"Church authority that is afraid of honest, constructive dissent and uses coercion to silence it is already on the way toward being a T.A.C.O."
Fist MarkIt has been nearly five years since Dee and I awakened from our slumber and realized that things are terribly amiss in Christendom. What was the trigger? It was the realization that some in the pastorate are encouraging short engagements and early marriages. That summer we met with several pastors to query why they were so determined to push this agenda. I remember telling them that I expected my daughter to graduate from college before getting married and that if my pastor advised otherwise, there would be repercussions…
I am pleased to report that my older daughter (who earned her undergraduate degree in May 2011) recently married her sweetheart whom she met the summer before she graduated. They first became acquainted in New York City while doing a five-week Summer Project through Campus Crusade for Christ. The wedding was beautiful, and I want to thank those of you who were praying for us. My younger daughter is beginning her senior year of college, and I have the same expectations about her earning a degree.
Not long after that fateful meeting five years ago, our eyes were opened to a whole new world that we didn't even know existed. We began to learn about the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement (aka New Calvinism), The Gospel Coalition, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), Together for the Gospel (T4G), Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), Mars Hill Church, 9 Marks, CrossWay Books, and many of the individuals involved in the YRR movement. I became so concerned that I would often spend several hours a day researching these topics. The more I discovered, the more alarmed I became. As a wife and mother, I felt tremendous anxiety that my daughters might be influenced by what I considered to be dangerous trends. Dee and I would discuss these matters, and then we felt led to launch The Wartburg Watch. TWW has blossomed into something we NEVER envisioned. Thank you for your loyalty, prayers, and support! We are so grateful for this online community.
As we have kept up with discussions in the blogosphere, we have come to realize that others are greatly concerned. One such individual is Roger Olson, a Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. Prior to joining the Baylor faculty, Olson taught at Bethel College (now Bethel University) in St. Paul, Minnesota. It's worth noting that some of the YRR leaders have also taught at Bethel College and/or Seminary, namely John Piper, Wayne Grudem, and Bruce Ware.
In his fascinating article T.A.C.O.'s Anyone? which appeared on the Patheos website, Olson explained that for 17 years he taught on America’s Cults and New Religions on the college level (and also on the seminary level) and promoted an elective course to students on “Unsafe Sects”.
Olson writes:
"One thing I discovered when teaching the course (and talking about “cults and new religions”) in numerous churches) was a term coined by some sociologist of religion: “T.A.C.O.”–”Totalistic, Aberrational, Christian Organization.” I don’t recall who coined the term (if I ever knew). It was used in print by sociologists to describe a category of churches and sects.
I think it’s time to resurrect it.
Just in the past two to three years I’ve encountered a number of evangelical Christians whose lives have been very negatively impacted by churches (and sometimes networks of churches) who most people consider “evangelical” but fit the profile of a T.A.C.O. Somehow, many of these are able to fly under the radar, so to speak, and not be widely recognized as that. Many conservative evangelicals admire them for their dedication, intensity and outreach."
He goes on to explain that there is a fine line between a high-demand, intense religious group and a T.A.C.O. Olson then describes in some detail a personal experience with what he believes was semi-TACO-ish behavior in a “mainstream” evangelical congregation. You can read it here. Incredibly, he could have been describing the churches Dee and I had been attending before our own eyes were opened. Olson believes that such behavior is not uncommon in today's congregations. In case you're wondering what he would tell someone who has experienced this in his/her own congregation, he emphatically says “Run!” Such behavior is not only unhealthy; it is abusive.
We absolutely concur with what Roger Olson recommends — there needs to be an agency LIKE the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability to keep tabs on religious organizations and warn people about “evangelical” churches and sects (including “networks” of congregations) that behave in harmful ways. He is spot on when he states:
"Being considered evangelical should not just be a matter of doctrine; a church with impeccable evangelical orthodoxy on paper might nevertheless be aberrational and abusive."
Here is an abbreviated list of behaviors Olson cites that should cause people to RUN from a congregation even though it appears doctrinally orthodox and evangelical:
Condoning (including covering up) sexual abuse or sexual immorality of leaders within itself.
Silencing honest and constructive dissent.
Treating leaders as above normal ethical standards, above questioning.
Implying that “true Christianity” belongs to it alone or churches in its network.
Teaching (often by strong implication) that without the church, especially without the leaders, members lose their spiritual connection to God. (This happens in many, often subtle, ways. For example a church may claim that its “vision” of the kingdom of God is unique and to depart from it is to depart from God’s kingdom, etc.)
Simply closing itself off from all outside criticism or accountability by implying to its members that the “whole world” outside the church is evil.
The pastor literally owning the church lock, stock and barrel.
We have heard from so many who have been involved in T.A.C.O.ish organizations, and their testimonies bear witness to what Olson contends:
"Church authority that is afraid of honest, constructive dissent and uses coercion to silence it is already on the way toward being a T.A.C.O."
