given. I think true submission is the result of true authority, authority that lays one’s life down for another in love and devotion.
I am so glad I’;m an Anglican. We have our problems (yes indeedy) but we don’t have this thing called ‘membership’ and we have freedom to come and go. After having been in a housechurch whose leaders thought they could sort out my life for me, I actually said to my Anglican rector that I really liked it that his authority had boundaries (yep, I’m the kind of person who’d say that to a clergyman!) he had a lot of authority over how the church service/programmes run, but no say on what happened outside the church building, or at least no more authority than anyone else. As I put it, if he had concerns I would listen to him as I would listen (I hope) to any brother or sister, but I wouldn’t feel bound by anything he said, I am an adult and I make up my own mind.
Much of 9Marks’ material is nothing more then a Calvinist version of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It’s not about Christ, it’s about political power. The SBC is the first target for takeover.
“Two churches in the same town disagree on the issue of baptism. Since both have the keys to authority to declare a statement of faith, and both have differing views, did one of them pick the lock and sneak in? Or are there many paths up the mountain of authority? For that matter, with many, many denominations, who does, and does not, get the keys. Do they all get it and does that mean the majority of them are totally screwing it up?”
This was a huge deal for me when I became Christian and was figuring out which church to join. Churches/Pastors teach “the truth,” claiming they area lead by the Holy Spirit. Why would the Holy Spirit lead pastors to teach different or opposing beliefs about matters of salvation (baptism, communion, etc.)? How do you figure out which one is correct? Never made sense to me…still doesn’t.
“YOU! WILL! RESPECT! MAH! AUTHORITAH!!!!!” (sound of nightstick against skull and/or genitals)
— Cartman from South Park the short time he was a cop
Dee,
I have no doubt this is by far the single most dangerous thing facing Christians in this country today. I can easily see how this could lead to another dark ages if it gains enough traction.
It was you or Deb that recommended a book about America that had been taken over and divided into two sections: the “Christian” Apalatia, and the secular rest of the country. It was profoundly difficult to escape Apalatia and severe persecution was assured to anyone who did not toe the line. I don’t remember the name of the book. It scared me too much and I got rid of it. But here we have the embryo of it happening with these groups.
Find a pastor who draws you by his sacrificial service to his flock. Find a pastor who would rush into a burning building to save your life. Find a pastor who knows the names of the non-influential members of his church. Such godly pastors are out there because I have known some of these great men of God.
Amen! Preach it!
Now where do I find such a person? The elders at my former FIC church certainly didn’t meet this criteria. The Methodist church we’ve been visiting since the fall just got two new pastors (the youth pastor is still there). Unfortunately, my first impression of the one that gave the sermon two weeks ago wasn’t very good. He had that stereotypical pastor feel/pattern of speech about him. When he mentioned his dad, grandpa, and uncles were all pastors, I wasn’t impressed. My thought was, “Another man who may have grown up isolated from the world.”
@ formerly anonymous: Ah yes, Broken Angel by Sigmund Brouwer Loved that book.
Is this Mark Dever in today’s evangelical climate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx4jn77VKlQ
formerly anonymous wrote:
A lot of the quotes Dee used reminded me of the Catholic Church’s insistence on their interpretation and authority being the only legitimate ones. For example, “When your church made that person a member, you were declaring to the world that this person belongs to the kingdom of Jesus.”. This quote makes it sound like non-members aren’t part of God’s kingdom.
This whole post reminds me of a debate I read on a forum about a Catholic woman who was very unhappy with the Catholic Church. All sorts of women said they’d never leave the Catholic Church, no matter what, because only they have the Eucharist.
Christians of other flavors spoke up that they, too have communion and some from certain denominations said they even believe in the “real presence” of Jesus in the bread and wine. That didn’t matter. One Catholic responded with something along the lines of “It doesn’t matter what you believe about communion. Only Catholic and Orthodox churches offer the real Eucharist because the bread and wine only are transubstantiated by priests because they have secret knowledge of how to do it. You Lutherans and other Protestants are out of luck. Your communion doesn’t count because your pastors didn’t learn the secret method that was passed down for two thousand years.”
Jonathan Leeman is not a favourite of mine!!His statement “Stop calling yourself a Christian if you’re making a habit of living independently from the local church”, was given in a sermon by our former pastor after we had left. I guess he had it on “good authority” that we were no longer Christians! Unbelievable.
dee wrote:
Yeah. That one. What made you love it? I actually had a hard time with it and couldn’t finish it.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
That was the idea, I’m sure. In order to be in Christ, you have to be in a church. I mean, according to them.
No they don’t. If they did, he wouldn’t able to say this:
When was the last time a parishioner preached in a 9Marks church?
@ John: Respect my authoritah!
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Do you think it is a secret handshake or a code word?
Another one wrote:
They have to jump up and down and demand that you do it their way. It is a real yawner. If they were truly loving and servants to those who came, they might actually command respect.
@ formerly anonymous: The ending was beautiful. Did you skip ahead to see how it ends? It makes up for the hard stuff.
@ dee:
No, I didn’t. I’m kind of glad to hear that though as it was really rough going there for a while.
Being an authority is like being cool:
if you really are, you don’t have to say so.
You will respect my authoritah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch=authoritah
.
Sorry.
Try this: http://youtu.be/gx4jn77VKlQ
@ HoppyTheToad:
Oh boy, does that Catholic have it wrong about the secrets. Sounds like that particular individual was not catechesis very well or at all. Unfortunately, that’s a problem among many Catholics.
With regards to the Eucharist, Catholics and the Orthodox have what is called Apostolic Succession where we can trace the lineage of our bishops and pipes back to the original Apostles. And yes, Catholive/Orthodox.require a literal belief that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. You have to believe and assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church before you can become Catholic let alone receivers Eucharist.
However, that does not mean people outside the Catholic/Orthodox Churches cannot hold to.a literal belief in the Eucharist. I know Lutheran’s can. Catholics/ Orthodox have a closed communion because of above. It’s also why Catholics cannot receive communion outside the Catholic Church. But there is NO secret.means of transubstantion (I’m not going worry about the spelling right). All our stuff is out in the open.
I think a lot of people (in general) confuse authority and power. I have simple was that I came up with years ago:
Authority come from without/outside a person and is given to that person.
Power comes from within.
Some people can have authority without power and some people can have power without authority.
Everything on the bullet list was troubling, but this one stood out for me:
“Small groups are told they cannot study the Bible. They must teach from the books written by their pastor.”
Jonathan Leeman:
“What’s worth recognizing, I think, is that in Genesis 1:28, God places authority into the hands of human beings.”
I’m so glad he clarified because I was under the impression God gave authority to walruses or lemurs. 🙂
It’s interesting Leeman uses the bedtime analogy, as though to suggest (most likely unintentionally, but it is still there) that pew sitters are little children.
And reading farther down the page:
“One pastor even informed a friend that he (the pastor) was like a “parent” while my friend was like his “child.” ”
😯 That preacher cut right to it- ‘I’m the grown up, you’re the child, so I’m in charge.’
Daisy,
Check Jonathan Leeman’s comments out on Julie Anne’s blog.
Part of one of his comments:
“I’m sympathetic with what you’re saying. What’s worth recognizing, I think, is that in Genesis 1:28, God places authority into the hands of human beings. In subsequent passages, he places authority into the hands of people possessing specific institutional roles or offices (e.g. government, parent, pastor, church).”
“Part of having authority, moreover, means applying Scripture into the specific situations of life. So the Bible says nothing about bedtimes. But the authority of a parent means they get to decide a child’s bedtime. The Bible says nothing about service times, but someone has to make that decision. This is where we enter the difficult territory of wisdom.”
“But I think the better (and harder) path is the middle one, which establishes the few structures that the Bible puts in place, and then which tries to walk the path of wisdom which requires us to take much of life on a case by case basis. That means I avoid words like “always,” as in “In such and such a situation, a parent/pastor/prince must always…””
He uses the parent-child analogy when speaking of the pastor-congregant relationship.
