“Punishment – The justice that the guilty deal out to those that are caught.” -Elbert Hubbard link
Punishment Island link
Now, back to the business at hand. Before you are employed by a corporation, you will be handed a handbook of corporate policies. This should spell out all sorts of rules and regulations on advancement, dos and don'ts, how to prevent getting fired, how you are paid, etc. Whole divisions of human resources have been developed to deal with the complexities of human management. Deviations from the corporate policy will get the company sued, on one hand, and the employee fired on the other hand.
Take a look at these handbooks. They are often so complex and detailed that summaries are provided for each section. In spite of the cumbersome nature of these rule books, they continue to be used because they protect the company and its leaders as well as the employees. They are not perfect but each lawsuit or kerfluffle is instructive and new policies are added on a routine basis. Any prospective employee is advised to read the book and sign off on it.
The government has similar rules called laws. How much tax you pay, how fast you drive, and how you hire and treat your employees are all found in the codified law.
God, Himself, provided His rules of the game which are codified in a document we call the Bible. Through this document, we understand our origins, our problem and our solution. We are commanded to love, to not commit adultery, and to be honest amidst many, many other commands and truisms.
I call all the above the rules of the game. Unfortunately, in many church communities, the rules are not spelled out. There are many assertions about the need for "gospel" discipline but it is rarely defined in any coherent manner. Do you get disciplined for gluttony, adultery or for remarking on the lifestyle of a pastor? There is no consistency from church to church. We are told to "trust" the elders and pastors yet we know little of these men and their own weaknesses and biases.
That is why I want to commend Attorney Ken Sande. Yup, you read that right. He has developed a 25 page document called Model Relational Commitments which he explains is:
To promote peace, preserve relationships, reduce a church's exposure to legal liability, and ultimately to improve a church's ability to model and proclaim the gospel of Christ.
Now, in case you think that I am saying that I agree with this document, I want to state categorically that I do not agree with a number of items and actions that are promoted in the text. For example, he outlines that this is a legal document from the get go. That puts anyone who signs this on warning.
However, due to his transparency in releasing this document, I would know, a priori, that I could not join his church. This would be a win/win for both the church and me. They would not want me to join because I would not be on track with some of their beliefs. I would not want to join them because I could not agree with their "contract." I would probably be thrown into church discipline within a week.
So, in that respect, Atty Sande gets what he wants: peace. So will I. It is very difficult to be a member of a church and suddenly discover that there are some unwritten rules which will be enforced. That happened to me at a former church.
I have related this event on an number of occasions. My husband and I were teaching a class on systematic theology. When we got to the theology of creation, we decided to have a debate on various beliefs surrounding the age of the earth. Our intent was to learn from one another. But, a riot nearly ensued, with a vocal and angry group of young earth proponents invading our class. When we spoke to our head pastor about this, he blew us off. He confirmed the church only teaches young earth creationism. We asked why this was not stated up front. He said he didn't want that belief to prevent people from joining the church. So, he was inviting conflict. My husband and I would never have joined that church had we known of this issue up front. This sort of thing is deceptive and causes church conflict.
The idea of these relational commitments are discussed at Peacemakers here.
Much of the conflict that churches experience today arises because they have not clearly established and communicated how they will govern their affairs and relate to one another. As a result, there can be significant confusion and disagreement among both leaders and members over how a church will function and act. When members' expectations are not met and they are treated differently than they wish or expect, they can become deeply offended. All too often this leads them to move from church to church, and in some cases to file retaliatory lawsuits.
One of the most important steps a church can take to prevent this type of confusion and conflict is to adopt clear and comprehensive governing and relational policies. Traditional church governance documents include a constitution and bylaws, which are sometimes linked to a denominational book of church order.
Clear and comprehensive policies are absolutely needed. As you will see, the document is neither comprehensive or clear, merely lengthy.
It's not just for members! Red Flag!!!
Before I begin, I want to point out a deeply troubling aspect of this process. They believe that this document must be applied to all who attend the church, not only the members. The story to which they refer is available on page 4 of the document which I link to below.
If you are not yet ready to become a member, you and your family are certainly welcome to attend our worship services, find fellowship in a small group, and seek assistance from our leaders. Please realize that if you continue relating to us in any of these ways, we will assume that you have consented to these Commitments, even if you have not yet formally joined the church. (See the story on the next page to learn why these Commitments apply to both members and attenders.)
As you will see, I have some serious disagreements with some of the core practices as presented in this document. And I am a believer. Attempting to apply this to those who are seeking or healing is inappropriate. In fact, I believe such an application of a "contract"could be challenged up in a court of law. But consult a real lawyer before continuing to attend such a church. I mean it!
I cannot directly link to the 25 page Word Document that is the presented Model Relational Commitment. If you go to this link at Peacemakers and scroll to the bottom of the page, there is a link to the document which I will now discuss.
This commitment document contains a number of red flags for me as an individual. I will quote them and record the page number so that you can corroborate my quotes.
Unclear and nonspecific definitions of personal peacemaking (P.6)
Under the category of personal peacemaking I find the following items unclear and easily abused. For example, they give no example of minor offenses which means the field is wide open. Also, the use of the word "gossip" is consistently abused in a number of churches. There are those who believe it is gossip to discuss the presence of a sexual offender in the church. As you will see at the end of this piece, gossip does get brought up.
· We will try to get the “logs” out of our own eyes before focusing on what others may have done wrong (Matt. 7:3-5).
· We will seek to overlook minor offenses (Prov. 19:11).
· We will refrain from all gossip, backbiting and slander (Eph. 4:29). If we have a problem with others, we will talk to them, not about them.
· We will make “charitable judgments” toward one another by believing the best about each other until we have facts that prove otherwise (1 Cor. 13:7).
· When someone tries to correct us, we will ask God to help us resist prideful defensiveness and to welcome correction with humility (Ps. 141:5; Prov. 15:32).
They believe that the church is the best place to deal with a business or legal dispute. (P.7)
When we have a business or legal dispute with another Christian, we will make every reasonable effort to resolve the conflict within the body of Christ through biblical mediation or arbitration, rather than going to civil court (1 Cor. 6:1-8). If the other party attends another church, our leaders will offer to cooperate with the leaders of that church to resolve the matter.
Marriagecentric teaching (P.8)
The church says their teaching and ministry will center around marriages and families and say little about single people. They also appear to enforce certain gender roles.
Because our church recognizes both the divine origin of marriage and the devastating effects of divorce, we are deeply committed to preserving marriages and preventing divorce. Toward this end, we will devote a significant portion of our preaching and teaching ministry to strengthening marriages and families. We require and provide thorough premarital counseling to ensure that couples enter into marriage advisedly and are well prepared for its many challenges.
We also encourage couples to nurture their marriages by participating in weekly fellowship groups in which people can grow together in their love for God and for one another (Heb. 10:24-25). As relationships deepen within these groups, we expect husbands to spur each other on in loving and cherishing their wives, and wives to encourage one another in respecting and loving their husbands (Eph. 5:33).
Domestic violence is not discussed while other reasons for divorce are elucidated (P.9)
Domestic violence is not listed as a reason for divorce and is not addressed specifically. However, they do say that neglect should be born patiently. Warning, Will Robinson, Warning!!!
When divorce becomes an option, an offended spouse can imitate God’s love by offering a straying spouse these same evidences of grace (Eph. 5:1-2). This may involve patiently bearing neglect or lovingly confronting serious sin (Col. 3:12-14; Gal. 6:1).
The issue of child sexual abuse is addressed but the response pattern is vague. (P.10)
The document claims that this is the "minimal steps" that must be taken but there is no mention of the involving the police. This could cause me question if they think that involving the police is not a first line action.
If a child is harmed in our church, we will take immediate steps to inform the parents, to accept responsibility for our role in the situation, and to hold offending youth workers fully responsible for their actions. We will also evaluate our practices and procedures, considering changes that might reduce the likelihood of such harm to children in the future.*
* These are the minimal steps a church should take to protect its children from abuse. For more detailed guidance on screening and supervising youth workers, see Child Protection First!™, which is available through Peacemaker Ministries.
A vague description of Biblical Counseling, along with a legal caveat. (P.11)
They differentiate biblical counseling from "secular" counseling but do disclose that they do not have trained or licensed psychotherapists. There is little said about involving trained professionals for serious issues.There is also troubling caveat on the legalities of this counsel.
To prevent our leaders from being placed in situations that might compromise their pastoral commitments, we, the members and attenders of this church, agree that we will not try to compel them to testify in any legal proceeding or otherwise divulge any confidential information they receive through pastoral counseling or ministry (Prov. 11:13, 25:9).