We will be continuing our focus on how to spot these kinds of religious organizations in an upcoming post. There are a tremendous number of resources in the blogosphere on the characteristics of abusive ministries, and we will provide links to some of them. Olson concludes his article with this recommendation:
"My advice is to RUN from such churches. And, if possible expose them as aberrational and abusive–even if their doctrines are perfectly orthodox by evangelical standards."
If you believe you are attending such a church, please prayerfully consider Olson's advice.
Here is a clip that seems apropos to this discussion:
Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 26:1-28:27 Romans 13:1-14 Psalm 23:1-6 Proverbs 20:11
Does this not go hand in hand with the “keys to the kingdom” thing from a recent post on membership
covenantscontracts? I think I’ll pass on the 9 Marks / Acts 29 taco. It seems like it would be enough to give anyone indigestion from Hades!Thank you once again for the advice to RUN. You cannot fight city hall. You cannot change the minds of arrogant power-hungry elders.
Other problem teachings in TACO-ish churches:
–Only acceptable role for mothers is stay at home, homeschool, and non-career.
–Courtship and dating formulas
–Bashing divorcees regardless of reason for the divorce. Relegating them and their children to a lower status.
–Seeing women at 2nd class citizens. Not allowing women to do anything beyond passing the communion plate.
–Heartless view of the poor.
It all boils down to one thing: Using theological words to deny the teachings of Jesus.
Correction: At my old church women were only allowed to pass the OFFERING plate. The communion elements were off limits.
Life’s too short to hang out at churches that demean and insult women. Jesus didn’t treat women that way.
Tacos? ¿Que? Who made tacos? No food you say. Now I’m hungry. And no, Taco Bell is not real food. Guess I’ll just have to make my own tacos.
And Janey, I agree. If you have to tear people down to build yourself up, you’re doing wrong. And doing it supposedly in the name of God (cuz Jesus never gets mentioned) is worse.
Julie-Anne’s post on the “If you have to demand authority” thread contained the following excerpt:
This is perhaps the most tragic thing described in that whole discussion. It’s one thing to have an isolated abusive para-church organisation calling itself “a church” in a town. But, if that testimony is accurate, the local church as defined biblically is non-existent. It is split into “local churches” that have abandoned assembling together to the degree that they now refuse to defend the weak against the strong. Regardless of their doctrinal stance, these are not well-qualified elders, because when a wolf attacks a sheep they run away.
In Roger Olsen’s post he describes the manner in which a local church board demanded absolute executive authority over the church staff at a church meeting – and the congregation voted to give it to them, with the direct result that at least two people lost their livelihoods. This is a failure of congregational rule: again, those given the job of protecting the weak refuse to do so.
If you read the comments on Olsen’s post, one describes – sadly – how he went to one of the “Reformed” conferences and “learned” that “a true church” is one that satisfies three essentials, one of which is practicing church discipline, but none of which is that they love one another. An example of the neo-Calvinist movement putting a lot of effort into spreading its vision: a divided, feudalistic church split into isolated enclaves in which ambitious and charismatic (or “godly”) leaders can flourish.
“Which au courant SE megapastor is building a 16,000 sq ft house on 20 acres and is still crying for money?”
Is this the infamous “you’re not on board with us so you’re a hater” leader? (not an elder/pastor in my book).
As someone who got messed up by a TACO-ish independent “Fellowship” in the Seventies, there is something I cannot stress enough:
Christianese Cult-Watch groups defined “Cult(TM)” ENTIRELY in terms of ABBERRANT THEOLOGY, NOT REPEAT NOT in terms of abusive/control freak behavior towards their people. While the Cult-Sniffers were parsing theology letter-by-letter, the TACOs kept abusing and abusing and abusing. And used their Theologically-Correct clean bill of health as an additional weapon against their people. Another boot on their faces.
The TACO I was involved with HAD a Totally Theologically Correct bill of health — standard Altar-Call Fundagelical, with the Gospel According to Hal Lindsay. PRetty much the same theology as the Christian Cult-Sniffers. (Which explains their Theologically-clean bill of health — “One of Us! One of Us! Gooble! Gobble! One of Us!”)
For the details, the TACO in question was called “Koinonia House Christian Fellowship”, Whittier, California circa 1974-76, and maintained a couple of large houses and one small fourplex as “cult compounds” in all but name. I experienced moderate-level love bombing and “encouragement from Christian brothers” to leave my Heathen family and move into their cult compounds to escape temptation while waiting for The Rapture (any minute now… any minute now… any minute now…). If I hadn’t discovered Dungeons & Dragons, I might have disappeared into their cult compound forever — years later I heard about some who had to be forcibly deprogrammed. I’m pretty sure they no longer exist, but their Fundagelical Theology was Theologically Correct, so they were NOT a Cult Cult Cult.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Purity of Predestined Ideology, Comrade.
That was a helpful video. The pastor twists everything the man says. This is an excellent illustration of why it’s best to just walk out of the door and not confront the pastor/elders.
I read Olson’s article. I cannot believe that he and his wife would ever have been members of a church of the kind he describes.
The examples he gives are awful. Clear problems in those places. I would leave a church for less than the examples he gives.