Yup. You got it. Church. Pastor. Parent. Throw prince in there for good measure. Government as well.
pacbox wrote:
It’s interesting you say that. On the particular forum I mentioned, whenever people discuss the fact that the vast majority of Catholics use contraception, the NFP only Catholics jump in and say, “That’s because they weren’t catechized properly.” They seem absolutely convinced that if all Catholics read official materials on the topic, they would all abandon contraception.
When a woman has great difficulty with this or other Catholic teachings, the women try to convince her to stay because she can’t have “real” communion in any other church, meaning it doesn’t count unless done by a Catholic (or Orthodox) priest. As a non-Catholic, I can understand why they might be offended at the idea of throwing away left over communion. However, this idea that even believing in transubstantiation isn’t enough – it has to be done by a priest boggles my mind. It comes across poorly to me and reminds me of fundamentalists who teach their kids not to talk to atheists because they all hate God and kill puppies for fun.
I’m not trying to bash Catholics. I believe they can be “real” Christians. (I say “can be” because back when my mom was raised Catholic, they were strongly discouraged from reading the Bible and were taught works salvation. From what I can tell, things seem to have changed since then.) I have no problem with you being Catholic. I just get tired of the women on the forum I mentioned using the Eucharist as a scare tactic to keep others from “jumping ship” and becoming Lutherans or other Protestants.
From the “Fire In My Bones” blog by J. Lee Grady over at Charisma magazine’s web site, here’s the latest post, which is relevant to the topics of authority and male headship: “The Dark Side of Wives Submitting to Husbands.”
http://www.charismamag.com/blogs/fire-in-my-bones/7229-the-dark-side-of-submission
Jonathon leeman says,
“Certainly, preaching is highly related to the exercise of the keys, and could even be said to form an implicit part of their exercise.”
++++++++++++++++++++++
PREACHING?? you mean the stale, dried-out leftovers that are dished up time & time again are part & parcel of the keys to the kingdom of heaven?? Jonathon Leeman, you can’t be serious.
I haven’t heard/read one thing fresh & insightful in years (in sermons in many places, in books, in bible studies). I don’t think anyone has (who’s been in church for some time).
I think everyone with a mic on sunday morning (or a publishing contract with a quota to fulfill) is simply repeating everything which they and everyone else has already heard time & time again.
Jonathon Leeman says,
“Christians should belong to local churches. Christians do not have the authority to declare themselves Jesus’ representatives.”
SAYS WHO?!
I do not belong to any church whatsoever. I represent Jesus Christ wherever I go — Wal-Mart, my kids’ classrooms, grocery store, the frozen yogurt shop, the park, the library… (I don’t go to very many places these days)
Who are you to tell me otherwise?
Jonathon, the thing is, any number of churches would each have a different assessment on how acceptable I was as a representative of Jesus Christ.
I think that’s pretty dumb.
Jonathon Leeman says,
“Christians do not have the authority to declare themselves Jesus’ representatives. The church has this authority, which it ordinarily exercises by dispensing the Lord’s Supper to its members.”
++++++++++++++
my friend (who I pray with every week) & I have communion now & then in one of our living rooms. it is powerful.
you don’t think I can do this? you think Jesus is that inaccessible??
what’s this nonsense about it being “dispensed” TO me by someone else in authority over me??
MAJOR BOATLOAD OF BOLLOCKING NONSENSE, JONATHON LEEMAN
I’ve been pondering the exact definition of “complementarian” since you asked me to give a practical example of information processing differences between men and women. I still adhere to the idea that men and women do (as a whole) process information differently, but I have been sort of mulling over the idea on how mountains come from molehills just based upon that.
I think that I might have just been blessed to have had “complementarian” be defined by nothing more than what I’ve said before: you and your significant other just find and accentuate the ways you two are different and how that both makes you stronger in your marriage, as a man and a woman. Also, where I learned this particular gem of a definition from was during premarital counseling with a fellow licensed professional counselor (female) who was on church staff to offer mental health care to those who wanted it. In fact, I can immediately think of many women who had leadership positions that would cause a Piper or Discoll church to go into meltdown, not to mention that one was an actual accredited therapist, which in itself probably would issue condemnation even if that therapist was male. Our pastor also regularly had many people, including women, come up and guest speak/teach (the horror!) about things he felt that they had more insight into than he did. He did once have a sermon on love and respect and the way they related to men and women, and while I thought it was oversimplified and generalized, I found it for the most part to be psychologically sound. I mean we weren’t at an academic lecture and there’s only so much you can cram into a 40 minute sermon.
Perhaps I am naive though and maybe other women in our church didn’t feel that way at the time, or felt somehow intimidated. I’m trying to look at this objectively.
My husband is often the final decision maker in our marriage – not because of any theological mandate, but because I am actually just horribly indecisive when it comes to making final decisions. I had to buy a car a couple of years ago because mine was totaled in a wreck and he wanted nothing to do with helping me pick one out. I basically had to drag him to every single car lot in the city and hemmed and hawed over each until he finally, after about 3 weeks of this, gave an opinion. So, maybe because of my natural tendency to defer (or in some cases, refuse to commit to) a decision can be seen as me actively adhering to a passive role, rather than it just being a byproduct of my inability to even decide what I want for lunch. =P I guess it doesn’t help the stereotype that my husband has a talk radio show, likes to take on big projects, and is a pretty much the definition of “decisive” – he’s very much a planner and a Type A personality. So, perhaps I’ve never felt experienced any blow back that some people do, just because I guess our roles fall under what is being considered kosher? Or maybe I never questioned anything because it seemed to ring true to ME (and not all women). Or heck, maybe the church were I was introduced to this actually got it somewhat right and didn’t make women feel like they had to act any differently from the way God designed them as individuals.
Anyway, got me thinking, and that’s always a good thing.
@ Dis:
” I still adhere to the idea that men and women do (as a whole) process information differently, but I have been sort of mulling over the idea on how mountains come from molehills just based upon that.”
+++++++++++
Hi, Dis.
mountains haven’t come from molehills just based upon that — but based on fear of losing power and control amongst the powerbrokers who had the presumption to call what they were doing “The Danvers Statement” (like it’s Son Of Nicene Creed, or something)
Great article Dee. As I said over in Julie Anne’s blog I have a friend who warned us evangelical folk that the Gospel Coalition is nor our curia, and I added that the same goes for 9Marks. These groups, although not speaking with one voice, do have a forceful impact in the Christian world. The authority they have is yielded by default. They cultivate the growth of their power and authority through numerous conferences and books. They have done some good, and I especially appreciate what Wendy Alsup, a member of the Gospel Coalition has to say. But when some of their more vocal leaders come out in support of C.J. Mahaney they expose their ugly underbelly. It should be a warning sign to wake up the unquestioning loyalists. They are now abusing their self-appointed positions. I would suggest to those who are disenchanted with what they see to de-fund them. Quit paying to go to their conferences, quit buying their books. Lately I have made a conscious effort to not read anything authored by someone with close ties to T4G, TGC or 9Marks. I have really been moved by Brennan Manning’s books and also Matt Redmond’s “The God of the Mundane.” I am sure you could add others to the list.
BTW, I just came across a great article by Mary DeMuth in Christianity Today titled “Even Jesus Didn’t Live Like a Christian Celebrity.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2013/july/even-jesus-didnt-live-like-christian-celebrity.html
Amen to that Ms. DeMuth! The sooner we lose the celebrity worship the better off we will all be.
But it seems to be tradition nowadays that membership goes with a formally (and often legally) drafted agreement, that as often as not commits the member to refraining from “membership” of any “other” church. What to do, then, regarding a group of believers who are doing what Christians do not do – in this case, separating themselves off from the rest of the local church and declaring themselves independent from it?
At the very least, the local church should come together and enact some form of discipline against the splinter-group, with a view to bringing its “members” back into the church and its ring-leaders to repentance.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
In other words, you are saying that we should all be Catholics. What right has the “local church” to demand loyalty from “splinter groups” when all the reformation-derived churches and belief systems began by splintering from the Roman Catholic Church?