There is a lengthy section on church discipline with few examples of when it is applied. (PP.13-18)
The major lack of this entire discussion of church discipline is this. There is little description of what sort of thing will be disciplined. But, boy oh boy, there will be church discipline. And they will pursue you if you try to leave the church during the process. (P.17)Also, the number of pages devoted to this issue far exceed any other issue. It is rather amazing that they can write all that stuff and still not define, in any sort of detail, what they punish.
We realize that our natural human response to correction often is to hide or run away from accountability (Gen. 3:8-10). To avoid falling into this age-old trap and to strengthen our church’s ability to rescue us if we are caught in sin, we agree not to run away from this church to avoid corrective discipline. Therefore, we waive our right to withdraw from membership or accountability if discipline is pending against us. Although we are free to stop attending the church at any time, we agree that a withdrawal while discipline is pending will not be given effect until the church has fulfilled its God-given responsibilities to encourage our repentance and restoration, and to bring the disciplinary process to an orderly conclusion, as described in these Commitments (Matt. 18:12-14; Gal. 6:1; Heb. 13:17).
If an individual leaves the church while discipline is in effect or is being considered, and our leaders learn that he or she is attending another church, they may inform that church of the situation and ask its leaders to encourage the individual to repent and be reconciled to the Lord and to any people he or she has offended. This action is intended both to help the individual find freedom from his sin and to warn the other church about the harm that he or she might do to their members[1] (see Matt. 18:12-14; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 3 John 1:9-10).
You will be punished for gossip!!! Of course, gossip is not defined.(P.17 footnote)
Always, always, always read the footnotes.
For my final example of why I would run from this church, I provide the "gossip" footnote. I want you to note that "gossip" is put in the same category as pedophilia.
For example, if we confronted a man in our church for seducing young women, or for acting inappropriately around little children, or for sowing gossip and division, and he left and started attending another church, we would consider it our duty to urge the leaders of that church to counsel with him and to protect their people from his harmful behavior.
It is amazing to me that a 20+page document could be developed and very few examples of what they will, or will not, address via church discipline are given. Why is this? Is it laziness? Or do they want to have wide latitude in which to do things "their way." Remember, all contracts should be designed to be a protection to both parties. That does not seem to be the case in this contract. In fact, some of the things in this "relational" contract are downright concerning.
Please, please, please-protect yourself. Do you really know those who are in leadership in a church? They are asking you to trust them and they have the latitude. You need to ask yourself a question. If they will not tell you what they will and will not discipline, why should you trust them?
Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 32:1-33:13 Romans 15:23-16:9 Psalm 25:16-22 Proverbs 20:16-18
Peacemakers? A better name for me would be, Overlords.
Am presently an ‘attendee’ at two local churches. If I am asked to abide or sign any agreement like these cited, I will chose to be churchless.
A few years ago I attended a Peacemakers video course (taught by Ken Sande) and read Sande’s book. As I recall, there was not anything oppressive or controlling. It was how to deal with conflict between/among Christians before the conflicts disrupted a congregation or got out into civil courts. Having been through major church turmoil, I thought the advice given was very good. It is my understanding that Mr. Sande is now concentrating on the ministry of trying to prevent conflicts before they happen.
If some of these contracts are binding even to those sporadically attending, I’m wondering if the “ignorance of the law is no excuse” holds true in such circumstances. In other words, if those sporadic attendees don’t know to ask if there is such a contract to which they are bound, are they exempt from it’s provisions? Hope that’s clear…
I like the idea of being up front about beliefs.
But I cannot imagine drafting a 25 page document like this.
I agree with you. It says a lot and says nothing at the same time.
It says things akin to this: “At our church, we will be nice to each other. A person who is not nice to others is not living out the Gospel. The pastor and the elders will counsel with those who are reported or determined to not being nice to others.”
I love it when people are so straightforward with their intentions! Being asked to sign a contract like that would give me all the reason I need to run – not walk – away, having neither passed Go nor collected my hundred dollars. Of course, I share Victorious‘s concern about whether visitors are informed of their implicit consent to the agreements therein by their continued attendance. I am no lawyer, but I can’t imagine a judge looking too kindly upon this church if they attempted to use the “ignorance is no excuse” defense when suing a person who wasn’t aware of the contract and hadn’t signed it.
“That is why I want to commend Attorney Ken Sande. Yup, you read that right. He has developed a 25 page document called Model Relational Commitments which he explains is:
To promote peace, preserve relationships, reduce a church’s exposure to legal liability, and ultimately to improve a church’s ability to model and proclaim the gospel of Christ. ”
Whatever happened to “let your yes be yes and your no, no”? This sounds like what Calvin tried to do in Geneva and what the Puritans did. They had to regulate behavior with laws/rules to model a New Jerusalem as they termed it.
How does this fit in with the “life changing” Gospel? Your leaders are your Holy Spirit?
My father used to say “Only a lawyer could speak for three hours (or 25 pages) and say Absolutely Nothing.”
As for the “few examples”? Don’t want to cramp the Pastor/Dictator’s style or options. Like the Soviet-era “Hooliganism” Law (still on the books in Russia), a definition so open and vague it criminalizes most any and every behavior, giving legal grounds to arrest and convict you for most anything and everything. (Like the Tsarist-era Russian laws making being Circumcised a crime; that way they could round up Jews whenever they wanted yet claim Plausible Deniability — “We’re not persecuting the Jews! We’re just enforcing our anti-Circumcision law!”
Anon 1 wrote:
Though Calvin went on for some 2500 pages at standard manuscript/mass-market paperback words-per-page.
It seems to me the caveat about pastors not testifying is reasonable- I would think the goal is to protect the confidentiality of information shared in a counseling session, something I would expect from any counselor.
Having been on the receiving end of a pastor sharing something I said in confidence, I don’t disagree with this part.
I will say, one of the reasons that I went to the PCA from my former church was that I got hit with a divorce doctrine I had NO IDEA my church held until I felt like divorce was becoming a reality. At least in the PCA, I reasoned, the doctrinal standards are laid out, and even where I disagreed, I could at least have a conversation with a pastor to determine if it was going to be an issue.
Regarding divorce and remarriage, the WCF specifically identifies adultery and abandonment as valid reasons for divorce and remarriage (thus, all PCA churches are bound to this unless they take specific exception), and the PCA has a non-binding position paper which labels physical abuse as abandonment (which is not good enough, but it’s moving in the right direction). So given all of that background, it was fairly easy for me to have a conversation with the pastor before I joined to see if these were areas where the church deviated from the WCF and PCA.
As it turns out, I’ve learned that there are many PCA churches which indeed do not follow the guidance of the WCF on divorce and remarriage, but even with that, at least the WCF gave me a baseline to have healthy discussions when joining the new church. At my old church, I just trusted that they had some reasonable answers for things such as abuse and adultery when it came to marriage.
I know many don’t like organizational structures like the PCA. All I know is, it was a LOT easier for me to have informed conversations about expectations when I joined my current church.
Jeff S wrote:
You need to read this document very carefully. It does allows the pastor to share your confidence with others when he determines he needs help, advice. etc. It sets it up so that the only one they can be protected from is the courts. That does not protect you in the least.
I long for the day when I read something in one of these ‘contracts’ that runs generally as follows, ‘As members of Christ’s Body we take VERY seriously our duty to love & protect the children entrusted to us (& all others who are weak or vulnerable in some way). This means that if you work with us you will be expected to be held to the highest levels of appropriate behaviour, & will have clear & rigorous supervision, alongside our pastoral love & care for you as an individual. You will also be expected to follow the laws of the land, & to report all suspicions to the appropriate Authorities that God has instituted to wield his sword of protection & justice’.
What a lovely thought that is.
Beakerj wrote:
A lovely thought indeed. Actually expressing an element of care for the body would be a breath of fresh air.
Ric wrote:
It sounds nice on paper. and in a conference hall.
The problem is that it doesn’t work out so nice in reality. There are no boundaries. For example, the word “gossip” has been used by many groups to silence honest concerns in churches.
One only needs to look at the debacle sparked by Ambassadors of Reconciliation and SGM to realize that the process is deeply flawed. I contend it is flawed because there is no definition of the parameters of the type of conflict to which they are referring.
How in the world is he going to “stop conflict” before it happens? More church discipline founded upon ill-defined parameters?
dee wrote:
“White man wants everything in writing, and that’s only so he can use it against you in court.” — Billy Jack
“The problem is that it doesn’t work out so nice in reality. There are no boundaries. For example, the word “gossip” has been used by many groups to silence honest concerns in churches. ”
Yes. Negative truth = gossip.