@ Janey: Agreed!
Is this what they are teaching in seminaries these days? Or at those pastors conferences?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
The three elements are:
1. Has the Gospel
2. Administers the Sacraments
3. Practices church discipline
This is historic Reformed from Calvin, himself, I believe.
Not saying I agree with it or am defending it, but it’s definitely ingrained.
Janey wrote:
I think that video came from the Christian Monist blog. He based it on actual experiences with a toxic church he had to bail out of.
Off the subject – I just found out that my former church (SGM CrossWay in Charlotte) is starting Redemption Groups. Bleh. Sure wish my family members who are still there would get the heck out. They also started using “The City” for their website. Interesting how Mars Hill is infiltrating other denominations.
“It has been nearly five years since Dee and I awakened from our slumber and realized that things are terribly amiss in Christendom.”
Shocking!
(Sorry)
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Some other details about that TACOish group from the Seventies:
* NO distinct “cult leader” (unless you count an absentee Hal Lindsay); more like a general groupthink consensus. Some “Elders” (in apparent early twenties), but no single “Pastor”.
* Supported themselves by running some sort of house-cleaning service. Never found out the details.
* Heavy emphasis on “street witnessing”, with all-hands turnout for Cruise Night on Whittier Blvd.
* Basic Fundagelical theology; Altar Call/Sinner’s Prayer/Exact Moment of Salvation, Baptism of the Spirit (more on that below), lots of emphasis on The Rapture and Gospel According to Hal Lindsay. (Which in itself was not that unusual for the time.)
* Lots of talk about “Discipleship, Discipleship, Discipleship” — apparently “being Saved” wasn’t enough, you had to be Discipled(TM).
* Pentecostal-like influence about the Holy Spirit; specifically, you know when you received the Holy Spirit when the Discipling took with a “POP!” I found out later this sounded like the “snapping” phenomenon in Forcible Indoctrination (commonly called Brainwashing). And that this “Popping” of the Holy Spirit was the TRUE sign of Salvation.
* Once observed demonophobia, when a kid was scared of ghosts and mother corrected her “SATAN wants us to believe there are ‘ghosts’, but they’re really Demons.”
* Their “cult compound” was two large old Craftsman-style houses in the older section of Whittier. They’d been redone into “communes”, including barracks-like arrays of bunks in the basement. Basement appeared to have been enlarged/dug out by hand to fit more bunks. Once observed an additional “compound” consisting of a typical fourplex of the time; they’d knocked doorways in the party walls between the units (including some through closets) to turn the fourplex into one large commune.
* No affiliation with any other church or group that I could see. Though I once attended an all-night prayer/anointing session at some local church (can’t remember any further details). And they did seem to speak pretty highly of “Melodyland” in Anaheim, as if they were somehow affiliated.
* Dress code for women? Have vague memories of a lot of the women there dressing with long skirts and tops.
I have to hand them this; they supported me through my mother’s death in ’75. As they were the only Christians I knew at the time, I had them do the funeral. It was one of those funerals that’s a hilarious comedy of errors in retrospect, but wasn’t funny at the time — combination of “preacher doesn’t know the deceased” and “only one sermon, i.e. The Altar Call”. It was a couple months after Mom’s funeral that the real love-bombing began (to get me to flee those Heathens that called themselves my family).
Finally! I’ve been hoping for a term similar to “cult” which could be used for organizations which are abusive without technically having unorthodox doctrine (even if their actions betray a lack of Christian love). My personal thought was “kult” (ala krab dip; technically not the genuine article, but it sure tastes and feels like it), but that’s hard to differentiate in speech. But I must say, I prefer TACO–it is perfect.
@ Jeff S:
Jeff – that’s the weird thing. I understood that the “Reformers” actually came up with a five-point list:
– a gathering of Christian believers
– that calls itself a church
– has qualified leaders
– where the sacraments are rightly administered
– and the gospel rightly preached
I wasn’t aware the practice of church discipline was fundamental even to the “Reformers”. There are many reasons why it’s fundamental to the new-wave “Reformed”, obviously.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Some more things I just remembered:
* Strongly Anti-Catholic (Mystery Babylon Heresy).
* Almost as strongly Anti-Mainstream Protestant (Apostasy/Lukewarm).
* Some emphasis on Watchman Nee, but that may have been one individual Elder’s thing. (“Elder” in this case being a relative term; none of them could have been much over 25-30.)
Janey wrote:
At my family-integrated church, the dads of each family were expected/encouraged to hand out communion to their families. Mr. Hoppy was unusual because he held the trays and let me get my own. One of my younger friends once told me about a service where her dad was absent. One of the men carrying the trays from one row of chairs to the next walked down her row (or in some other weird spot) rather than hand her the tray to pass to her sister and mom. I never personally saw any behavior quite that bizarre, but I believe her.
Wow, there are T.A.C.O stands everywhere in the US!