A Mom wrote:
Ummm, what about Matthew 28:18 —
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'”
Nancy wrote:
Nope. Can’t you think of anything else I might be saying?
“One papacy” and “many papacies” are not the only two alternatives.
“Problems arise when church leadership does not define the parameters of their authority.”
Actually, if they are like the kid that Jesus sat on his lap they have no ‘authority’ at all, just like the kid didn’t. Problem is – who wants to be like a kid again?
Anyone ever read this? http://www.remarkablereplacementarmy.com/downloads/The-Remarkable-Replacement-Army-(ebook).pdf
Dee: Look at this comment that came in late last night on my blog. It’s sad thing when you are no longer shocked by comments like this because they have become commonplace. I may not have been shocked, but I did go to bed angry.
Off-topic regarding a new development in the SGM story. In the discussion thread regarding this TW has one of the most literate, incisive, and creative comments I’ve ever seen “The Council of Brent, May 23-25, 2013, in Orlando, Florida.” God bless that man!
http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8742-ministry-leaders-blast-whistleblower#.UgOZYrbD9hk
I often wonder if this manifestation of evangelicalism is just the natural conclusion of virulent calvinism and revivalistic, me-and-Jesus-sinner’s-prayer christianity. And when added to mankind’s unquenchable thirst for control and power, it creates the perfect storm we see brewing. Michael Spencer (The Internet Monk) wrote extensively about the coming collapse of evangelicalism.
TW wrote:
I agree. Do not give them any money.It is money that makes the machine go.
@ TedS.:
@ singleman:
Good article.
@ TedS.:Too funny.
Eric Fry wrote:
What great comment. That would make a good blog post.
@ Dis:
I hope I’m not misunderstanding the intent of your comment, but, even though your husband may function more as the leader in your marriage, your view may still be more of an egalitarian one. Kristen responded to a comment I made on Julie Anne’s blog which clarified it better for me:
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/07/15/what-is-difference-between-complementarianism-and-patriarchy/
‘Kristen
JULY 16, 2013 @ 12:18 PM
BeenThereDoneThat said:
“One thing that’s been rolling around in my head about this whole comp/egal thing, it doesn’t take into account how different we are as individuals and couples. Some personalities may naturally function better in a “complementarian” style, and others may function better in an “egalitarian” fashion. I don’t see that either is wrong unless, say, a “comp” structure is forced on a couple. If love is flowing either configuration should work fine.”
This, as I understand it, is one difference between egalitarianism and complementarianism. Egalitarianism says, “No one has a biblical mandate to lead, so each couple should do what works best for themselves. If he’s a natural leader and she likes following, by all means, let him lead!” Whereas complementarianism says, “He has a biblical mandate to lead, so if he doesn’t lead and she doesn’t follow, they’re out of God’s will.” Thus complementarianism in all its forms imposes a hierarchy, no matter how “soft,” on every marriage, no matter how well or poorly an individual couple fits into that box.’
So, in other words, if you don’t see it as a Biblical mandate for all couples to function in a male headship hierarchy, you may actually have an egalitarian view.
elastigirl wrote:
I have read several artilce recently which said that most pastors have 5-10 base sermons and all of the other sermons are built on those. CJ Mahaney and other circuit speakers are known to repeat sermons as well.
Then, with some of this crowd, you just mix three ingredients: discipline, authority and gender roles into every sermon in different proportions.
@ Dis: I liked you answer. I subscribe to the “radical servanthood and play to your gifts” gender role. I believe all of us have different talents and gifts. I do not think any of those are necessarily tied to gender. In the church, marriage, and other relationships, we should recognize our differences and strengths and then use them.
@ Nick Bulbeck: :0
@ Julie Anne: Tell her that TWW is behind her. If she takes it to court, they will be forced to undergo cross examination. I bet 9Marks would love to show the world exactly how they show Christ’s love in their churches, right?
@ emr: They believe that they are helping Jesus out. 🙂
@ Phoenix: Here is TW’s comment from ABP link that you gave us.
Brent Detwiler should be lauded by all who care about protecting our children from sexual predators!
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight! (Isaiah 5:20-21, ESV)
emr wrote:
EMR, Can you elaborate? What point or thought are you trying to get across?
Clay Crouch wrote:
The roots of this started in Genesis and the Fall. Many like to use Genesis to limit a woman’s role in the church. But the reality of the Fall had more to do with power and control and that is still going on today.
Here is TW’s amazing comment from SGMSurvivors. Sorry, I didn’t make the source clear above
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I agree. But you seem to be saying that authority in the local church is valid and can function almost like a mini-papacy. I am saying that the local church does not have that authority.
Does authority trump conscience, or does conscience trump authority?
If you choose authority then you say must say whose authority. If you say the local church, apparently the local church leadership, then who gave it to them? Not apostolic succession as in the catholic tradition. If they think they got it from the consent of the governed, then who gave the governed the right to place itself in subjection to some authority of their own choosing? And could not the governed take back its authority? t If you keep on following back this idea to “where did it come from” you run into Jesus’ statement of claim of his own authority. Then you have to say what did he do with it. All I can see for a line of authority argument is either apostolic succession or the guidance of the Holy Spirit or both. I don’t see Brother Billy Joe Bob and his self appointed claims anywhere in that .
If you say the Brother BJB is led by the Spirit, as opposed to other people in the church, then you have to say either (1) show that to us Brother instead of just claiming it or else (2) it was passed on to him by apostolic succession.
I just do not see any way for protestantism to claim authority over people in the way that these people are doing. Because-I-said-so is not a valid argument apart from apostolic succession.
If these guys want to exercise authority, then they need to place themselves under the authority of some system like RCC or orthodox and they can exercise delegated authority to the extent, of course, that they themselves are under authority. But that is no way what they want, They are usurpers and frauds in this area of their thinking.
The monarchy model makes sense, and the democracy model makes sense. They both have strengths and weaknesses, of course. But tyranny? No.
And I am not a catholic.
elastigirl wrote:
I agree with you. Jesus said where ever two or more are gathered in His name, there He is.
The Bible also says all believers are priest (with Jesus as High Priest), so all Christians represent Jesus.
You don’t have to be in a church under authority of some preacher to be a rep for Jesus. If you are a Christian, regardless if you are in a church or not, the Bible says you are a rep of Jesus (you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you, too – you don’t need to attend a church to receive the Spirit)
I thought some of you might find this interesting:
You, Me, and the Heavenly Three?
Why the Trinity can’t tell us about gender. A response to Larry Crabb.
dee wrote:
Sometimes preachers steal – blatantly steal – sermons off one another and have been caught.
There’s this daily podcast by this Christian guy who reviews sermons, and he caught one preacher quoting verbatim from an Andy Stanley sermon (where Stanley was using the movie Juno as a reference), and this preacher never did mention or cite Stanley as a source.
The podcast host caught another preacher (or it may have been the same guy, I don’t remember) stealing from a preacher who first used “Mr. and Mrs. Coffee Mugs” as a metaphor for marriage in a marriage sermon (complete with swiping the first preacher’s coffee mug prop idea, and also even using a falsetto, girly voice to talk like he was “Mrs.” mug, as had the first preacher).
I think he found two or three other examples of Preacher A stealing sermons from Preacher B.
Rick Warren used to provide a site where preachers could get sermons for free, written by Warren or Warren’s staff. Some sites provide the same service but charge a fee.
Daisy wrote:
This is the full circle of the expectation that pastor = God’s singular mouthpiece and authority over local church. Pastors can’t cite sources because that destroys their Holy Man image. So in the pressure to have a fresh, “God inspired” sermon every week they ‘borrow’ from someone else…
Many pastors MUST demand authority, they MUST insist on everyone submitting to their authority because – as Nick Bulbeck so aptly put it elswhere – “entrepreneurs and motivational speakers who play pastor. Or ‘bible teacher'”. Not pastors.
Pastors – shepherds – are different:
“I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11)
“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them.43“But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant;44and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.45“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10)
Strangely enough, the New Testament freed believers from the the reign of the priests – everyone was now a priest -, but it didn’t take the church long to reestablish the rule of priests.