Just wondering if a person can have any assurance of salvation if he is not an official member of a church? And can it be just any church? Since Dever believes his padeo-baptist believing brethren are sinning could they possibly have any assurance of their salvation while willfully living in known sin?
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
You betcha!
Anon 1 wrote:
Yep!!!
TW wrote:
Years ago, I came to the conclusion that salvation judgement was way above my pay grade. That is why I always get irritated at all those who seem to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who is saved.
But isn’t that what Dever and 9 Marks proclaim? They have been given the keys to the kingdom and can judge who is in and who is out. They want this responsibility? What if they are wrong or are they somehow infallible in this area? Dang, it must be nice to be so gosh darn sure of everything!
Lin wrote:
Do any of these guys really care about loving or is love expressed by slapping the membership around?
“Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, [and attend the membership class, sign the membership contract and become a member of your local 9Marks affliated church] and you will be saved, [but not the rest of your household unless they also do the above mentioned requirements.] And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; [and though he and all his family desired to be baptized at once, they could not be until a suitable amount of time had passed allowing the elder board to determine that they were indeed truly converted.]
Acts 16:30-33 The New 9Marks Study Bible
Red Flag. I’m aware of the scriptural admonition not to sue a brother, however, there is a difference between trying to reconcile a disagreement with the help of Godly counsel, and delegating legal/binding authority to a church. Church leaders are not qualified to offer legal advice or adjudicate the varied and complex situations that typically make their way into our legal system. In other words, church leaders are no more qualified to render legal decisions than they are to practice medicine. That is why a license (demonstrating a certain level of knowledge) is required to practice law.
dee wrote:
From what I have observed, a true love for the body of Christ is grossly lacking. In fact I believe, ( I really do) they disdain the body as it threatens their ( self proclamed) elevated status. Love of authority over the body and prestige amongst peers is the name of the game with too many elders /pastors.
@ TW: I think you have the makings of a new Bible translation.
Rob wrote:
Yeah but they like to play psychiatrist so why not lawyer?
Rob wrote:
Reminds me of Carson, DeYoung, and Taylor’s statement about the SGM lawsuit:
“Would it have served anyone to take to the blogosphere to express our legal opinion about the conspiracy allegations before the case was decided, much less before it even went to trial?”
Why they’d think their LEGAL opinion rather than their spiritual opinion would be wanted is a bit of a mystery. My take– “Darnit Jim! I’m a pastor, not a lawyer!”
@ Lin:
I still remember hearing a sermon given by a certain pastor in Jacksonville who was living large-fancy house, office, what have you. He berated the congregation, saying he could by doing way better in the business world than being their prevailed upon pastor. No he couldn’t. He had never tried. He had an entitlement mentality. He would have been out on his ear within 6 months in any decent corporation.
Why people put up with this nonsense, I will never know. There are awesome pastors out there who love the people in their churches. Find them.
Dave A A wrote:
Cue Spock with raised eyebrow….
In fairness to Ken Sande, this legal document does fulfill its purposes of ensuring peace in the congregation and protecting the church from legal liability. The process of disciplining dissenting members and discouraging more outspoken new members from joining will indeed create at least the appearance of peace.
But the purpose of church is to spread the Gospel, not create a comfortable country club for the few people who can meet this rigid social criteria. This agreement specifically excludes the 50% of the population who are single, whether they are divorced, widowed or never married. How can the church spread the Gospel if it is excluding half of the population?
@ dee:
Yes, there are still good pastors / elders/ churches out there. Don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water. And I was blessed to have such a church for many years.
@ TW:
That just about sums it up 🙄
Back in the late 90s-early 00s, I picked up a used copy of Sande’s book the Peacemakers, which had been highly recommended to me by a friend who had become a member at the flagship SGM church in MD.
Imagine my surprise, on picking it up in the early 00s, on seeing that in no place and in no way did he *ever* allow for the possibility of pastors or elders being wrong, acting wrongly.
Maybe subsequent editions have been changed, but I kind of doubt it.
numo wrote:
That is the problem. The churches pay for this service. The leaders are the ones bringing in the service. The system is biased in favor of the leaders. Therefore, a system must be created to provide an assurance of equality. But, there is probably no money in it.
dee wrote:
I remember Mark Twain saying something about St. Pete & the pearly gates. Some thing to the effect of the chances being greater that if you show up with your dog, the pooch will get in before you do.
Muff
If you knew my Petunia and the abuse she has overcome and the love that she shows to all, Twain proabaly had it right.
TW wrote:
Good question. What church was Paul an “official” member of?
dee wrote:
Dee, John closes his Gospel by saying that not all of what Jesus said and did got written down. I am convinced that a tender heart for animals was among them.
@ Rob:
Good point, they go way beyond the Bible in their mandate. Yes, it says not to sue a brother in Christ (mind you, it doesn’t say not to criminally charge a brother in Christ, if necessary), but since when did that become, “therefore the pastors/elders will now become your judge and jury”? (OK, well, apart from most of Catholic history).
@ dee:
I noticed that different NT translations use different words to describe the evil sins, some use gossip and some use debate others use slander. Whenever the evil sin is gossip, it is followed by selfish ambition. Talk about a log jam in certain contracts/covenant’s eyes. So gossip is given the equivalency of pedophilia while none of these other sins (in the same list as Gossip via the ESV – usually their favourite Bible) are put up there with pedophilia: insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (all from Romans 1, similar lists exist in 2 Cor. 12:20)
Note, not all versions even mention gossip, some use slander (libel) or debate (KJ), but if they do use gossip, they also use ‘selfish ambition’, yet the whole contract seems to scream ‘selfish ambition’ from the leadership (we are going to force you to be a part of our plan by binding law)
Why does the song “Hotel California” keep popping into my head? Especially the line “you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave”
Dee,
I attended an Al Martin Reformed Baptist clone church for a short while when I was a young Christian. They had an extremely high view of church membership – their church membership, that is.
They denied baptism and communion to anybody who wasn’t a “member” of their church. They demanded jot and tittle agreement with all by-laws, creeds, confessions, etc., something I could not do. When I approached the pastor about watching my brothers and sisters taking communion while I was forbidden, he replied that maybe that would persuade me to become a member! I was told that after application for membership I would be scrutinized for about 9 months by the entire church, then the membership would vote on whether I was worthy enough to be a member.
Hmmm, we know from Jesus’ teachings that Satan sows tares in the church and they won’t be rooted up until Judgment Day. So…that means TARES in their church would be VOTING on whether I was WHEAT? LOL! and maybe an “OMG.”
“Formal” church membership was to them a sacrament that had higher regard than even baptism or the Lord’s Supper. It’s very odd, but after I converted to Christianity, it took four “bible believing” churches a total of two years to finally baptize me.
Anyway, I will never sign any membership for any church ever.
Steve Scott wrote:
I’m with you Steve. I just don’t see the biblical basis for formal church membership. The “sola scriptura” crowd doesn’t seem to let this “sola” detract from implementing their extra biblical, heavy handed authoritarianism practice of membership to their church.
I just had a friend tell me that a staff member of a church they have not attended for about 4 months set up a lunch date with them. My friend thought it was just a nice gesture of sincere friendship, but soon realized it was a push to add a member to the church roles. During the course of conversation my friend said “you do realize I haven’t been attending your church in the last 4 months, don’t you?” An awkward silence followed. The 9Marks staffer then asked where my friend was attending church and whether they were planning on becoming a member. When my friend asked why the big push for formal membership the 9Marks staffer gave 2 reasons: So when great things happen in the local body you can rejoice with them; and so in case you get into sin that would reflect poorly on the aforementioned rejoicing local body you could be lovingly brought back in line through the instrument of church discipline. My friend replied that he could easily rejoice with a local body without being a member, and perhaps he should just refrain from joining so in case he did stumble into sin he wouldn’t be an embarrassment to their local body.
I think if these 9Marks disciples spent as much effort on spreading the love of Christ as they do on membership recruitment the church might become a potent force for good in the world.
“Pharisees invest heavily in extrinsic religious gestures, rituals, methods, and techniques, breeding allegedly holy people who are judgmental, mechanical, lifeless and as intolerant of others as they are of themselves – violent people, the very opposite of holiness and love, “the type of spiritual people who, conscious of their spirituality, then proceed to crucify the Messiah.” Jesus did not die at the hands of muggers, rapists, or thugs. He fell into the well-scrubbed hands of deeply religious people, society’s most respected members.”