“Christianese Cult-Watch groups defined “Cult(TM)” ENTIRELY in terms of ABBERRANT THEOLOGY, NOT REPEAT NOT in terms of abusive/control freak behavior towards their people. While the Cult-Sniffers were parsing theology letter-by-letter, the TACOs kept abusing and abusing and abusing. And used their Theologically-Correct clean bill of health as an additional weapon against their people. Another boot on their faces.
”
Very true Hug and that has caused lots of confusion but it is changing to include behavior because behavior is what gets people to believe the wrong stuff!
@ HoppyTheToad:
I guess that a woman touching the plate would somehow contaminate it? 🙄
Deb
Great post. I have long been an admirer of Roger Olson. He is a good and decent man. His thoughts have helped me to soldify thinking in many areas, especially in the area of God’s love.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is the reason that I, at first, had trouble understanding the Neo-Calvinist movement. I have had the privilege of talking with several professors who are traditional in their reformed beliefs. They surprised me by saying that men like John Piper and others like him do not represent Reformed theology as it has been practiced.
I believe that it is the emphasis on church discipline, along with a strict hierarchical authority structure and an emphasis on Gods wrath that delineate the difference.
Until the advent of the Neo Calvinist movement, Reformed and non-Reformed believers were able to find some basis of common fellowship. That has been destroyed in the past decade. It makes me very sad.
dee wrote:
I don’t understand this. Didn’t Calvin and through to the Puritans practice church discipline very seriously?
@ Anon 1: Great comment!
@ JeffB: You know what they say…better late than NEVER!!! 🙂
ine very seriously?
Yes, that’s the take on dee wrote:
That’s what my cradle-Reformed friends say too. When I mention Piper they roll their eyes and say he’s off-base.
pacbox wrote:
Mmmmmmm. I love me some tacos. Barbacoa. From the taco truck.
@ Dee:
I have heard the Neo-Calvinist movement described as “neo-Puritan” (which I could remember where). I wish I knew more about the distinctions between English/Scottish Calvinist practice and practice of other Calvinist groups (i.e., on the Continent, etc.). I’m starting to get a sneaking feeling that there may have been differences, and that the Puritans and Scots will, as usual, come out on the rather extreme end of things.
For example, I once read some (modern) Scottish Covenanter-type guy who listed the church councils he recognized as “legitimate.” (Because his opinion is what makes or breaks a church council, I guess.) There were some old normal ones (Nicaea, etc.), but then some that happened in Scotland in the 17th century. My first thought was, I thought a church council had to involve the entire church? So now a meeting of Scottish Covenanters represents the entire church?!?!
I wish I could find the site again, it was a few years ago.
Hester wrote:
I think some reading may be in order this fall. Perhpas we could all share some resources and track just how the Neo-Cals deviated from the Reformed crowd in the 1990s-2000.
Anon 1 wrote:
I think they were the ones who started the whole church and state association. I still get a chuckle from folks who claim that Calvin could not have stopped Servetus’ execution. He could have. He just had lots of excuses as to why he could not. Now watch! There is some sort of Calvin/Servetus apologist crowd who somehow know whenever we, or others, are not complimentary of that particular historical kerfluffle.
Marge Sweigart wrote:
Oh good night! The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Bridget wrote:
Christianity has a long history of misogyny. Not as overt and strident as various strains of fundamentalist Islam or Judaism, but it’s still there.
Muff Potter wrote:
I am really surprised that the men leaders in some churches accept money given by women. Surely this money is “contaminated” since it comes from women. I certainly do not feel this way.
dee wrote:
Calvin and Servetus?
http://honestchurchsigns.tumblr.com/post/47597372983
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Unfortunately, I don’t even have tortillas to make tacos. Taco truck and homemade are the best kind of tacos. Now, you made me hungry again. I guess I’ll have to go get some tortillas. I prefer the ones that are freshly made everyday at the one grocery store around here.
Pacbox wrote:
Same here, Pacbox! I wish I knew how to make the barbacoa ones at home. I’ll have to work on that.
I did, however, find a recipe for a delicious Agua de Jamaica. http://www.chow.com/recipes/10645-agua-de-jamaica-hibiscus-punch It’s so refreshing in the summer heat.
@ Nick Bulbeck: It might be important to the Calvinist/Reformed stream, but not to Lutheranism or Anglicanism, in earlier times or now. (for the most part; there are exceptions.)
Holy TACO, batman! The personal example Mr. Olson gave was eerily similar to what happened at my church. An interim Pastor was hired to take our church through a process of examining what we were doing as a church and how we might do it better. This was supposed to be a short process, but it turned into a 5 year long nightmare for my family. My father was the minister of music and youth. Generally well-liked, I might add. But you cannot make everyone happy, and there was one family in particular who had beef with my dad. They also happened to have a lot of position and power in the church. The interim picked up on this, and together with one of the men in this family who happened to be a deacon proceeded to alter the church constitution slowly, so that first they reorganized the personnel committee so that it was hand picked by the pastor. During our church’s process of self-examination the interim and the deacon orchestrated things so that everyone would come to the conclusion that the only thing wrong with the church was my dad. Next they decided to seize upon the relatively minor money problems the church was having, and “reorganize” the church staff such that we would have a Director of Youth Ministry and Director of Music Ministry, both hired by the personnel committee and not by vote of the congregation as had been the case with my dad. This also supposedly circumvented the need to have a 3/4’s majority vote to dismiss my dad, although I argued that point. I lost. I’ll give the interim one thing, he’s a force to be reckoned with. So my father was dismissed, oops, I’m sorry, reorganized…told he could apply for the jobs but knew full well he would get neither and couldn’t live off the part time pay anyway. Also, at some point during the process, the interim had the local director of missions from the Baptist association come yell/preach at us about supporting the interim pastor. Funny, later on the interim got that director of missions fired and then took his job as… you guessed it, an interim.