Various reform movements before the reformation with similar aims were crushed brutally by the church.
The protestant reformation again had – among others – similar goals, and soon the priests “won” again by usurping power that wasn’t theirs in the first place.
Various anabaptist movements fled Europe and the rule exercised by various – RC and protestant – churches and their priests in collaboration with the worldly ruler, many came to the place now occupied by the USofA.
So why are so many of you american christians so eager to hand (back) to priests/pastors a power that’s not theirs, and never should have been?
Phoenix wrote:
Canon XI — NO POPERY!
Clay Crouch wrote:
AKA “The Church of ME”.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
How magnanimous (and condescending) of you to say that.
@ A Mom:
gus wrote:
1) Many of us can’t conceive of a different model because we’ve either never seen it or we’ve seen it dismissed as “unscriptural” by those in authority.
2) To do otherwise would require us to have to study for ourselves, seek the Lord for ourselves, hear from and be led by the Holy Spirit ourselves, and we’ve not been taught that such things are possible for “laymen”.
3) If we have no final human authority to make rules/wield power, then we may be stuck in fellowship with others who have different interpretations on secondary issues than we have ourselves and no one with the authority to make them shape up or ship out. It is just so much easier to find a “leader” we mostly agree with and then live in a bubble where everyone else is also in agreement instead of learning to love and live with fellow brethren in spite of various differences.
Basically, we’re very often ignorant, unequipped and sectarian.
@ Leah:
Sorry that should @Gus and not A Mom.
Gus
Good question….
“So why are so many of you american christians so eager to hand (back) to priests/pastors a power that’s not theirs, and never should have been?”
How about – Because the Pastors, year after year, have told them to… 😉
Over, and over, and over, and it is NOW “Commandments of Men, Doctrines of Men…
“Traditions of Men” That Make Void God’s Word…
Mark 7:13
NLT – And so you “cancel” the word of God in order to hand down your own tradition.
KJV – Making the word of God of “none effect” through your tradition…
ASV – Making “void” the word of God by your tradition…
NIV – Thus you “nullify” the word of God by your tradition…
Hasn’t anyone ever wondered? Why? In the Bible?
NOT one of “His Disciples” called themselves – pastor or shepherd or leader or reverend?
Hasn’t anyone ever wondered? Why? In the Bible?
NOT one of “His Disciples” had the “Title/Position” – pastor or shepherd or leader or reverend?
Hasn’t anyone ever wondered? Why? In the Bible?
Jesus is the only one Who’s Name is, and is called – shepherd and leader and reverend?
Are todays – shepherd/leader/reverends – Taking the name of the Lord thy God in Vain? 😉
Ex 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain;
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
@ Daisy:
Daisy: “Rick Warren used to provide a site where preachers could get sermons for free, written by Warren or Warren’s staff. Some sites provide the same service but charge a fee.”
Kristin: “So in the pressure to have a fresh, “God inspired” sermon every week they ‘borrow’ from someone else…”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
mmmm, yes…. Christian, Inc. has turned preaching material into commodities on the shelf for the preacher to shop for.
just like velveeta
no, velveeta has a 1,000 year shelf-life. it’s more like the uncovered left-over rice in my frig from 2 weeks before our vacation.
mmmmm, yeah, let’s try to re-steam that one for public consumption! so easy & convenient!
(preachers who preach…. who wants to be preached at, anyway)
@ gus:
“So why are so many of you american christians so eager to hand (back) to priests/pastors a power that’s not theirs, and never should have been?”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
my guess is that the concept of God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit are nebulous and bewildering enough to prompt many people to have a felt-need for a man in uniform (clerical collar, that is).
(let alone the Big Bible, the notion of “blood sacrifice”, & words like covenant and sanctified)
Leah
Yup – You write…
“2) To do otherwise would require us to have to study for ourselves, seek the Lord for ourselves, hear from and be led by the Holy Spirit ourselves, and we’ve not been taught that such things are possible for “laymen”.”
But todays pastors claim to be equipping the saints for the work of the ministry…
They just tend to leave out the part that says – You can get it from Jesus for yourself…
I John 2:26-27
These things have I written unto you concerning them that “seduce you.”
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you,
**and ye need not that any man teach you: **
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in him.
@ A. Amos Love:
I think today’s church suffers greatly from not really grasping the “Christ in you” truth. As in the real, living, full-fledged Christ abiding inside of every man, woman and child who follows Him.
Imagine if every believer actually comprehended that truth and began to live by that indwelling life.
Well – Turns out – You can have all the free semons you want – On Line. 🙁
Here’s just one – But – You can google to find more… Oy Vey!!!
http://www.sermoncentral.com/sermons/sermons-on-pastors-367.asp
SermonCentral.com – Free Sermons, Illustrations, Videos, and …
Offers sermons online, sermon illustrations and sermon outlines for use in
Christian ministry by pastors, ministers and priests.
————–
Here is something else I find humorous about todays Pastors who write books.
Christian Ghost Writing – Yup – And that ain’t “the Holy Ghost” doing the writing.
Who Would have Thunk it. – Seems there are “Famous” “Celebrity”“Pastors”
Who “Do NOT” write their own books. 🙁
Here is a post from Jared Wilson – Now of “The Gospel Coalition”
Who calls himself a Pastor, and does Ghost Writing. It’s an interesting post.
Jared says…
“What I typically do is turn a pastor’s already-written sermon transcripts or extensive notes into a book-quality manuscript.”
Well – He thinks that’s okay – and admits to “some level of additional writing”
But says – What he does doesn’t violate “his conscience.” You be the judge.
http://gospeldrivenchurch.blogspot.com/2010/12/randy-alcorn-said-it.html
Randy Alcorn – an Author – said…
“I believe Christian ghostwriting is a scandal waiting to explode. If we in the Christian community don’t clean up our act soon, we’re going to face widespread loss of credibility.”
gus wrote:
I sure don’t know the answer, but some things might be considered.
In the past generation most of the last of us have “left the farm” literally. People who used to work for themselves more and more depend on a paycheck from somebody they must please in order to feed the family. Once you get used to pleasing somebody else all the time, used to going along to get along, learning to keep your mouth shut to keep your job, then why not do it at church too. It remains to be seen what future generations will do with that issue.
Another thing, we have money to entertain ourselves. It is more fun, therefore, to entertain oneself than to do the difficult work of thinking for oneself.
Our lives are becoming more hectic and more insecure. We are not economically secure. Our marriages are not secure. Our children are dealing with all kinds of mess that we worry about. Who has the time or energy to worry about the church one way or the other? So somebody or some system comes along and says don’t worry, we will take care of that for you, just read the handbook and you will be OK. Well, how easy is it to think thank goodness that is one thing taken care of.
Churches are often run by a small group of insiders while the bulk of the congregants have no idea what is going on. So when problems arise, there is no groundswell of people to take up the cause.
And here is the profile of a lot of congregants. Mama goes to church because of the children’s activities, and Dad goes to church to keep Mama happy and the adults mostly don’t care about anything except are there children’s activities and does church let out on time because there are more important things to do before the day is over. So problems fester, and basically hardly anybody knows or cares.
And don’t forget, following Jesus is difficult and even dangerous enough to get you into some real trouble if you can’t keep a low profile about it. Of course, he said that you can’t keep a low profile, so better not go down that road in the first place! Terminology like take up your cross, and hate even your own life also and narrow is the path–maybe not, huh?
And please do not forget that the “leadership” that is doing this mess are clever, and charismatic personalities, and frequently handsome/imposing, and they have been trained in how to get this done. We are so used to advertising techniques that we no longer recognize them for what they are.
Got to be more to it than that, but that’s a start.
Leah
Yes – To Live By That Indwelling Life.
Christ in us – the hope of Glory…
dee wrote:
er – is the piggy nose smiley good or bad?
@ Leah:
“I think today’s church suffers greatly from not really grasping the “Christ in you” truth. As in the real, living, full-fledged Christ abiding inside of every man, woman and child who follows Him.
