“My husband felt torn down and beaten up for not meeting Mark Driscoll’s ungodly standards of male leadership in our home”

Man even Mark Driscoll can’t even follow his own standards…so why does he expect others to follow his ridiculous standards?

Deb,

Try this link to download the document:
http://www.acts29network.org/sermon/church-discipline-biblical-responses-to-various-sins–errors/

Becky read this…it’s from an Ex-Mormon webpage…it’s how Mormons do shunning…
—

Upon discovery that my worst fears were true and Mormonism has a false foundation, I could not abide by any teaching after that. I resigned my membership by letter notification to my Bishop, Stake President and to Church Membership headquarters in SLC, UT. I heard nothing for months. Almost immediately after a new Bishop was installed in my ward I received a letter stating (unbeknownst to me) a church disciplinary court had been held and I was officially ex-communicated “to preserve the integrity of the church.”
My X husband was informed and from there it was taken to my five children and 9 siblings as well as to my parents via the X. It has been 10 years. Absolutely no contact from any of my family since. Good, bad, or indifferent. Except to say my angel Mother who was given the sad task of delivering the message to me that I am considered dead to the family. My children and my siblings as well as my Father. Mom tries to re-convert me, but no go. At least she still speaks to me.
I see the little missionary boys ride past my home. They refuse to return my “hello” and quickly ride bikes past. 10 YEARS! So, I suppose and answer to your question… yes. Others have had your experience.

—-

Also read this link….

http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Being-shunned-common-if-you-decide-to-not-join-Mormonism

Deebs check your email please!! 😉

Is This Church Discipline Acts 29 Style?

Yes.

Anymore questions? 🙂

Never say never, but it is doubtful I will ever formally join a church again. I am unconvinced that membership, as portrayed by Acts 29 and 9Marks, is biblical.

Daisy wrote:

Wayback Machine, Sept 2008 snapshot

What I particularly love is their “Sample Church Complaint Form” on page 12.

Sample Church Complaint Form
Before leaving your comments, please check one or more of the following that apply: I am a
___ gossip
___ blasphemer
___ false teacher
___ nitpicker
___ wingnut
___ liar
___ hypocrite
___ unrepentant pervert
___ otherwise sinful person
If you checked any of the boxes, please write your comments below and then deposit this form in one of the large, black, plastic “comment receptacles” found near the entrances. Thank you.

So you can only complain if you admit that you are a hypocrite, unrepentant pervert, false teacher, gossip, etc.

Ant then, of course, they will dismiss your complaint for exactly those reasons.

Catch 22, anyone?

This is definitely abusive and downright dangerous. The more I read about Acts29 and MHC, they more I think that they are the false teachers, the wolves in sheeps’ clothing, the hirelings the bible warns us against.

If you meet them, people, run! Run for your life!

TW wrote:

I am unconvinced that membership, as portrayed by Acts 29 and 9Marks, is biblical.

I would agree. HOWEVER, I am a big believer in congregational church government, and for this to work, there needs to be some system of membership, so it is clear who is entitled to vote.

Ian wrote:

I would agree. HOWEVER, I am a big believer in congregational church government, and for this to work, there needs to be some system of membership, so it is clear who is entitled to vote.

I am undecided on church polity Ian. The form of polity I experienced in the 9Marksdever church in Dubai is congregational in name, but in practice it is a benevolent dictatorship. We did not vote on the hiring of pastors, we were not allowed to nominate men for elders, we did not vote on church plants or the pastor who would become the pastor at the church plant. We were asked to vote on whether people should be granted church membership, but this was a rubber stamp formality. Potential members were interviewed by an elder and then we were shown a photo of the member and given a brief bio by the interviewing elder. Proposed elders were voted on, but again, only those put forth by the elders (in actuality the senior pastor) were allowed to be voted on, and again this was a rubber stamp vote. (A beautiful display of unity, no doubt!)

Perhaps I would favor a true congregational polity if I ever saw one in action, but I currently lean in favor of a presbyterian form of polity.

I was just thinking that, according to Matthew 18, if someone truly is in sin and unrepentant, we are to treat them as an unbeliever. So how do we treat unbelievers? Do we shun them, or do we relate to them in love, ultimately hoping that they return to the faith? Me thinks the latter.

Janey wrote:

When women are removed from many responsible roles in the church, beware. That’s what happened at our church. First the women were removed. Then the bullying began. I’m so happy to have left! I’m at a healthy church now.

…,……………………….. Yes I would agree women being removed from responsible positions is a big red flag to congregants. Really though, the bullying starts when men in leadership believe women are spiritually inferior.

Becky and Brian,

We are all grieved by the wickedness you had to endure, but we THANK YOU for speaking up and for enduring in the faith. That is the best part of this story.