Fast forward: God delivered us. We now have the most kind-hearted Pastor you could imagine. Our new youth director is one of my best friends. My dad has a job he enjoys at another church in town that he likes better than our church. And God pretty much scattered the people who hurt my family to the four winds. Funny how God works sometimes. But I realize we are lucky. Anyway just found the similarity interesting. Sorry for the long barely related rant.
But just because a church starts to go TACO doesn’t mean it can’t go back I guess. Just have to be vigilant and fight for the good.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Well, I’ve got tortillas now but waiting on the chicken to defrost. I’m eating fresh made tortilla chips while I wait and post.
With all the TACOs going around here, time for a little WEIRDNESS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45C16tToen8
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It’s a travesty to associate a tasty regional dish with a cult. And I don’t want to explain “Totalistic, Aberrational, Christian Organizations” to everyone who looks at me funny when I call a church a T.A.C.O. 🙂 I’ll stick with cult.
” The personal example Mr. Olson gave was eerily similar to what happened at my church. An interim Pastor was hired to take our church through a process of examining what we were doing as a church and how we might do it better. ”
Was the interim from SBTS? This sounds like how they operate. The church calls for an interim. The KBC which is run by Mohler’s boy sends out someone from SBTS who is great at first but then gets his core group behind him and next thing they find they are taken over and are now Calvinist or the sat campus of a large Calvinist church. The bylaws had been combed through for every loophole which helped them take over. If you don’t like it, leave. Never mind most left there spent 30 years helping to pay off the debt. It is not your church anymore. They get it debt free and want young people.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG,
I see some similarities between your experience and my former church. Mine was born during the ’70s Jesus movement. They’ve just become more refined and savvy over the years. (And changed a lot) Though they have their ducks in a row doctrinally (at least for a particular denomination), they are off-the-charts controlling and abusive.
Anon 1 wrote:
Once more, Salami Tactics right out of Comrade Stalin’s playbook.
jrizzle wrote:
Your dad wouldn’t happen to be named Leon Trotsky or Emmanuel Goldstein, would he?
dee wrote:
This time we WILL Achieve True Communism.
Ees Party Line, Comrade!
Increase Political Consciousness Indoctrination!
@ Dee:
I don’t know about that, as the monarchy and the church had been connected for several hundred years before the Reformation, and the papacy was definitely firmly in the middle of the the political mess that was medieval Italy. And before that, of course, there was Constantine. The Puritans, etc. were sometimes copying the only thing they knew. Which is why I always have to laugh when my fellow Americans wax eloquent about their Puritan forefathers’ belief in religious freedom. Clearly they’ve never heard of Mary Dyer.
Did I mention before that I’ve heard Doug Phillips call Oliver Cromwell an “amazing man”?
@ Hester: Yes… the papacy owned/ran a fair amount of real estate (read: small states) in Italy; there was the Holy Roman Empire; Catholicism was *the* state religion in the west, while the Orthodox Church was the state church in what had been the eastern part of the Roman Empire.
The Puritans – in England and New England – had a different spin on church-state, but they certainly did not begin it. That would be the Roman Emperor Constantine (who legitimized xtianity) and his immediate successors, who made it the official religion of the entire Roman Empire (i.e., state religion).
Hester wrote:
Or any of the other people who were executed or exiled by the powers that be of the Mass. Bay Colony… or else they’re just choosing to ignore things that they *do* know in order to create a custom-made version of “history.” (More likely the latter than the former, I’m thinking…)
@ Hester: I need to check out some info. on the rise of the belief in the divine right of kings, which is central to this discussion.
jrizzle wrote:
Nice story. I’m glad there are happy endings sometimes!
@ Numo:
One homeschool mom did try to tell me that Anne Hutchinson’s baby was proof that she was rebelling against God. Except the baby she described to me was actually Mary Dyer’s baby. She said she got her information from The Light and the Glory, but it wouldn’t necessarily surprise me if that book contained such a glaring historical mistake.
And on that note, I’ve never yet encountered any of these folks who can tell me where in the Bible miscarriage/birth defects are listed as one of God’s methods of punishment (and it’s not like there’s no lists of punishments in the OT). Or more interestingly, how that jives with their pro-life stance.
@ Hester: Sheesh.
She needs to spend some time reading up on this, in accurate books.
@ Hester: afaik, there is no such “punishment.” I think it comes from our not-so-pleasant human need to rationalize the other person’s suffering.