Imagine if every believer actually comprehended that truth and began to live by that indwelling life.”
++++++++++++++++++++
agree completely.
where I end, God begins. Learning to find & open up to the reality of Holy Spirit in me.
This is not something any 25 minute, multi-point sermon at a church or conference can teach anyone. it’s learned in the crucible of moment-to-moment life experience.
sounds like an industry-killer to me.
Leah
That’s kinda the way I see Jesus, as man, teaching “His Disciples” also. Jesus took “His Disciples” into the streets and they “Obeseved” what Jesus did – obeying His Father – always. Always *obeying* the “ONE” who lived within Him.
“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” John 14:10.
Then He sent “His Disciples” out to do the same things He did…
With very few instructions. (Let your peace remain – or – shake the dust off…)
They went out – Obeying the “ONE” who lived within them…
They were “Led” by the Spirit… NOT “Led” by man…
Even Jesus, as man, humbled Himself – “To Live By That Indwelling Life.”
Jesus taught His Disciples…
John 5:30
I can of mine own self do nothing…
but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 8:28
… and that I do nothing of myself;
but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
John 5:19
…The Son can do nothing of himself,
but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 14:10
…the words that I speak unto you I speak NOT of myself:
but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
To me, that’s what Jesus taught “His Disciples” to *observe* in Him…
The Son can do nothing of himself – BUT… what he seeth the Father do…
They were to “Trust and Obey” the “ONE” who lives in them…
Jer 50:6
“My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
**their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*
1 Pet 2:25
For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
@ Julie Anne:
Submission is an act towards God fleshed out towards the husband. And Jesus had very high social position. He read from the Scriptures and was called Rabbi. And He had wrath as well. He made a whip and ransacked money tables in the temple. Big deals here with the Biblical content…
@ Nancy:
I may be wrong but I understood the original comment. @ Nick Bulbeck: to mean something more like:
9Marks puts so much authority and discipline in the hands of the “local church”. The local church is really made up of all believers, regardless if denomination, in a localized area. The scriptures speak against sectarianism and prohibiting believers to meet together. 9marks is promoting these 2 things that scripture prohibits. So, following 9MARKS OWN LOGIC, they have sinned and need to be disciplined by the local church.
But I suppose they’d rather have their cake and eat it too.
@ A. Amos Love:
Even cheesier, IMO, are sites that sell or give preachers free clips from Hollywoood movies, the idea being that preachers can sprinkle scenes from films such as “Spiderman” or whatever into their service. I’m not completely against the idea of using movies in a sermon, but it just seems a little weird.
Nancy
Very good explanation – Much agreement – @ Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 01:29 PM said:
Yes – “Leadership” is very are clever. Oy Vey!!! 🙁
“And please do not forget that the “leadership” that is doing this mess are clever, and charismatic personalities, and frequently handsome/imposing, and they have been trained in how to get this done. We are so used to advertising techniques that we no longer recognize them for what they are.”
And congregants and those who profess to be leaders…
“Ignore” Jesus, when He teachers His Disciples NOT to be called “Leader”
For you have “ONE” Leader – Jesus
In the Bible, ALL of “His Disciples” called themselves “Servants.” – Go figure… 😉
Maybe His Disciples knew something todays “Leadership” can NOT understand.
Mat 23:10-12 NASB – New American Standard Bible
Do NOT be called leaders; for “ONE” is your Leader, that is, Christ.
But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled;
and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
The Message – Mat 23:10-12.
And don’t let people maneuver you into taking charge of them.
There is only “ONE” Life-Leader for you and them—Christ.
**Do you want to stand out? – Then step down. – Be a servant.**
If you puff yourself up, you’ll get the wind knocked out of you.
But if you’re content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty.
If Jesus instructed **His Disciples** NOT to call themselves “leaders”
and someone calls them self a “leader” or thinks they are a “leader;”
Or, allows others to call them “Leader”
Are they one of His Disciples?
Or, are they NO LONGER one of His Disciples? Oy Vey!!! 😉
Why isn’t what Jesus said important? 😉
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think perhaps my use of quotes around the word real didn’t properly convey what I was trying to say. I was trying to distinguish between the Catholics I’ve met (mostly online) that have a real faith and those Catholics raised like my mom. Many of these Catholics were mostly cultural. They were raised to believe that getting baptized as a baby and going to church for weddings and funerals was to go to Heaven. Others were taught that every little sin would keep them from Heaven. In either case, it seems that most of them were taught some form of works salvation.
Although I know few Catholics in real life (where I live has few of them), from what I’ve read online, I get the distinct impression that teaching has changed in the past few decades and that many of the people even just 10-15 years younger than my mom have been raised to see personal faith as important. Maybe this is because the services were still in Latin when my mom was being dragged to church all those years ago?
I truly meant no disrespect. From what I can tell, lots of Protestants are also just church attenders and many seem to believe in works salvation.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
Perhaps she just used it for “impact.”
@ Daisy:
A visiting pastor at my church caught his mother’s pastor doing this when he visited her church in IA. Just plain reading a printed sermon by another LCMS pastor out of a magazine and acting as if it were his. He wrote the guy a nastygram but I don’t know where it went from there.
Head’s up. James Hammack is trolling the spiritual abuse blogs.
@ HoppyTheToad: Interesting, though transubstantiation (doctrine) is not quite what you’re suggestion.
(From a Lutheran who believes in consubstatiation, fwiw! ;))
@ numo: typo – should be consubstantiation.
Which is not really the official view of my Lutheran synod, but what the hey – I am an Anglican-leaning type. 🙂
@ HoppyTheToad: Sounds like your mom grew up in the pre-Vatican II era… things are different now, though some people keep wanting to force things back to the Old Daze.
A Mom wrote:
Who’s he?
James Hammack wrote:
So, James, please describe to me the nuts and bolts of what this submission thing looks like on a day-to-day basis in a marriage? I need real life examples, not just ideas. I have to say, the whip visual has got me especially curious in the context of a marriage. Maybe you weren’t going there, but it’s peculiar to see it in the same paragraph.
Is this you, James? https://twitter.com/Hammack_James
@ elastigirl: Although the whole “biology is destiny” aspect of it all makes me crazy.
Blaming everything on biology alone is just… wrong, imo. Socialization has as much to do with it as anything else, and I’m willing to bet that if you got 100 men and 100 women together in a room somewhere, you’d find FAR more variations in how people think/process/communicate *within* each group (men by themselves, women by themselves) than via comparing ALL of the men to ALL of the women en masse.
numo wrote:
Basic sign of a Trad is fanboy behavior re the Tridentine Latin Mass (itself established at the 16th Century Council of Trent; yes, the Traditional Tridentine Mass was newfangled at one point). As you climb the crazy tree, you get total denial of any post-Vatican II changes, total denial of EVERY post-Vatican II changes, and on the upper branches denial of any Pope since Pius XII (including one guy in a general store in rural Kansas who elected himself the True Pope). Still higher on the crazy tree you get WEIRD Private Revelations (from Mary Herself) about all the above, plus Special Revelations which spawn most of the Catholic-based CULTS like Bayside and Hill of Hope. Somewhere at that level you also get a Catholic Monarchy Movement attempting to restore the “true” Royal Families of various nations to the Throne by Divine Right (even nations who were never monarchies; if there’s more than one claimant/pretender, the Throne goes to “the Most Devout Catholic”). And that’s as high on the crazy tree that I’ve heard.
Someone else long ago told me that you saw something similar in history; EVERY major Church Council caused a schism and split-off of the True Trad Catholics of the time. The last one before Vatican II was Vatican I in the 1860s, when the “Old Catholics” split off from this 19th Century Great Apostasy.
numo wrote:
Determinism. Calvinism without any need for God to do the Predestination thing.
“But murder is of the will, which God made free.”
— G.K.Chesterton, “Doom of the Darnaways” (Father Brown Mystery where Determinism is a major plot point)
@ HUG:
“EVERY major Church Council caused a schism and split-off of the True Trad Catholics of the time.”