Dee and Deb,

Thank you for posting the actual letter(s) that the church leadership sent out. Those are just SHOCKINGLY OFFENSIVE. Obviously, none of us who were not present can verify what happened in various conversations or encounters, but the letters speak for themselves, and that is the value of posts like this for me.

Here are my fears:

1. That letters like that are the “new normal” in Acts29 / 9Marks / SGM / T4G type churches.

2. That too many Christians have drunk the KoolAid, lost their basic humanity, and approve of such letters.

One final off-the-main-point comment:

Such a letter is a violation of my denomination’s (the PCA) church polity/government in about a thousand ways. Disturbingly, that has not kept these sorts of things from happening in my denomination anyway. I have no idea how widely this sort of thing happens in my denomination, but even once is one time too many. If anyone here at TWW has ever received such a letter from a PCA church, I hope you will have the courage that Becky and Brian have shown and tell your story as well. I do not presume to know or say to whom or in what venue, but tell it you must. You are the salt and light of the world, and the world that is within the church.

@ Lin:
Lin, I think you’re partially. But the way it happened at our mego-church was subtle.

First they decided to elevate the stature of the committee chairs to “elders.” When my mother was in charge of the Christian Ed committee, she was the “Chairman of the C.E. Committee,” but over time, the word was changed to “elder.”

Once the pastor did that, then he could point to Titus and 1 Timothy and claim that elders had to be men.

Slowly but surely all of the responsible women were moved out of key positions.

Daisy wrote:

Church Discipline Document

This document is not indicting, in my opinion. Except for the foolish complaint list at the end, it addresses legitimate issues with scripture. However, it sounds like a version of the sermon given prior to my excommunication (laden with similar scriptures, heavy on “love” and “restoration”, yada yada). Where both systems fall apart, I think, is in the “twilight chamber” as you call it here. Before the masses, the leaders prop themselves up with gospelly words and even right-on doctrine, and behind the scenes what plays out is perverse, harsh, cruel, and totally unrighteous. I think what this document illustrates is one of three things: That some Acts 29 churches are delusional (blinded by their own glory) or hypocritical (ok with spouting one thing and doing the opposite) or blinded to the truth of scripture (unregenerate, perhaps).

What gags me about all of these disciplinary actions is that they are carried out to “protect the reputation of Jesus Christ”. Unbelievable.

“the process adheres to biblical standards, is healthy and loving, and results in restoration.”
I have several concerns about this claim. The blurb about “biblical standards” is basically nonsense talk. A quick web search will demonstrate all kinds of people showing how polygamy, homosexuality, slavery, veganism, patriarchy, and driving a Chevy are all “based on biblical principles.” Second, how is restoration defined? In my experience it is usually defined as “agreeing with the elders on everything”. Third, a thing is not healthy or loving just because someone says it is. What is meant by healthy? In my experience it is presumed that agreeing with whoever is in power is healthy; by definition, then, a process which results in lemming-like behavior is healthy. The same kind of issues surround use of the word “loving”. I ask all critical thinkers – how would your perception of this statement change if it were issued by Scientology? The not-exactly subtle foundation of this paradigm is that the end justifies the means.

Has anyone here ever seen a church discipline situation handled effectively, resulting in strengthening of a local church and perhaps repentance and restoration?

Former CLC’er wrote:

I was just thinking that, according to Matthew 18, if someone truly is in sin and unrepentant, we are to treat them as an unbeliever. So how do we treat unbelievers? Do we shun them, or do we relate to them in love, ultimately hoping that they return to the faith? Me thinks the latter.

Hi, former CLC’er! I’m a former CHBC’er! 🙂 I agree with you here. I have experienced shunning, and while I obviously know that experience, alone, is not the measure of Biblical teaching, I simply don’t see how shunning reflects the heart of Christ. He goes after the lost sheep. From what I see in Scripture, He doesn’t shun them.

Moreover, the *reason* that I have been shunned by so many of my Reformed friends (i.e. my decision, based on much Biblical and church-historical study, prayer, and soul-searching, to return to the Catholic Church) is not one that, at least in my understanding, is coming from a hardened, unrepentant heart.

To be clear, I understand, full well, that most of my friends at CHBC, and at my other past Calvinistic church, believe that the Catholic Church teaches a “false gospel of works.” I used to strongly believe this myself. I tried to “evangelize” Catholics out of the Church, and I fear that I succeeded with some of them!

However, after a period of very seriously studying Catholicism, from *its own sources*, and comparing what I learned to Scripture, with Jesus’s own words being the “lens” through which I interpreted Paul and everyone else, I came to the honest conclusion that I had been misinformed about Catholic teaching by my Reformed leaders. I don’t judge their hearts. I trust that *they* are sincerely teaching what they *believe* to be the truth. After learning what I did though, I ultimately had to act on my convictions, which led me back to the Catholic Church.