Hester wrote:
The only possible example that comes to mind is the death of David’s first kid by Bathsheba, but the Bible gives no specifics as to the medical circumstances.
Other than that, death of children (including by miscarriage/stillbirth) and birth defects sound like a curse a black-magick sorcerer would put on a woman. Hexerai.
“O GREAT CHEMOSH! O GREAT BAAL! SEND DEATH AND MISFORTUNE DOWN UPON THESE MY ENEMIES!”
— prayer to Baal-Chemosh from some 1950s Cecil B DeMille Bible Epic
Anon 1 wrote:
Not entirely sure where the interim went to seminary but he was an old timer from the area. Doubtful he was a Calvinist. So at least we didn’t have to deal with that aspect of it.
@ Numo:
Well, she does go to the same church as the homeschool dad who was shocked that there weren’t any real witches involved in the Salem witch trials. This was the PCA church I attended for about 3y (not sure how I lasted that long, looking back)…the same one with the Reconstructionist pulpit-sharing. The Sunday he was shocked about the witches was the last service I ever attended. I’d just returned from an October weekend in Salem so it was rather fresh in my mind.
It also happened to be a month after the 10th anniversary of 9/11 (a Sunday), which they completely forgot about…and because they forgot the opening hymn ended up being about Judgment Day and God’s wrath. BIG oops.
The homeschool mom I mentioned before said she wouldn’t study the Salem witch trials because they were a “black mark” on the history of Christianity. Which yeah, they are but…ummm…that’s all the more reason to study them?!?! Kinda that whole “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it” thing?
So yeah…sheesh.
@ Hester: oh man – no words!!!
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the advice to have a short engagement and marry early is unwise. Nor must early marriage (or child-bearing, for that matter) preclude a woman getting a degree.
buddyglass wrote:
Everyone is different, and of course many couples make it, but there is a correlation between marrying before age 24 and higher divorce rates.
dee wrote:
You don’t actually have to show Calvin could have stopped the execution in order to criticize Him. After Servetus was killed, he wrote an entire treatise defending the practice of executing heretics. So even if he was powerless to stop it, he nevertheless approved.
In our Texas town, there are many places to get good tacos and there are some T.A.C.O.S as well. My fav tacos contain fajita beef, fajita-style chicken, or parillada mix (fajita style beef, chicken and shrimp) with fresh guacamole, and just enough jalapeno in the marinade for the meat to be warm in the mouth.
Janey wrote:
Sure. I’m just skeptical that early marriage is causative. It may be that the set of folks who marry early is different from the set of folks who don’t in some way that predisposes the former to divorce.
For instance, some early marriages are probably precipitated by unexpected pregnancies. I’d expect those to be more likely to end in divorce, but not because they’re early per se.
By the way, lest we excuse Calvin’s defense of the execution of heretics as merely an feature of the times in which he lived, his position, while not “controversial”, wasn’t universally held. In fact, Calvin was roundly criticized by one Sebastian Castellio, a fellow Frenchman and reformer, working in Basel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Castellio#Conflict_with_Calvin
buddyglass wrote:
If you separate the issues, the way the U.S. Census does, you’ll see that both independently correlate with divorce, but not in the way people might predict. Childlessness is as highly correlated with divorce as bringing a child into a marriage. Merely being pregnant at the time of marriage has a lower correlation.
The probability of divorce after five years:
AGE at marriage REALLY matters:
Less than 18: 29%
18-19: 24%
20-24 years old: 17%
25 and over: 15%
INCOME:
Less than $25K: 31%
$25K-$49K: 19%
$50K or more: 13%
Woman’s work status at time of marriage:
Not working: 23%
Part time: 15%
Full time: 19%
How important is RELIGION to you?
Very: 18%
Somewhat: 21%
Not: 26%
Timing of first birth
Before the marriage: 29%
0-7 months after: 24%
More than 7 months after: 14%
No first birth: 29%
Source: Bramlett MD and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22). 2002.
I neglected to say these are first marriage stats (above).
If you follow that source (see pp. 55-57), it lists more than a dozen factors and how they correlate with divorce.
“Silencing honest and constructive dissent.
Treating leaders as above normal ethical standards, above questioning.
Implying that “true Christianity” belongs to it alone or churches in its network.
Teaching (often by strong implication) that without the church, especially without the leaders, members lose their spiritual connection to God. (This happens in many, often subtle, ways. For example a church may claim that its “vision” of the kingdom of God is unique and to depart from it is to depart from God’s kingdom, etc.)
Simply closing itself off from all outside criticism or accountability by implying to its members that the “whole world” outside the church is evil.
The pastor literally owning the church lock, stock and barrel.”
Wow. This hit the nail on the head. I’ve never been involved in a church that did these things but have a family member who is heavily into a church movement that has strong tendencies toward all of these characteristics. Mostly they’re not direct or overt (e.g., they’d never outright say that their leaders is infallible), but in reality these things are a steady undercurrent that undergird much of what is done and said and much of how individual members interact and communicate with those outside the group. BTW, this group is entirely orthodox on paper. Their doctrinal stance is unquestionably mainstream. And a lot of what they teach is doctrinally right on. It’s what they do with it and how it gets played out in real relationships with others that makes the difference and tips the balance in a scary direction.