This is the kind of thing that makes me seriously doubt the claims of Catholic unity vs. Protestant chaos thrown around by Catholic apologists. (Not saying you are one or that this has happened on this thread – you aren’t and it hasn’t.)
I hope that many might have time to listen to this audio today.
Listening to Regent Radio yesterday and today. Seminary Class: Pastoral Ethics. Today’s recorded class, Part 11 of 15, with Dr. Ross Hastings, deals with Abortion, etc. Some crucial statistics.
Highly recommend people to listen to this through their day. If you have minimum time, click in around the 24 min. mark.
Hastings makes the point that the task of the Christian church is not ‘vigilantism’. He also gives some thoughtful insights as to what churches could and should do and those efforts which people should avoid.
http://www.regentradio.net/
This class will be audio available for the day posted only. The next day’s topic is the next session in this course.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy: I have relatives who are involved in Traditionalism. It’s not new to me and I *so* wish it would all go away!
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know. My guess? He’s affiliated with 9Marks in some way.
James Hammack, Care to confirm or deny?
Julie Anne wrote:
From LinkedIn and his blog, he’s a SBTS student/web designer/Bethany Baptist pastor. Young guy. Says some good stuff. May the Lord bring him much wisdom through more experience, and without any collateral damage.
@ Leah:
@ Nancy:
Leah – you’re quite right, in that my original comment was mainly an ironic rejoinder to the 9Marks wielding of authority. Churches (for which read, leaderships) like that want to be in authority but don’t want to be under it. Moreover, they want to be “biblical” about assembling with other believers right up to the point where they would have to assemble with other believers locally whom they didn’t choose themselves.
However, Nancy, you have touched on an interesting point. Though again, I don’t think tyranny and anarchy are the only two alternatives. (In the literal sense that “anarchy” simply means “no government”, not the colloquial sense in which it means murder and mayhem.) There is great strength in government by consensus. If we really did have local churches comprising all local believers, we’d have very many different backgrounds and perspectives. This would not be a recipe for tyranny; quite the reverse. It would be love, or nothing. Of course, government by committee generally results in the latter. But that’s only because committees love rules, not people.
I notice, Nancy, that you place “authority” and “conscience” somewhat at odds with one another. If the church is a business empire, they will be; anyone who’s not on mission needs to be thrown under the bus. But “pastors” who talk like that are frauds; Christ is not in them.
Sorry to sign off partway through an answer, but I did promise my son I’d watch Family Guy with him and it’s on the noo… maybe we can pick this up tomorrow?
Julie Anne wrote:
Please continue to push him on this matter. He has said a few things to me offline that have me a bit concerned.
Hester wrote:
People do weird things and get into fights and split up all the time, but on the Romish side a lot of it stays under the umbrella of the Church — at least a lot more than the macro-level anarchy you get in all these independent Protestant splinter churches. At least in the Vatican, the lunatic fringes are not in charge of their own independent asylums.
I swam the Tiber in ’87 primarily for the solid historical trace and the patronage of the arts, both of which are lacking in a lot of the Evangelical Circus. (And as a side effect, healing from the damage done by the Gospels of Hal Lindsay and Jack Chick without having to give up Christ’s words of Eternal Life.)
Julie Anne wrote:
Whip + Marriage + Gospelly God-talk = Christian Domestic Discipline(TM)?
In our church book of order (bylaws) we require (“we” meaning the whole congregation who voted this document to be adopted some years ago) that anyone who desires to “teach” must first have the authorization of the church elders to do so. What we mean by “teach” is, of course, the central issue. The bylaws specifically note that this does not mean people cannot study the Bible! Nor does it mean that a parent has to have permission to teach their own children! But what it does mean is that when someone decides, “hey, I want to teach a class at church,” or “I am going to invite people over to my house and teach them Scripture,” that they must first be approved as a teacher by the elders. Oh yes, that all sounds so controlling, but really, would you want just anyone in your own church to gather people around them and start laying their “take” on Scripture on them all? And in today’s evil times, is this kind of thing not a scenario that a child molester would love to use? “Hey, think I’ll just get a little youth group goin’ here.” What about a closet abuser who wants to gather married couples or men or family around them and indoctrinate them with rank patriarchy, and the elders don’t even know it is going on? So their has to be some authority and some limits. And those in that authority must exercise it out of a genuine truth basis applied impartially. It can’t be “hey, you can teach because you support our new building program,” or “no, you can’t teach because well, I just don’t like you.” Scripture pretty plainly lays out reasonable qualifications for a teacher, and it also cautions that not many become teachers, reminding all of us of a higher level of judgment for those who do.
Finally, one more note. Anyone in a church leadership position who has a degree of authority delegated to them, who is a person who CRAVES that position, is totally unqualified to hold it. Frankly, I think anybody who desires to be a pastor or elder or church leader, is either crazy or naive, or trying their best to get out of it but can’t because the Lord compels them to do it and, like a Jonah, won’t let them get away. I hope that I am of the last category. I have been a pastor for 30 years. I have wanted to quit every week for 30 years. But Something has never let me do it. That whale has just kept coming along every time and spewing me back onto shore.
A Mom wrote:
I meant that, many pastors/leaders seem to be primarily focused on their authority over others. I’ve never been a fan of the term “servant leader” because, in my experience, it tends to turn into “you be the servant, and I’ll be the leader” and everything is about Who’s In Charge.
Jesus didn’t tell his followers to be a leader. He said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” (Mark 9:35) There seems to be *much* more focus on their own, earthly authority than on being obedient to the Christ to whom the Father has given “all authority in heaven and on earth.”
emr,
Thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t want to misunderstand you one way or the other.
That said, preach it emr. Our position should be: We are all servants serving each other. Brothers & sisters in Christ. I’m with you!
@ emr:
Yes, “servant leader” usually just means ‘serving’ by leading when it should mean leading by serving. Jesus turned the worldly view of authority on its head and we just keep figuring out how to turn it back round again.
@ Jeff Crippen:
Are you saying that a church member must have elder approval to have an independent Bible study in their own home?
With all respect for your years of service for the church, I have to say that this seems to disregard the fact that each believer has the ability themselves to judge who they should listen to or not. I know some are new in the faith and some are easily led astray, but overall a healthy body should be full of maturing believers who can recognize truth, be led by the Holy Spirit, and come alongside of those who may be listening to false teaching and help steer them back on path. Of course, this would require the believers to actually live in relationship with one another and be available to each other outside of the church building on Sunday morning.
It seems like we must be very dumb sheep if we must have earthly shepherds to filter everything for us.
What are the differences between 9Marks and Acts29? Anyone know? Age, mature vs. hip guys? Different theology?
Jeff Crippen wrote:
The maxim, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” applies.
To give “leadership” the benefit of a doubt, they all start out with the noblest of intentions, but then another maxim seems to apply, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Why is it so hard for us to accept our Lords admonition regarding heirarchical leadership, “It shall not be so with you”? Give men a title or “office” and it becomes so with you.
Brothers, if you take everything I said—the heart of it—the most difficult challenge in it has to do with two issues: Power and security. Your security.
We, as men, if we are honest, enjoy having God’s people look up to us. We like this. But it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. And it hinders the very thing that Jesus Christ came to do. Yet in our hearts, the dark part, we enjoy it. But it is the greatest obstacle to God’s eternal purpose, even above Satan’s direct work. Your presence as ecclesiastical leaders that are put above God’s people is a greater obstacle to God’s eternal purpose than Satan’s direct work. Because by your presence in the position that you are in, God’s people are suppressed, oppressed, limited, and hindered. This is the truth.
As far as power and security go, you inherited this mindset. You inherited this practice in which you make your living off of tithes. To change it, it takes a courageous, brave individual who comes to a point of desperation and says, “I don’t care what it costs, I am not going to be part of something that hurts God’s people.” As long as you accept money from the Lord’s people, you are part of a separate class. They will always look up to you in an unhealthy way.
More here: http://douglasjacoby.com/straight.pdf
A Mom wrote:
9Marks, the website, was started by Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. The name comes from the title of his book, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.”