-Brennan Manning, “Abba’s Child: The Cry of the Heart for Intimate Belonging, page 71
Val wrote:
I wrote a post on the use of the word slander and libel by today’s authority driven leaders. In the Bible, these words always means to bear false witness against someone in order to harm them. It does not mean telling people that the pastor is living in a $2.9 million home if it is the truth.
I think I need to do a post on gossip. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the root of the sin, according to the Bible, will have something to do with saying things with an intent to harm the other person. Today, the word “gossip” is used in the same breath as slander and libel. Users have diminished the actual meaning of these words by choosing them to mean that a person is saying something about them or the church in a manner which is uncomfortable to them. Yet, if truth be told, it is often the truth.
Steve Scott wrote:
Unbelievable!! I wonder what they will willing to overlook in each other because if they did the same thing to one another, I can assure you that sin was present. Do they not understand the meaning of grace? We are sinners. We will continue to sin.
How in the world did they overlook the book of Acts in which people heard the word and were added to the number that very day? What a stress to place on a young boy! You have to be perfect in the way that we define it.
Jesus is so much more compassionate and easy. He tells us to believe in Him, get baptized and get on with living the life. Why would we trade Him for all these contracts with their incessant rules and regulations?
@ Anon 1: Bam!
TW wrote:
This shows one of Dee’s inviolable rules. If church discipline gets brought up immediately as a reason that a church is a “good” church, it means it isn’t a good church. It indicates that the church will be rules driven and on a witch hunt for disobedience. Yeah, the disobedience of everyone but themselves. Do not join such a church. Your friend is a wise person!!!
Secondly, I love the Brennan Manning quotes that your often include in your comments. It shows you are an independent thinker. Many of these groups don’t like Manning. The quote that you put in this comment is one of the reasons. Awesome!
TW wrote:
I like your friend.
dee wrote:
Dee, Please do a post on gossip. I think you are absolutely correct.
dee wrote:
You sure should. It is not only “gossip” that is being reinterpreted, but also “love” and “forgive” and “judge” and “submit” and “give” and, and, and. Gossip is not the same as slander. Love and sentimentality are not interchangeable terms. Forgive and condone are not the same thing. Judge, as in judge not, does not mean to become a mindless drone. Submit does not mean offer up your children to a monster for abuse. Give in the NT is linked to ability to do so, not financial recklessness. Etc.
Love the new format. You have a lot to say and you say it well.
@ Nancy:
Great idea. The new definitions…In fact, i believe that this topic is discussed in Brave New World. I need to review it and present it. It will totally freak them out. Comparing certain elements of authoritarianism in the church to Huxley’s novel.
And the thing is, that same ScriptureBible states that all of its content is summed up in the phrase: Love the Lord with everything in you, and love your neighbour as yourself. The one who loves others has fulfilled the law regardless of whether he has signed a membership covenant or not.
In my previous employer (Prudential UK, if you’re interested) the IT division’s Supplier Relationship Management process document contained the observation that appealing to the contract must be a last resort, because once it happens it’s a sure sign that the relationship has broken down. Obviously, the doc in question did not contain the word “love”, but it certainly recognised that when there is an atmosphere of mutual trust, co-operation and goodwill, everybody wins.
The question is: if the world can do this, why can’t the church? Ken Sande’s document and teaching is a good example of earthly wisdom that is politically and legally shrewd, but spiritually naive. If you try to “prevent conflict before it happens” by ensuring that relationships start out on a basis that is defined by contract or law, then all you’re doing is building relationships that are fractured from the very outset. It is – I repeat – naive to suppose that love can grow in a relationship built on rules. And it is naive to suppose that one can “make peace” between parties by beginning from the implied accusation that one or both of them is a troublemaker. In other words, an organisation built around these principles can never authentically be church. Sometimes that costs, of course. Jesus did not pre-emptively expel Judas Iscariot from his inner circle.
If church leaders are driven by the supposition that members do not love one another and will endeavour to damage the church, then they should stick to secular employment. They do not have sufficient confidence in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to lead them and the church when conflicts arise (and of course they will), nor in the power of God to protect his own when enemies come after them (which of course they will). An agnostic seminary graduate is still an agnostic.
@ dee:
When you do the post on gossip, remember to include the admonition given to Calvary Chapel Assistant Pastors on the subject. They are told to never ever speak up even if the pastor is in sin and it’s costing the church and damaging people, for that would be the terribly evil sin of gossip. Instead, one is told to just go away quietly and never mention it again. This applies to the attendees, as well; though the pastor is exempt.
Katie wrote:
“I KNOW NOTHINK!!! NOTHINK!!!!!” — Sgt Schultz
@ dee:
I think you will find 1984 more closely tied to some churches to day than Brave New World.
numo wrote:
The Party Can Do No Wrong.
Ees Party Line, Comrade.
@ Jeff S:
To pick nits, the novel’s title is “Nineteen Eighty-Four” (i.e. Orwell – or Eric Blair if you prefer – wrote it in words).
That’s really really important.
dee wrote:
One of the major themes of that other (and more famous) contemporary dystopia, Nineteen Eighty-Four by G.Orwell, IS how language and redefinitions and propaganda can restrict thought to only Party Line Ideology (“Correct Doctrine” in Calvinese). Up to and including the suppression of all conscious thought into “duckspeak”, mindless stimulus-response reactions engaging no neuron above the brainstem. Eric Blair (Orwell was his pen name) worked propaganda for the BBC during World War 2 and saw the power of language and redefinitions in action; his appendix to 1984, “The Principles of Newspeak”, describe the details of the process.
@ Katie:
To be scrupulously fair, I understand that the author of the document to which I assume you refer later repented of writing it. It remains a repellently evil document, though, and I would be extremely disturbed if it were still widely used.
Do these covenants allow for:
–Disciplining “unsubmissive” members (especially wives)?
–Dealing with sexual predators/child molesters “in-house” (thus avoiding any criminal prosecution)?
–“Restoring” fallen ministers?
From what I see, the smallest offenses get the harshest discipline, and the more serious sins/crimes receive the greatest protection. Anything that would damage the reputation of the church or leadership is covered.
Val wrote:
That is the crux of the matter. We have seen churches abuse their authority to protect criminals. Churches should not usurp the legitimate authority of legislated laws, law enforcement, and the courts. (Especially churches that are all about “authority”.)
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Ok, I’ll bite. Why?
(I did not know that was important)
Jeff S wrote:
Er – to be honest, it isn’t even a tiny bit important.
(Yeah, I know, but it’s Friday, OK?
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Bwhahahaha!
@ Jeff S:
Thankyou for your gracious understanding.
I’m off to get chocolate.
@ dee: Yes, Jesus is exactly as you say.
Which is one reason why us liturgical types have tended to go with “baptism makes you a member of the body of Christ,” I think… It has *zero* to do with contracts; it’s all about the love of Christ and what he has freely done for us/given to us.
No. One of the most important steps a church can take here is to “go and learn what this scripture means”: Love one another. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that these things are hidden from the wise and learned and revealed to little children.
@ Katie: Do you know if anyone has written on the CC definition of gossip?
Not sure how relevant the following is: 😉
“For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” 1 Cor 12:13
“But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.” 1 Cor 12:18
Paul left out elders and paperwork. How daft of him.
@ Jeff S:
Thank you for he correction. I read both of those books at the same time when I was a teen. I always get them mixed up. You re correct!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Now this is something of which I know nothing. Reading ahead…
Rob wrote:
Great observation.
@ numo: Thank you for that comment.
dee wrote:
Probably “Anything which speaks against God’s Anointed Moses-Model Pastor.”
“TOUCH NOT MY ANOINTED!!! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!!!!!!”
@ dee:
Oh man, if you haven’t read it recently, it might get you worked up. So much of what you identify in abusive churches is present clearly in Nineteen Eighty-Four (did it right that time!), particularity the ideas of “doublethink” and “newspeak”.
I actually have read both Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four in the last two years. I also read Watership Down recently, which has its own presentation of the evils of totalitarian regimes.
Since I’m rambling, there’s the one group of rabbits in Watership Down where they have an idyllic lifestyle, but every once in a while one of them is captured and eaten. To cope with this, they ignore that the missing rabbits ever existed. This reminds me a lot of people who want to ignore those hurt by SGM. It’s easier to ignore and not talk about the victims, because then we can enjoy what we have even though they paid a heavy price for it.