If you get all your doctrine just right but can’t love others and be the face and hands and feet of Jesus to them, it’s all for naught.
Those are good stats. Still, though, just seeing that age at first marriage correlates with divorce doesn’t tell us much. We’d need to do some multivariate regression, which I’m sure has been done by someone, somewhere. I have no idea where to look, but I’m sure it’s something that’s been researched ad nauseum.
I guess I feel like if my son meets someone he wants to spend the rest of his life with, he’s of age, and I’m satisfied it’s not just infatuation, then I don’t see much point in advising him to drag it out purely out of fear of the statistics.
Note too that the divorce rate for the 20-24 group is very close to that of the 25+ group. Close enough to be within the margin of error. So if we’re looking for a magic number then 20 seems about as good as 24. Sub-20 the divorce rate really starts to spike.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Speaking not as a YRR, but as more of an old-school confessionally reformed Presbyterian, I just had to respond to this particular comment as well as the general content and tenor of comments about the Reformed and Reformed theology on this blog. Much of it is misleading, unfair, and uninformed, and some is just downright caricature. If one is going to criticize Reformed theology or Reformed people in general, then one needs to at least do some homework and read en toto some of the Reformed confessions since these, not the YRR innovations, define in a public and ecclesiastical way, what the Reformed essentially believe and practice. It might also be helpful to also read some of the prominent 16th and 17th century Reformed theologians; yes, John Calvin is one, but there are many others, and to keep in mind that we are not required to agree with everything these guys wrote. The particular comment above gives me an opportunity to illustrate what I am saying here. Yes, the Reformed Churches have always confessed the marks of a true church based on our understanding of Scripture; depending on the confession/catechism, there are either two marks, the pure preaching of the Word (gospel) and the right administration of the sacraments, or these two along with church discipline. However, if one would take time to read the confessions and catechisms, along with other Reformed writings, one would come to understand that we Reformed consider that all the “one anothers” in Scripture–love one another, bear one another’s burdens, pray for one another, etc. etc. are, among other things, absolutely necessary parts of and manifestations of the pure preaching of the Word. These things, and many others, are contained in this one mark. Perhaps our forebears and we today were and are too concise, but we do not ignore the necessity and joy of brotherly love. Also, we Reformed confess that teaching elders (pastors) and ruling elders have authority, but it a Scriptural, and therefore limited and rather narrow authority. We sometimes refer to it as “declarative authority,” i.e., they can go as far as the Bible as interpreted and set forth in our creeds and confessions allow and no further. The elders in a real Reformed church, that is a confessionlly Reformed church cannot tell you where to live, who to marry, whether or not your daughter should attend college, who to vote for, etc. They cannot tell you that you must practice courtship or homeschool your children, and they cannot promote any of these things in explicit or implicit ways. They can, and should, out of love for the church member and for the purity of the church, discipline an unrepentant adulterer, abuser, charlatan, or anyone who is in clear and well-documented, publically verifiable sin and is unwilling to repent. Questioning or disagreeing or complaining against or to the elders is NOT something one can be disciplined for; disparaging the pastor and elders of the church as a Sunday school teacher week after week, month after month, after being admonished and warned, on the other hand, is something that one may be disciplined for. Also, in a truly Reformed church, even the properly limited authority of a teaching or ruling elder acting alone or in concert is intentionally subject to oversight and criticism. Any member may file formal charges against the elders or an elder in particular and a trial must be held after each side has been given proper time to prepare; if the member is unsatisfied with the results of the trial, he or she may appeal to the Presbytery or similar body to which that church is subject. If one is still unsatisfied with a decision, one may appeal it to the next level, which could be a Synod or the General Assembly. Typically, the decision of the General Assembly is final. What may or may not be clear is that true Reformed churches see the biblical pattern as one of elders and deacons being nominated and voted upon by the congregation. Each church is under several or many elders, depending on the size of the church because this is the biblical pattern we see; in addition, we see the wisdom of it being the biblical pattern so that abuse of authority is Less Likely to happen in this system since each elder has equal authority and has a vote. No one man or one pastor can declare himself, de jure or de facto, the sole leader and authority. On top of that, if one man does try to do this or if the elders sin or even one of them sins, then the individual member has recourse through several church courts, up to the General Assembly. Do some research and you will see that elders have reversed themselves as a result of members filing charges and that Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies have overruled and disiciplined elders and sided with individual members in a number of cases, so these are not just kangaroo courts or going through the motions. This is the way a real Reformed church operates; much of what passes for Reformed these days is actually just folks who have a soteriology similar to the historic Reformed churches. They are not really Reformed in the historical sense. And that can be a dangerous thing because it really is a package deal. It all works and goes together. You can’t just pick out the soteriology and leave the rest behind without consequences. I know there are many uncorrected spelling and probably grammar errors above. Forgive me. I didn’t have much time to write this.
buddyglass wrote:
Yes, and that’s the problem with taking correlations and treating them as causation. We really cannot use it as a crystal ball to tell a particular person what will happen in a particular situation.