The Acts 29 Network was started by the late David Nicholas, pastor of Spanish River Church in Boca Ratorn, Florida. Dr. Nicholas passed away a couple of years ago at the age of 79. In 2000, Mark Driscoll took over the reins of leadership of Acts 29. Although he recently supposedly “stepped down” from his position as president, he is one of the few members on its board, and the entire network is heavily influenced, if not officially controlled, by him.
TedS. wrote:
CORRECTION: Sometime between 2000 and 2005, Mark Driscoll took over the reins of leadership of Acts 29.
TedS. wrote:
I believe this to be true as well.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Indeed. Put that into context. My ancestors lived in a part of the US south during a war which almost destroyed this nation. In my home state, as elsewhere I hear, many families were torn apart by this very issue. Those opposed to slavery followed conscience during a time when many (most?) churches in the south preached that slavery was biblical. The Baptists separated north from south over slavery issues. If one chose to oppose slavery, as my ancestors did, then one de facto opposed the supposed authority of the church. I am saying (1) that it is right to choose conscience over authority when necessary and (2) and that a simple claim to authority does not constitute real authority nor does it bind the conscience of any church member. It seem to me that are some similarities of thinking in some of these authority driven churches that are similar to the same sorts of thinking that defended slavery. And of course they don’t want anybody to say that out loud, or network with other like-minded people, or tolerate people who claim freedom of conscience in spite of some of the trash that comes out of some pulpits or some of the enslavement-like-terminology in some church covenants.
Nancy,
Excellent observation! Glad you had the guts to go there.
I would add that wisdom has been given a swift kick out the door as well.
God gave us brains to think, wisdom, conscience, Holy Spirit, all as means to understand the Bible. All should be put to good use.
What many pastors & leaders are telling us is the exact opposite. Don’t use your brain, wisdom, conscience, common sense. Holy Spirit, who? Listen to them & they will tell you what to do, all based on the Bible. The Bible is all you need for life & they will tell you what it says. They are the authority.
Well, do they ever go to a doctor or take meds? Then they are using their brain & common sense. So should we.
Jeff Crippen wrote:
Wow, this is control-oriented shepherding – however good intentioned it may be. That word ‘authorization’ speaks volumes.
A Mom wrote:
“White Night! White Night! Drink the Potion! Drink the Potion! I AM Your Pastor, I AM Your Authority! I led you out of Babylon to Jonestown! I AM Your Authority!”
emr wrote:
AKA Who holds the Whip, and who feels the Whip.
A Mom
Yup – Couldn’t agree more – You write…
“I would add that wisdom has been given a swift kick out the door as well.
God gave us brains to think, wisdom, conscience, Holy Spirit,
all as means to understand the Bible. All should be put to good use.
What many “pastors & leaders” are telling us is the exact opposite.”
I’m seeing, more and more, Jesus desires to be our teacher. And “WE” His Disciples.
To get it from Jesus for ourselves. To learn from Jesus directly, – NO middle man.
Paul said – Those “led” by the Spirit – Are the sons of God. NOT those “Led” by man…
Jesus said – My Sheep – Hear My Voice – and – Follow Me. John 10:27.
Seems todays “pastors & leaders” are coming between Jesus and His Sheep.
And stunt their growth by keepng His Sheep dependent on “Mere Fallible Humans.”
A Mom – Have you considered the Ant?
An Ant is small and insignificant. – Or is it?
Pro 6:6-8
Go to the ant, thou sluggard; – consider her ways, – and *be wise:*
Which having NO **guide,** – **overseer,** or **ruler,**
Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
Guide – 07101 qatsiyn from 07096
KJV – ruler 4, prince 4, captain 3, guide 1
1- chief, commander, dictator. 2- ruler (of one in authority)
Overseer – 07860 shoter {sho-tare’}
KJV – officers 23, ruler 1, overseer 1; 25
1- official, officer.
Ruler – 04910 mashal {maw-shal’}
KJV – rule 38, ruler 19, reign 8,
dominion 7, governor 4, 81
1-to rule, have dominion, reign 2- to exercise dominion.
So, a small, simple, Ant, needs NO **guide,** – **overseer,** or **ruler,**
But – “WE” sheeples, His Ekklesia, His Called Out Ones, His Body, His Church…
With the Father in us – With Jesus Christ in us – With the Holy Spirt in us…
Can NOT survive without todays “pastors & leaders?” – NOT…
Thank you very much – BUT – I have a “Shepherd & Leader” – His name is Jesus…
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall **hear MY voice;**
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice – One leader
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
ken wrote:
A single word, out of context, rarely speaks volumes other than by amplifying what’s in the mind of the reader. If elders cannot keep out false teachers for fear of appearing “control-oriented”, then a) whatever did the new testament church have elders for, and b) how is the church ever supposed to keep wolves out?
One of the reasons an eldership should always be plural is to prevent an individual (or a small cabal) from arrogating power to himself, and one of the functions of an eldership is precisely to protect the freedom of individuals to follow their consciences. I for one am glad the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 withheld authorisation from certain individuals who went to Antioch to tell everyone to be circumcised. And today, if a prospective pastor tried to bring a patriarchal neo-calvinistic agenda in under the radar to a congregation I was part of, I would trust and expect the elders to fulfil the same responsibility.
Pastor Jeff Crippen is a defender of the sheep. Especially when it comes to abuse. I do not believe he is power hungry. Nor do I believe Wade Burleson is either. I see them getting their hands dirty. Living as servants.
What I have seen is that many control hungry leaders are attracted to a “Calvin’s Geneva” style of church. What that means is extreme church discipline. That is not to say non-Calvinistic churches don’t have their power hungry as well. But if you look around at the state of the church today, you will see many popular leaders espousing Calvin’s doctrine, practicing extreme church discipline as he did, with a wasteland of results.
Ken,
I hear your concern. This is often how things get out of control no matter the denomination or belief system.
I think in haste for sound doctrine preaching has taken the place of teaching. So wrong thinking, misunderstanding or questions never arise nor are resolved in the arena where they can be talked about & explained, & in a non-pressured way. So people leave an hour Sunday school or sermon with their misunderstanding or questions intact, live by them, thereby rejecting good teaching. People need to understand & have their questions answered.
If questions or hesitation can be addressed as they come up, there would be fewer stumbling blocks to faith.
I think a better approach to church as a whole would look less like a lecture from a “higher-up” & more like a teaching & then active discussion where all are involved. Of course questions would need to be encouraged. This is the problem, I think. Because just asking a question is taken as an affront to authority. There is a purposefully created environment of control & fear in the name of sound doctrine, it seems. Jesus didn’t take this approach. All were free to follow, or not.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
And therein lies the necessity for ‘bylaws’ as Scripture doesn’t give the elders an ounce of ‘authority over’ to control people in any shape or form. Once you function in a manner where permission is granted or taken away, then you are en route to Control-Freakville (or Rome…you pick the poison) to some degree or another. I have seen and experienced way too much of this bondage. It stifles, damages and holds people in realms of captivity.
Life and relationships are messy and will always be even though we naturally gravitate towards ordered/hiearchical structures in hopes to do away with messiness. I gravitate towards the opinion Leah expressed above regarding the Spirit of God. Who thinks they can control the Almighty Wind by granting a pseudo permission – a permission that was never theirs to give? Life is an ongoing discourse, an unending discussion. Elders that have the ability to influence that discussion in ways other than edicts of control are rare, in my estimation. I’d like to hang around a few more of these types before I kick the bucket.
A Mom wrote:
Yes, I agree.
@ Leah:
Would you agree that if someone decided they are going to start and teach a Sunday morning class at church, they need the approval of the church? Why would they need approval? Because we are charged with watching over Christ’s flock, to protect them from wolves, false doctrine, and so on. So, if a person decides to do the very same thing, only they will hold the class somewhere else and they will invite people from the church to come to it, doesn’t that situation require the same kind of care and oversight? We are all indeed, likened to sheep by the Chief Shepherd and he has called and appointed overseers, undershepherds, to protect His flock. Once again, the key here is when someone is functioning as a teacher/leader, they need the approval of our church elders. Many probably won’t agree with that, but that is how we function in our church and hard experience with wicked individuals who creep into the church to abuse and control Christ’s people has taught us that this is wisdom.