Watership Down has a lot of depth for a book about bunnies 🙂
@ Jeff S:
I often think of “doublethink” when I think about how some churches define “love”. I understand that sometimes love does not look like roses and flower, but it takes a self-deceived mind to look at a woman who has been beaten by her husband and say that she needs to remain in the marriage so God can teach her- that it is actually God’s love at work. Using “love” in that way is a prime example of “doublthink”
re:
“Because our church recognizes both the divine origin of marriage”
Singlehood also has a “divine origin.” God created singleness and approves of it just as He does marriage, according to the Bible. Marriage is not the only analogy for God, or the only way in which a relationship God can be understood.
re
“Toward this end, we will devote a significant portion of our preaching and teaching ministry to strengthening marriages and families”
Aside from the fact that such churches do exclude singles and make single feel unwanted, I remember going back to the 1970s the heavy family- and- marriage rhetoric coming from the religious right and churches, and it has done nothing to curb the high right of divorce among Christians or unwanted, protracted singleness that is going on among single Christians my age or 10 years younger.
There are plenty of singles such as me who would love to be married, but, as I’ve said before, there is nobody to marry.
There are no men my age out there.
These churches keep incorrectly assuming a dis-interest in marriage, or hatred of marriage, is the culprit for prolonged singlehood, and that is not so among many Christian singles. Many single Christian women have the desire for marriage but there are no eligible Christian guys to marry.
(Which is why I am now open to marrying a Non-Christian, among other factors.)
Anyway, all the emphasis on marriage is not helping marriage the concept, or individual marriage, but it is a contributing factor of why marriage is not happening and why Christians stay single: singles don’t feel welcome, so they don’t go to church, so they are not meeting other Christian singles.
Most of us singles count on bumping into ‘Mr. Right at the produce section at Kroger’s, or we try dating sites.
You would think married Christians would want to remove any barriers from Christian singles meeting other Christian singles (especially in a church setting), but often, they build even more, and being marriage-centric is one of those barriers.
I can’t believe that the one church mentioned in the OP would attempt to hold an attender accountable to every last nut and bolt of their contract for members.
How much legal water does that hold? If you are an attender (not a member), can that church sue you or harass you and get away with it, do they have legal grounds if you are an attender and don’t sign any of their documents?
I was bemused to see the part of the document where this church says they will come after you for rule breaking and making it sound as though their motive for being abusive control freaks is for your benefit:
“To avoid falling into this age-old trap and to strengthen our church’s ability to rescue us if we are caught in sin”
It doesn’t sound like “rescuing” is going on but a lot of control.
The fact they won’t just let a person leave in peace, but keep pursing them even after they have left the church? It’s like the Terminator, from the Sci Fi movie, where a cyborg continually stalks Sarah Connor. Creepy.
All of these stories about over controlling churches makes me even more hesitant to give a church another try.
dee wrote:
I read this on Julie Anne’s blog in a comment (here). There’s another here on the Calvary Chapel Abuse blog. A cursory googling of Larry Taylor leaving Calvary Chapel hasn’t surfaced anything else…
@ Victorious:
That’s a good question and something I wondered about too.
TW wrote:
😆
In light of the original post, you could also add, “and even those just wanting to know Jesus, who occasionally attend, but who do not become official members, will still be held accountable by our contracts”
“A Religious Ant Colony, A Subject Of Legalistic Church Mad Hatters, Perhaps?”
Spelled out.
501c Church Relationships that start out on a basis that is defined by contract or law?
501c Church Relationships maintained on the bais of contract law?
My relationship with my 501c Church, is defined by a legally binding contract?
Oh! Joy?
What?
If you are a contractural member of certain religious (501c non-profit church) group, you agree by signed contract, to legally abide (be subject to) – by their laws.
You signed. You agreed. End of story.
If you are a non- member of stated religious establishment, you are in agreement with their laws, – becoming subject to them, by default, – if a reasonable time has passed where you – by volition, have utilized their time, goods, and services.
You signed nothing. You go = you therefore agree by default. End of story.
Being under their contractural agreement means you are subject to their Scriptural jurisdiction, subject to their Scriptural oversight, which means being subject to their Scriptural authority, hence their Scriptural discipline when deemed Scripturally appropriate and Scripturally necessary by said Scriptural authorities.
Contractual proximity?
Your not just “going to church”, in their minds, you have joined freely by legal contractural agreement or by term continuance, their “c-o-m-m-u-n-i-t-y”.
End of story.
The only way to win is not play ‘their’ “church” game?
hmmm…
In contrast, (for example) one can still attend services at say, most any local Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Some Presbyterian, Some Baptist churches with out contractural sequencing or term development.
huh?
Normal membership at these churches is a demonstration of your commitment to said establishment, others attending said church establishment are more readily inclined to minister more fully to your spiritual needs, you being by volition, part of that local religious church group…. no hocus-pocus intended or implied.
End of story?
hmmm…
Attending a “Bad New’s” creepy crawler “Religious Mad Hatter” church, perhaps? Welcome to a proverbial ‘PissAnt’ Hotel, Ahem! Church ? Check out is at noon, might not wanna b late?
-snort-
* …don’t let the ‘scriptural’ “Religious Mad Hatter” bed bugs bite!
tea any one?
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
—
Teri Anne wrote:
Exactly. I think you said it better than I did above.
All the excessive focus on marriage and the nuclear family by churches does not help marriage at all.
Lots of churches and preachers think focusing on marriage and traditional families does help marriage, but it has the opposite impact: it drives singles away (many of whom want marriage).
Singles are stuck trying things like dating sites to meet partners, since churches treat us like lepers, so we tend to shy away from going to church, where we know if we show up we are likely to hear our 456 billionth sermons about marriage, and/ or there are not services or ministries for single adults.
numo wrote:
Elder Infallibility when they speak ex cathedra? 😆
It’s so funny how so many Protestant churches, some of whom can be rabidly and irrationally anti-Roman Catholicism, manage to mirror Roman Catholic views or practices on some topics. 🙂
@ dee: My pleasure! I really liked what *you* said, you know.
Steve Scott wrote:
Relevant to me. The preisthood of believers is THE church.
Daisy wrote:
They’re often “more Catholic than the Pope” when it comes to Ex Cathedra.
Ex Cathedra has a lot of limitations on it, and originated as a spiritual form of “the buck stops here”, when the Pope has to make a binding ruling on “a matter of faith and morals” analogous to US law cases being appealed to the Supreme Court. Said Ex Cathedra ruling cannot go against established Scripture and Tradition (like a court ruling conforming to defined de jure statute law or de facto legal precedent), and is limited to “matters of faith and/or morals”.
The belief is that the Holy Spirit will work behind the scenes so the decision handed down Ex Cathedra is not “in error”. Most of the time it’s been used has been to define a specific doctrine that is in dispute and a ruling is needed. (This is similar to the way Church councils defined creeds and the like, to establish official teaching and settle a dispute with a binding decision.)
However, a lot of these Pastor/Dictators claim more Authority than The Pope; instead of limiting their Ex Cathedra pronouncements to matters of faith and morals, often it’s “MY WILL BE DONE!”
Most of the time Ex Cathedra has been used, it
Katie wrote:
I think the above referenced article is from Larry Taylor’s very old document that is still around on the internet (http://c317808.r8.cf1.rackcdn.com/TheMinistryOfAssistingPastor.pdf). There are probably 2 posts on the Calvary Chapel abuse site dealing with some of the crazy stuff in that document. I found out that Larry Taylor no longer holds to these ideas. Larry has been through a lot. Here’s an article how he has coped with his son’s suicide: http://morethancoping.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/larry-taylor-reflections-on-his-late-sons-birthday/
Daisy wrote:
Don’t I wish it was that easy. (Incidentally, where I am Kroger’s is called “Ralphs”.) These days I am reduced to screening My Little Pony episodes off YouTube and wishing Rarity, Fluttershy, and Twilight Sparkle were real.
Jeff S wrote:
Cowslip’s Warren. One of the creepiest sequences in the novel and the movie.
No hraka.
Jeff S wrote:
doublethink = the ability to hold two completely-contradictory Truths at the same time.
And while we’re on Newspeak, don’t forget:
blackwhite = form of doublethink where you simultaneously believe only the best about your side and only the worst about the Other, even if the behavior and actions of both are identical. Our side Can Do No Wrong, the Other is Absolutely Wrong. (“The Moral Theology of the Devil”, according to Thomas Merton.)
goodthink = The Party Line, Comrades.
duckspeak = unthinking stimulus-response recitation of goodthink without engaging any neuron above the brainstem; pure stimulus-response reflex.