As a parent, I would urge caution if my children wanted to marry someone with a certain configuration of traits. And I would recommend they create a plan for how to handle the difficulties that might arise. But beyond that? Who knows? Some couples defy all the odds.
Others, like myself, have every desirable demographic trait, and still lose their marriage. If you were to know my situation, using the data, I should never have gotten divorced. I think I deserve some sort of prize! (Ha.)
But having said that, God is good and I wouldn’t trade it now for anything. I learned to care about people whom I had once viewed as 2nd class Christians.
The first will be last and the last will be first.
@ Ash:
I appreciate your taking the time to set that out.
I suppose my only quibble with you is that, in my comment to which you responded, you’ll notice I put the word “Reformed” in quotes. Moreover, I referred to the group in question as “neo-Calvinist”, not reformed or even Calvinist. And I described a (different) group as ‘an isolated abusive para-church organisation calling itself “a church”’. In other words, I don’t believe the likes of Park Fiscal is “reformed” just because he chooses to recruit follower-clients under that banner. I don’t even believe that his boasting of a vaguely Reformed soteriology makes him a follower of Jesus.
Labels, whether “reformed” or “none” (i.e. those who answer something like “none” to the semi-regular question “which church do you go to?”) are a perennial problem. I can understand your getting fed up with what you read here and elsewhere about “reformed” groups, because I have the same problems with the word “none”. To wit, the number of people who assume I’m either petulantly running away from “hurt”, rebellious, or just casual and lazy because I’m a “none”. Or that I’m some kind of vacuous simpleton who’s “looking for the perfect church”.
There are actually numerous regulars here who consider themselves Reformed. It’s unfortunate that some groups out there who do indeed market an unbiblical vision do likewise.
@ Ash:
Your criticism is probably fair at some level, but two points to consider:
1) I attended a PCA church for three years. The Neo-Calvinist dictatorial church governance was not in place, which was fortunate, but no one in the church even seemed aware that Neo-Calvinism was any different from the WCF or any other founding documents of their church. They made no effort to distinguish the two at all. So I got the Larger Catechism and John Piper side by side, on the same level, in the same breath. (My pastor also invited a Reconstructionist to preach but that’s another story.) In other words, there may be a lot of Reformed people on the ground who don’t recognize the distinction you’re making (which I do think is a valid one) and are unwittingly passing the two things off as the same, and this may be happening in confessionally Reformed churches, not just Neo-Calvinist megas and satellites.
2) If some of the descriptions here are caricatures of Reformed theology, perhaps that is because Neo-Calvinism is a caricature of Reformed theology? 😉 Which is a statement you seem to agree with.
3) I try to do historical research before I open my mouth, so I hope I didn’t say anything stupid or wrongheaded and insert my foot instead. 🙂
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
As an aside, I remember Brent Det mentioning during a speech at a random Celebration that he was the only SGM leader who had a seminary degree, but was a bit embarrassed that it carried the name “Melodyland”. He brought down the house with that comment. I believe these days it goes a more traditional-sounding moniker, Anaheim Theological Seminary.
Marge Sweigart wrote:
Zondervan bought The City several years ago. They did however buy the creator of it also. I looked into it when I was upset that my Assembly of God church started using The City last year, so even churches like mine will have no idea that Driscoll can have your information, even the tithing is now processed through The City.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/zondervan-acquires-megachurch-s-community-building-program-35493/
@ Patti:
If Zondervan bought the software, how can Driscoll have anything to do with it?
Nickname wrote:
Judging from old maps of Anaheim, Melodyland at the time was called “Melodyland Christian Center”, a large circular building about a block east of Disneyland on what’s now “Disney Way.” The building no longer exists, the area having been rebuilt in the late Nineties/early 2000s during the expansion of Disneyland. (Local area knowledge; I live some two miles/three klicks north of the site.)
John wrote:
The very definition of a TACO. And since Christianese cult-watch groups used to define Cult(TM) ENTIRELY by Theology and Doctrine, they would slip right under the radar of all the Cultsniffers-General. While the Cultsniffers-General would be parsing their Theology letter-by-letter and pronouncing them Clean, they’d be acting like North Korea towards their people.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Hi HUG, a bit late with this comment, but I think the Watchman Nee thing may have been an individual case. I have the impression that mainstream Reformed are wary of Nee (who was certainly a brave Christian, whatever one thinks of some of his ideas) because of some of his theology.
@ Kolya:
These guys didn’t strike me as being Calvinist in any way, shape, or form. Most of their theology was “Fundagelical with the labels painted over” — Altar Call/Sinner’s Prayer Salvation, Dispensationalist, highly-Literalist. With Rapture Scares on a regular basis (any minute now…). More like what you get when you start out with Sixties Jesus People, mix in a large dose of The Gospel According to Hal Lindsay, and let the mixture age and accrete in near-isolation.