@ TedS.:
TedS
This has been my experience also – You write on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 12:23 AM…
“To give “leadership” the benefit of a doubt,
**they all start out with the noblest of intentions,**
but then another maxim seems to apply, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Why is it so hard for us to accept our Lords admonition regarding **heirarchical leadership,**
“It shall not be so with you”?
Give men a title or “office” and it becomes so with you.”
Yes – Today these “Titles” come with – Power – Profit – Prestige. (Very hard to walk away from)
And – Today those with “Titles” tend to promote **heirarchical leadership,**
But – Jesus taught His Disciples – “Lower Archy servantship.”
Jesus, as man, humbled Himself, made Himself of NO reputation
And took on the form of a “Servant.” Phil 2:7-8.
‘Give men a title or “office” and” – They now have a reputation whether they want it or NOT.
———–
Here is some interesting reading – Just posted yesterday – Aug 9th
The Glass Pastor – “Casting Off The Task-Masters”
http://theglasspastor.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/casting-off-the-task-masters/
Here is someone who was a Senior Pastor for 33 years – And left the Profession…
Some of the reasons being…
1 – “There aren’t any church pastors in the New Testament, and I could never get past that.”
2 – “the current organized church model…
is a harsh and merciless taskmaster toward all its participants.”
1 – “Don’t get me wrong, for my part I did my best to play the role of ‘pastor’, but I always knew that I would not be able to really pull it off. First of all, I didn’t really buy it. **There aren’t any church pastors in the New Testament,** and I could never get past that.”
2 – “Being as unbiblical as it is, the current organized church model, with its paid executives, contrived spiritual hierarchies, and pervasive failure to bring any true transformation to anyone’s life, this model is a harsh and merciless taskmaster toward all its participants.”
What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.
Jeff Crippen wrote:
I’ve been around sheep (the four and two footed ones) for quite a bit of my life, and the sheep/wolf analogy only goes so far, imo. Elders that set rules in place to potentially keep the wolves at bay seem to not realize that the sheep can think/defend for themselves given correct information in a setting of influential relationships (mutual trust/respect).
Yelling ‘wolf’ when one is spotted is one thing, but installing fences (one is too many) to corral the sheep to protect them from wolves is entirely another – it’s stepping outside the bounds of shepherding God’s people. Heck, let’s trap wolves and dispose of them secretly before they can do damage. 🙂
Telling sheep not to go outside said fence (“do not have bible studies in your home w/o authorization from your elders”, or the one Covenant Life’s elder’s had – “you can’t be part of a home group unless you’re a member”, etc.) may ulitmately keep the toxicity levels down and keep some sheep from being eaten alive, but I don’t understand how it ultimately promotes genuine Spirit led living/freedom in Christ. I’ve seen it result in massive immaturity in people who have been in settings like this for decades.
There are too many dumb sheep because there are scads of fences up (spoken and unspoken), and too many shepherds with badges posting edicts/rules coercing sheep as if it’s their duty/responsibility. Christ’s sheep ultimately hear his voice and they follow him, and wise older men and women know how to best protect the family without violating the individual sheep’s freedom in Christ and without the common forms of manipulation so commonly used today.
Just my 2 cents.
I’ve known Jeff for a while now through our blogging interactions and recently met him in person with others in ministries. Y’all know my BS meter is on big-time when it comes to spiritual abuse and bully pastors. If I lived in Tillamook, OR, I’d likely go to his church. This guy is a bulldog when it comes to protecting his sheep. Interestingly (but not really surprising), the same pastors who defend abusive spouses, do not protect abusive wives, hold to permanence view of marriage, etc, are sometimes the same ones who are heavy-handed, spiritually abusive bullies. We compare these kinds of notes. He’s taught me a lot.
He didn’t pay me to say this, but the next time I go to Tillamook Cheese Factory, I’d be happy to meet Jeff and his wife for some of Tiamook’s peanut butter chocolate ice cream. Bring Bev, too, pls.
@ Jeff Crippen:
I second Ken’s comment above.
@ ken:
Just want to say that I don’t in any way view you as controlling or abusive. On the contrary, I think you’ve done wonderful work standing up for the abused.
Although I disagree with your perspective on this issue, I do think that your position comes from a sincere desire to protect and serve others. When so many leaders take advantage of others and treat them poorly, it is a blessing to have leaders like you who truly care for people.
@ Leah: oops that should be @Jeff Crippen
Just to clarify – I don’t know Jeff, and I’m not against Jeff as a person at all.
Just as Jeff posted in response to Jim Elliff’s comments on his blog (Elliff’s comments were regarding how he handles physical abuse with temporary separation), and was passionately against Elliff’s viewpoint without attacking him as a person – so I hope I am doing the same. If I’m not – please let me know.
Elliff, in my opinion, is certainly much deeper in the waters of control than Jeff is (as a side note – I have benefited from some of Elliff’s writings and am on his email list), but sincerely think Jeff is still wading in the waters of control that were not meant to be, and fully realize both parties completely justify it in their own minds as a pastorly responsibility.
ken wrote:
Amen. We are to be a “Body of Christ”. And that is very messy indeed!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Don’t forget Acts 20. Paul knew some of the wolves would be the elders. Then what?
Jeff Crippen wrote:
I would agree with this concerning children/teens. I am seeing a lot of teens being indoctrinated by YRR who follow Piper these days. It is heartbreaking.
But adults? A new believer is to be encouraged to be a Berean, seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit. We are not there to “indoctrinate” people. I agree with A Mom about the “teaching” aspect of things but will go a step further and say that adults should be studying and praying together. I believe the same guy preaching to an audience week after week is fast becoming obsolete. We do not even see that passive audience structure in the NT Body meeting.
Problem is, this thinking puts what we tend to think of as “pastor”— out of a job.
“There are too many dumb sheep because there are scads of fences up (spoken and unspoken), and too many shepherds with badges posting edicts/rules coercing sheep as if it’s their duty/responsibility. Christ’s sheep ultimately hear his voice and they follow him, and wise older men and women know how to best protect the family without violating the individual sheep’s freedom in Christ and without the common forms of manipulation so commonly used today. ”
Amen, Ken!
To go with the sheep/shepherd analogy-I love this article and was very encouraged:
“Introduction
The Bible paints a wonderful loving picture of the Christian’s relationship with Christ by using an analogy to shepherds and sheep. This provides a simple way that the church can understand and relate to the love and care that a faithful shepherd has for his sheep and the innocent undoubting trust that the sheep have for their shepherd. A search of the Scriptures for the words shepherd and sheep will bring up an abundance of pertinent verses. Ps 23:1, John 10:1-16, 1Pet 2:25 are just a few of the many examples.
Sadly, due to some very bad teachings and bad practices that are commonplace in many churches today, a lot of Christians miss the symbolic nature of the shepherd-sheep analogy and apply it almost literally in the area of pastoral authority. This misconception degrades congregations to a subservient and almost animalistic level because it elevates pastors to supreme masters who think they are allowed to corral, control and even devour God’s people for the purpose of furthering their manmade agendas.
While the Bible teaches a symbolic analogy to be applied non-literally, the average modern pastor teaches a concrete under-shepherd scenario to be taken almost literally. The average modern pastor or elder goes way too far and paints a completely different picture than the Bible paints. These men, who are merely symbolic under-shepherds, go beyond that which is written and conveniently grant massive powers and privileges to themselves, power and privileges that Jesus simply does not grant them.”
Read the rest here-
http://www.truthguard.com/Articles/whats-on-the-menu-you-examining-the-shepherd-sheep-error-a62.html
If authoritarian Christian leaders have their way, we’ll end up with the Evangelical Inquisition. (Apologies to Mel Brooks.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqgZnvfJ9Jg
Janey wrote:
Just Mel Brooks? What about Monty Python?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI
“NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!!!”
Pingback: the Jesus Event | Revisionist History as Ammunition [part 2]