Orwell took half of these from Stalin’s Russia (and the book is basically 1948 Russia under Stalin transplanted to a near-future England) and half from his own pointy-haired bosses at the BBC.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Well, notice I said we single ladies “hope to” meet Mr Right at the local Kroger’s. 🙂
More often than not, you don’t meet anyone at Kroger’s, not date material. It’s just my shorthand way of saying that since churches are not welcoming of singles, we singles have to find ‘non-church’ ways of meeting other singles.
It’s ironic, isn’t it?
Most churches and preachers claim to care so very deeply about marriage, and they say they would be delighted to see singles get married…
But when it comes to actually helping singles who want marriage to get married, they don’t do didley squat to help us, or some treat singles so poorly, we stop going to church at all, which of course makes it harder for Christian singles to meet other Christian singles at church.
I don’t think most married Christians have figured any of this out.
They remain convinced the way to get more marriages to happen is make every other sermon about… marriage. It has the opposite effect.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I think for some extremely gung-ho Calvinists that John Calvin is their pope. These are some of the same guys who froth at the mouth against Roman Catholicism/ RC papacy.
I don’t understand why the hard line Calvinists invest John Calvin with infallibility, and bow their knee to him on all matters theology, but take issue with RCs over having a pope.
Speaking of Churches and child sexual abuse, I’d like to add this info re a conference coming up in Sept.
I am curious and wondering if any in the TWW Family will be planning to attend this weekend conference??
Open Your Eyes: A Conference on Childhood Sexual Abuse
Friday, September 20, 2013 at 6:30 PM and Saturday, September 21, 2013 at 9:00 AM (EDT)
Held at North Hills Community Church, Taylors, SC
https://openyoureyes2013.eventbrite.com
Speakers and Topics:
Dr. Diane Langberg, psychologist and speaker specializing in dealing with trauma survivors and clergy will be presenting on Sexual Abuse in Christian Organizations. “It is heartbreaking that sexual abuse occurs in Christian organizations. The ensuing damage of that abuse is compounded when institutions deny or hide that abuse. This presentation will consider how our systems often protect themselves rather than vulnerable sheep through deception and an abuse of power. We will also reflect on what true repentance looks like and some principles that should govern our responses to abuse.”
Victor Vieth, Executive Director of the National Child Protection Training Center will be presenting A Call for Collaboration Between the Faith and Child Protective Communities
Boz Tchividjian, Founder and Executive Director of G.R.A.C.E. A Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment
Justin Holcomb, Pastor and Author of Rid of My Disgrace will be presenting A Pastoral Perspective on Addressing Sexual Abuse. This session will explore 3 things: 1. What the Bible says about the darkness and grief experienced by victims, 2. How the gospel applies to the experience of sexual assault and the effects in victims’ lives, and 3. The importance for pastors to respond in ways that are compassionate, practical, and informed while also avoiding platitudes and shallow theology.
One reason churches cannot deal with singles is that they (churches) are obsessed with sex. So, their basic approach towards singles is:
1. Tell them how great marriage and married sex is
2. Tell them they can’t have sex
3. Imply their lives are just on hold until they get married (and then they can have sex)
@ Rob:
A lot of churches do that, yes. It’s the ploy of “married 5ex is mind-blowing 5ex.”
The funny (or sad) thing about this tactic is that it turns out not to be true for every one all the time.
I have read numerous articles and news stories about Christian (and Non Christian, sometimes Mormon) married couples who wait until marriage to have 5ex, but:
1. the 5ex was terrible;
2. one partner decided they didn’t want to have 5ex anymore, so 5ex stopped for months or years (5ex-less marriage);
3. some married people use pr0n or prostitutes;
4. some married people have affairs
If married 5ex was as “mind blowing” as preachers claim (to encourage singles to wait for marriage), I doubt we’d be seeing as many cases of affairs, pr0n addiction, horrible 5ex, etc.
Also, there are many books (and some blogs) by Christian authors for Christian married couples with titles like “How to spice up your boring married 5ex life.” Married Christians think married 5ex has to emulate pr0n movie 5ex.
But in the next breath they like to reassure singles that “waiting until marriage is so worth it!”
@ Daisy:
I can’t think of anyone who treats Calvin with infallibility. He’s quoted and respected (perhaps too much), but I can’t think of any preacher or teacher today who doesn’t disagree with him on some points.
(My post to Rob above is still sitting in moderation queue)
Jeff S wrote:
I have seen Average Joe Calvinists online who think the man could do not wrong and they feel that to question TULIP is to question the Gospel itself.
One Arminian guy’s blog I came across a few months ago had a bunch of quotes by Calvinists, from their own books, where they equate Calvinism to the Gospel and/or say rejecting Calvinism is to reject the Gospel. These kinds of Calvinists do exist.
It’s one reason of several I am so turned off by any and all forms of Cal, not just “Neo Cal.”
I have had run ins with a few of these types of Cals on the web over the years on theology forums.
Rob wrote:
This is so true! I would add the following rules to the above 3.
1. These rules only apply to young people. People over 50, especially women, are not interested in sex.
2. Because everyone under 50 is obsessed with sex, it is impossible for anyone to be content to be single. If someone says they are content to be single, they are either lying, a closet homosexual or secretly having out of wedlock sex.
3. It is impossible for a man and a women to be friends because they are thinking of sex.
Rob wrote:
Thank you for the good laugh.
Teri Anne wrote:
Rob and you have given me a fit of giggles.
@ numo: 🙂
Teri Anne wrote:
Of course, if you really are gay, and confess that you feel attractions to your own sex or gender, that makes life, well, uh, complicated. Specifically, with regard to number 3, you can’t be friends with women, because people who don’t know will think you’re thinking about sex, and you can’t be friends with men, because people who know the truth about you will think you’re thinking about sex. You can’t win. No one has figured out that I’m gay, yet, so thankfully I can still have guy friends at church!
And now, some gossip from this past week about Thabiti… did you all see what he wrote? Wow… :-\
Re: Thabiti, talk about being “winsome”!
@ Jeff S. & Daisy:
I have seen some behavior toward the WCF and catechisms that made me uncomfortable (though not as extreme as Daisy’s examples). For instance, riding home with one of the elders of my PCA church, he once started a sentence with, “The longer I study the Westminster Standards…” I’d only ever heard this as, “The longer I study the Bible” and it struck me as pretty weird. They also used to give the upper elementary kids in Sunday School a present when they memorized a certain amount of the Shorter Catechism – but to my knowledge they never gave them presents for memorizing Bible verses.
In general I don’t understand the Reformed relationship to/obsession with catechisms and the memorization of them. I mean, they have their place, but gee whiz. 😉 It seems to be put almost on a level with Scripture (esp. Question 1). The TWW Calvinists are the first ones I’ve encountered who don’t do this in some form.
To be fair, Lutherans do have catechisms too (well, one: Luther’s either larger or smaller), but I’m pretty most Lutherans nowadays haven’t actually opened their catechisms since confirmation. I suspect this didn’t used to be so, but I’ve still never heard quite the push to MEMORIZE MEMORIZE MEMORIZE THE EARLIER THE BETTER like in Reformed churches.
As a former “full time” paster, I find this this document abhorrent. As a Christian of 40 years (41 in November) I am deeply saddened by what is happening in the “so-called” Body of Christ. “So called,” because none of these things have their foundation in Christianity.
How sad and broken the heart of God must be.
Per the subject of the thread generally: my PCA church did pressure my family somewhat about membership, though discipline was never mentioned per se. The intervals between the questions got shorter and shorter nearer the end of the three years we were there. I never finished the paperwork because I was nervous about writing out my testimony. (I don’t think you’re allowed to write “Am I saved or not? GAAAAAAAAAH” in that box, though frankly I never felt comfortable discussing my assurance problems with the pastor anyway. Maybe that should have told me something?)
I did actually get to witness one episode of church discipline in those three years. One of the dads got sucked into Harold Camping and was sending out blanket emails to the congregation warning us about the end of the world on May 21, 2011. He was officially placed under discipline and I think they withheld communion too (though he never showed up anyway so I don’t think that made a big impact).
@ dee:
The sad thing is that is very common in Christian attitudes and blogs/magazines about dating / 5ex for Christian singles. They’re being serious about it.
I just saw a TV interview the other day with an early 30s single Christian woman (she’s never married) who wants to be married.
She said when she went into a book store to find a Christian book on how to live single after a break- up with her boyfriend, all the books in the store were about “how to be married,” “how to get a man,” “how to keep a man.”
The message singles get from the Christian community is, “you’re nobody until you marry.” And, “you don’t count as a full, mature adult until you marry.”
There are some Christian singles material that says that is not true, to go live your life as a single, don’t put your life on hold, but these sorts of more realistic articles tend to be written by never- married Christian adults who are over 30 years of age.
The married ones think Christian life doesn’t really begin until you get a spouse (secular culture also believes this).
Teri Anne, I related to your post.
I’ve seen every thing in there you’ve talked about in Christian blogs and books about dating and marriage, from the “it’s impossible for anyone under 60 or so being able to live without 5ex, or be content as a single” to the “men and women cannot be ‘just friends”.
Most Christians who teach this stuff about men and women and dating are being serious about it, they really mean it.
@ Josh:
By the time you hit mid 20s – (or maybe mid 30s, with some churches, it starts around 40s or 50s) – even if you are 100% hetero, if you have still not married a woman by one of those ages, they will assume you are a homosexual.
I run into a number of hetero, older, never married, over age 40 – 50 singles on the internet, and the older, never married males tell me their churches just assumethey are homosexual, even though they are not. (Sometimes, they are assumed to be child molesters.)
One Christian guy I know who is currently 50 something (he is hetero) and never married (though I think he still wants to be) sat in a church sermon when he was, I think in his 20s or 30s at the time, where the preacher bellowed during the sermon that if a man had not been married to a woman by the time he was mid 20s he was obviously a homosexual.
I thought this sort of fit the original post’s topic about church rules:
Should Pastors Rebuke Parishioners from the Pulpit?
So, what if you do sign one of those church membership agreements, does the preacher get to yell at your during a church service?
Randall Slack wrote:
Totally agree, Randall. It is why the Nones are growing. In my opinion the mature believers are even having to leave.
Rob wrote:
This is SOOOO true!
Daisy wrote:
These tend to be the churches where being gay is associated with all sorts of horrible things like promiscuity and, as you mentioned, child molestation. So, spreading rumors about someone’s supposed homosexuality is intended to harm their reputation and is, therefore, gossip. Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting… the rules don’t apply to leadership (some Christians are more equal, you know).
@ Hester:
Haha- you know I’m studying the WCF, right?
In the PCA, every ordained pastor has to agree to the WCF or say which areas he doesn’t agree with backed by scripture (I think most do with the Sabbath).
I’m in a group right now that is going through the WCF, which is a pre-requisite for leadership in the church. We don’t have to agree with it, but we do have to understand it. Note that we have women in our group, and while they cannot be elders, the pastor leading the group told us they are working hard for elder to no be the only position seen as a “leader” in the church. They do want women in leadership roles, even if they cannot be elders (which will never happen in the PCA). I guess my church is on the liberal end of the PCA (though not as liberal as Keller’s church with preaching and teaching deaconesses).
I have actually no desire to fulfill a leadership role in the church, but I am enjoying the discussions around the WCF and exploring what different people agree with or don’t. We actually have had a few people (one was a pastor’s wife in my group) ask why we were studying the WCF instead of the Bible, and her husband explained it was so we had a good grip on the stated beliefs of the church, even though they are (for the most part) open handed issues. One guy in our group said he wasn’t sure before we started, but now he’s convinced of Arminianism. It’s made for some interesting discussions, to be sure!
I will also mention that when I was interviewed for membership, the pastor actually encouraged me not to join unless I was certain it was what I wanted, and he also assured me that it was not a pre-requisite for being on the worship team. That is, he didn’t want me to feel like I needed to join for any other reason that finding value in becoming a member.
We do have membership at my church, but it certainly isn’t pushed on people.
@ Hester:
I do think the PCA’s relationship to the WCF is one of believing that it is the best summation of the faith ever created. I’m inclined to agree with them (even though there are parts of it where I disagree).
Now to “study” it in the sense of getting greater depth out of it, that’s uncomfortable to be certain. To use it as a baseline for discussing doctrine, though, I think is good if you are coming from a generally Reformed position.
For example, it’s interesting to note that John Piper’s view on marriage is completely at odds with the WCF. The reasons the WCF gives for marriage:
“Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife; for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.”
Whereas Piper’s view is that marriage is to illustrate the Gospel. These are VERY different views of marriage, and if Piper claims to be Reformed, he should be offering strong evidence as to why he’s rejected the WCF’s view of marriage. The WCF allows for divorce and remarriage, and he does not. All of this stems from a different understanding of why we get married and the purpose it serves.
I’m not saying that someone who is generally Reformed must adhere to the WCF’s view of why people get married (I’m not even sure I agree with it, especially the “preventing of uncleanness” part), but at the very least, the discussion should be had and acknowledged, to my mind. That’s the value of having historical confessions. It SHOULD prevent people from coming up with their own weird doctrines (like permanence) and just foisting them on people unaware.
Or that’s where I see the usefulness, anyway.
I haven’t been here all day, so maybe this is old news:
VOTE for TWW at “Which Christian Blogs Are You Reading?”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2013/08/which-christian-blogs-are-you-reading-nominatevote/
Documents like this seem to be missing the point. Much time and effort could be saved if more emphasis was placed on *pastoral training* rather than simply trying to control the congregation. I’m so tired of hearing all of these Calvinista type pastors going on and on about what the congregation needs to think/say/do. All of these rules and regulations are ridiculous!
A much better use of the time and effort would be to focus on training and equipping pastors to have better interpersonal-relational skills. My guess is, the more skilled the pastor, the less of a problem “criticism” will be in the church.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy – I think that’s an important observation. There’s an important distinction between Calvin and the Pope, which is that Calvin is dead and buried, and cannot talk back. Thus, while pretending to be his disciples, they can interpret his 600,000+ word output however they like and claim to be true followers of the real Calvin, unlike those others who only think they’re following Calvin (Park Fiscal has actually made that claim).
I think they push the Biblescriptures and their infallibility in interpreting them, whilst despising “pentecostals” and “charismatics” for believing they have “revelations”, for the same reason. They love the Fourth Person of the Trinity (the Bible) but fear and dislike the Third. The bible is a book and cannot answer for itself, but the Holy Spirit, if he existed, could. He could inspire, edify, encourage and envision other people besides themselves, he could answer their prayers and direct them places such that they would be beyond the control of a professional clergyman. I think that’s why they put so much effort into warning of the “dangers” that will be unleashed if we don’t split the Church into “churches” governed by bylaws.
As I’ve said before, I’m a None not because I’ve given up or was hurt or am running away or am looking for The Perfect [small and isolated] Church™, but because I hope for something bigger and better, whose builder and architect is God. (I’ve read that last phrase somewhere before, I’m sure…)
@ Jeff S.:
This is what it sounded like. This same elder wanted to do nothing in adult Sunday School but go through the Larger Catechism, front to back, one question a week until you got to the end and then start over. As you said, the problem isn’t the WCF or the catechisms themselves, but the attitude toward them. (And yes, I’ve heard the description of the WCF as an “accurate summation” more times than I can count so I think your description is correct.)
The discussions at your church sound interesting. I’m not sure what would happened at my church if someone had become convinced of Arminianism by the end of the catechism. 🙂 I suspect there would have been people who would may have had trouble letting that go, or wondering what they “did wrong” or failed to communicate to that person. The discussions had a tone more like “let’s talk about why the WCF is true” than “let’s talk about where we agree and disagree.”
It is funny no one ever points out that “marriage as picture of the Gospel” is contrary to the WCF…and continuationism, if I’m not mistaken.
Addendum @ Jeff S.:
This elder is the same dad who helped stonewall my courtship attempt w/his son, BTW.
@ Hester:
Yeah, this study has been really interesting, especially with all the discussions. My only regret is that it hasn’t been longer. But one thig it HAS done is emphasise that we can be unified without all agreeing on every point, even some big ones. And I’ve learned a lot.
Regarding your courtship, I’m sure it was very hurtful the way it went down, and I’m sorry you had to go through that. It does sound like you dodged a bullet, though.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Excellent comment!
@ Daisy:
Yes, Daisy, it’s not just neo-cal. I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church. I would have known nothing other than Calvinism as Christianity had I not also been raised in a non Calvinist Baptist school. My church and my school practically thought the other were complete heretics. I married a CRC boy. His parents never attended another denomination even on vacations they would search for a CRC to attend. When they were in their 60s (25 years ago) and traveled the country a few years living in their motor home they were ‘forced’ to attend non CRC and, gasp, non Calvinist assemblies. One day my mom- n- law exclaimed to me that she just figured out that there really are true believers in other churches.
Also, I remember reading in the CRC periodical The Banner many years ago, hoe the denomination was so worried about so many of their young people leaving the faith. The article said that they were losing them to other denominations but seriously, they called it leaving the faith.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG, thank you for referencing 1984. I never read the novel but have always wanted to. I just looked it up on Wikipedia where all the concepts of newspeak are laid out. This does sound a lot like what is happening to our young Calvinists, when I would argue with a young college educated SGM man about his church doctrines, even his facial expressions would stop. I could not get him to read something in the Bible and tell me what he thought about it. He could only refer me to the party propaganda of Grudem, Piper, Mohler, Russel and Mahaney. And yet he had no expression like those leaders. Not even Josh Harris who had already been his pastor for 7 years at the time was a reference for him, maybe because his subconscious read that Josh’s preaching came only from newspeak conditioning. And yet this young man stated that he himself had the gift of leadership, but no Christian thought of his own. He had actually stated that my questioning was sinful. Of course I see this 1984 idea in many organizations, Chistian or otherwise, but it is scary.
It may sound a bit hypocritical that I do periodically bring my own thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ, but only because I have a sure belief that Jesus Christ sets me free and that part of my bringing every thought captive to Christ helps clean away the devil’s chains of thought control.
“Singles Church Sell-out?”
What?
“I don’t know if the place was technically sold out — can a church sell out? — but the line to get in ran the length of Irving Place and then snaked halfway down 16th Street, and the place was packed. The crowd was young, beautiful and, it seemed, unattached. I saw almost no one over 40, and none had brought children.”
~ Max Chafkin; A New York Times reporter on his recent visit to “Hillsong, New York.”
hmmm…
Some 5000 strong, and apparently , no proverbial Neo-Calvinist control freaks among them…
-snicker- 🙂
You can leave you Pepto-Bismol, your pen, and your family lawyer at home?
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
—
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That’s “‘local’ churches” (as they must be called somewhere in Scripture). 🙂
Pingback: jerseys
One look at SGM and you have all the evidence on why this document should never be used.
What happens when an arrogant small group leader has a negative opinion about you, which he then shares with the pastor? What if his opinions are wrong? What if the pastor then confronts you for being in sin based upon small group leader’s slander of you? What if you realize small group leader is arrogant and didn’t even know what he was talking about and protest? What if the church requires you admit all accusations or says you are proud? What if “pride” is subject to church discipline?
As the website Church Discipline once noted, SGM is the only movement that applies church discipline to cases of “pride” or allows church discipline based upon someone’s opinion of you rather than a documented sin. There are no checks and balances.
If you should be wrongly church disciplined for disagreeing with an arrogant a-hole’s opinion of you AND the church went on to slander you to every church in town, the result is long-lasting devastation to a believer’s life and that of his wife and children.
No Sande. YOU are an idiot.
Read the blogs on SGM and figure out why following this document destroys the body of Christ.
I knew Sande was behind the destruction.
I don’t like the direction this conversation is heading. Legalism, legal documentation, behavior control – why did the church survive (thrive even) for two thousand years without this kind of control. Not cool. The solution is not to become more specific, but rather to move in the opposite direction and do away with this kind of legalism altogether.
To promote peace, and preserve relationships? Epic fail! Did not Christ come to show that it’s about relationship, not law, not rules, not documented covenants, bylaws, whatever? What will prevent pastor/elder/deacon abuse of authority? Love. What will prevent abuse of any kind within the church, or family. Love. What will prevent spousal abuse, affairs, etc? Love. The kind of love that God is, the kind of love that Christ exemplified. We all fall short of this mark, but He keeps helping us up and giving us more chances.
The busier we stay trying to check off another rule from our Holy To Do List the less we understand our true position in Christ. And that is exactly what Satan is after.
I’m confused about something. I see increased references (not just here but other blogs/writings as well) to being either Calvinsit or Arminian, as if there are no other positions with Protestant Christianity. If you are not Calvinist, you must be Arminian. I am neither. Why do these two traditions get mentioned so often in an either/or fashion?
Lori wrote:
Because generally they are presented as 5 “points” on which there are either/or options. This technically puts people on the spectrum in between them somewhere, or at either pole.
That is either you believe in Total Depravity or you don’t. Believing in it is a Calvinist position, not believing it is an Arminian position. You either believe in unconditional election or you don’t . . . etc.
Now when you begin to define either in such a way that goes beyond the five “points”, there’s more room for other options.
Lori wrote:
I am neither either. 🙂
@ Lin:
I am neither either. And I have to say that I dislike being put any camps . . . it’s as if those camps want to define Christianity through their lenses.
Bridget wrote:
Exactly! There are distinctive Arminian teachings with which I completely disagree, as there are distinctive Calvinistic teachings with which I disagree. I just find it odd that all my life, growing up in Baptist church (no Calvinism to be found I can assure you) that now with the Neo-Reformed movement people are placed in either a Calvinist or Arminian camp. I’ve never heard these types of statements until recently – in the last 5 years or so.
@ Bridget:
@ Lori:
I think there are two big cultural things going on here with the whole “labelling” thing in Christendom.
Firstly, there’s been a culture of academic inspection behind the pulpit for many centuries. “Theology” is actually “theologian-ology”, i.e. the study of differences between various schools of thought. God himself, church history, and especially the Biblescriptures, are specimens for observation and description. Ian’s really well-observed comment here on the Ligon thread is worth quoting, actually:
You might say that “theory” might be a better word than “truth”. As in economic theory, political theory, theological theory.
The second thing going on is the aggressive and self-important proselytising of the “YRR” crowd, who want to be the biggest players in their generation and therefore need to put down others in order to push themselves to the fore. They need to be obsessed with categories and labels so that as many people as possible will allow themselves to be claimed by the YRR’s, and those who don’t can be demonised.
Ric wrote:
Yes, by providing churches with “CYA” documentation so they can exercise “discipline” with impunity.
You can call that a “ministry” I suppose. Reich Minister Josef Goebbels also was in the “ministry” business.
A Slight Devout Deleterious Detour: “Christian Authority (TM) Is Force?”
hmmm…
Wherever in any professed “Christianity”, love is absent, it matters not what else is present, the absence of love simply and loudly proclaims the absence of true “Christianity”, as defined the the Holy Scriptures.
End of the Bible Story.
Crash!
The Church cannot force folk to follow Christ.
huh?
****However, ‘The Church’ can force folk to submit to their presumed church authority. A “Christian (TM) community using a 501c religion as authoritative force?
Skreeeeeeeeeeeetch!
Today, – a sad, sad reality.
Are Neo-Calvinists using religious force to keep, sustain, and hold their authoritative church power over unsuspecting kind folk?
They got the right one, Baby?
What?
The greatest among you shall be What? your servant?
Could have fool’d me.
(sadface)
Sopy
—
Excellent comment Sopy!!!!! God is Love is the first thing most children learn about Him. Jesus loves me, this I know. Without love in the organization, Christ is but an unwelcome visitation. Would that he would drive the power (and money) grubbers out of the house that claims to serve him.
“Derailed In Hope: Darkened In Perspective?”
hmmm…
Many of us, in our daily lives, have never been exposed to Calvinism, much less Neo-Calvinism.
ok.
Yet, by reading here @ TWW, we all learn to discern and to stay away from specific type(s) of harmful churches.
Sweet.
Thankfully, not all religious 501c non-profit church groups are toxic or abuse their members or their visitors.
Look’in for a church fellowship?
Ask um direct questions, expect direct answers. Move on until you do. There are still good kind folk out there loving & sincerely serving Jesus, willing to be a friend.
*
When we turn from a self-ruled life and turn to Jesus in faith we are saved.
Sure.
Yet some of us turn to an ‘others-ruled life’, and the hope Jesus promises unfortunately gets
drowned out, and lost in the religious suffel.
glug! glug!
The insane christian life begins when we let ‘others’ rule our lives instead of reading God’s precious words, and trusting Jesus, and God’s Spirit, to do that.
(sadface)
Christian fellowship can help, but should not overshadow our need for Christ, His Spirit, His precious words to us.
Unmastakenly, a great life begins the moment we receive Jesus Christ into our lifes by faith. Yet it is by faith in Jesus, trusting in His word daily, that sustains our walk.
…kind folk, don’t forget that.
Please don’t let ‘professional religious men’ who give the appearance sincerity, take that away from you.
“I came that they might have life, and that life, more abundantly! ” ~ Jesus
Make sure you have the ‘real’ thing.
Blessings!
Sopy
___
@ Arce 🙂
—