Does this mean that I am in rebellion against God? I certainly hope not, because my honest testimony is that I did what I did out of *obedience* to Him, to the best of my understanding, after serious prayer and study! If I have somehow completely misunderstood what I studied in the Bible and the writings of the early Church Fathers, then I hope and pray that God will have mercy on me. Catholics vocally pray, in unison, for Him to have mercy on us every single time that we gather for Mass. We also pray (silently, with the priest, who prays vocally) for God to look not on our sins but on the faith of the Church. If I am a hardened sinner, in rebellion against God, it is unconsciously so (whatever that even means!), and it is in direct contradiction to my honest desire, at least in my conscious understanding, to follow Him! In that light, I don’t see how my former friends think their shunning of me will bring me “back to the (Reformed) fold.” If they truly think I’m lost, and they have concern for my soul, they should attempt to engage me. Some of them have… but not most of the ones from CHBC. Only a very few friends from those years have even tried to talk to me about Catholicism and the Bible.

Lin wrote:

. New younger pastor, by stealth, began dismantling the leadership, inserted new leadership and then together, they changed the polity. This process took about 3/4 years. By the time the women were dumped from their positions, the takeover was complete.
Note to church members looking for a new pastor….really grille them on what they believe about women serving in the church.

Another way of determining what a new pastor really believes is to watch his wife. We should have noticed the dead giveaway that she always wore a hat in church. Any signs or affirmations of extreme submissiveness should be noted.

  __

Axe29: “Juzzzzzzz Pass’in Through?”

hmmm…

  If this is anything like a sojourn with SGM, the whole lot are, on close inspection, transformed into proverbial sin sniffers and tattle-tales. I kid you not. You are ‘assigned’ a mentor, their job is essentially to get the dirt on you and transmit this “who is this person” to core leadership. 

What?

  You learn very early that there is a standing pecking order along with peer cliques. 

  Essentially, you learn not to say anything of substance; with the understanding that anything you do say to anyone in the group you are assigned to, that it would most certainly not be kept private, as it is just the nature of this type of religious game.   

huh?

Is this Christianity?

ha!

Knowing the Word of God well, can assist greatly with such groups as these, and provides great assistance in helping one pass through essentially encumbered.

It is best in retrospect, to avoid such religious groups that practice such behavior.

(…word to the wise.)

  It would appear upon surface examination that Acts 29 is a close approximation of the inner-workings of SGM, where control and manipulation,are certainly key features exhibited and encountered in groups such as theses.

  One is dully warned to avoid these type of religious groups at all costs.

This is ‘SCARY’ e-x-ć-r-e-m-ē-n-t .

“The soul you save, may very well be your own!” (C) (TM)

(sadface)

Thy word Oh! Lord, is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path…

YeHaaaaaaa!

Sopy

—

Rob wrote:

Can a husband truly control his wife?

The sad thing is often these wives do it to themselves. They want to show other women (and men) how devout they are. I’ve seen wives toadying to husbands who don’t even want it.

Dave A A wrote:

Especially like, “When someone appoints themselves to leadership”

Indeed so – the comparison to Diotrephes (who loves to be first among them) is especially ironic.

@Nick – I totally agree with you that all nonbelievers are alike, and some people you do have to avoid.

@Christopher Lake – sorry that people shunned you like that for a theological difference. I have friends and family who either never left the Catholic church or returned, and I am confident that they have a relationship with the Lord. It’s not an issue to me.

Janey wrote:

Look at this list of offenses for which you can be disciplined.

Seems that Mark Driscoll himself needs a little discipline.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080908051223/http://uploads.acts29network.org/media/Articles/A29%20Regional_Church%20Discipline%200406_final.pdf

Again, Rank Hath Its Privileges.
And the Mighty ManoGAWD outranks everyone else.

Can anybody verify that church membership in Acts29 is decreasing? I scanned the list of member churches in Texas and saw far fewer than I remember seeing last year. There is only one church in my region that is an Acts29 church now and there used to be 5 or 6. The same goes for another area of Texas I am familiar with. I wonder if this trend is continuing in other parts of the country.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Second, how is restoration defined? In my experience it is usually defined as “agreeing with the elders on everything”. Third, a thing is not healthy or loving just because someone says it is. What is meant by healthy? In my experience it is presumed that agreeing with whoever is in power is healthy; by definition, then, a process which results in lemming-like behavior is healthy.

I had 2 cups of excellent strong Yemeni coffee this a.m. and I am still trying to wrap my head around the A29 documents provided here, including the “list of offenses.”

In the “sample” provided on page 5, the one meant for the black plastic rubbish bin 🙂 can someone kindly clarify what the heck is the offense of being a “wingnut”??!!

Dr. F hits the nail on the head in the above quote – “healthy restoration” = sit down, shut up, and don’t dare question the Dear Leaders.

@ Janey:

“Look at this list of offenses for which you can be disciplined.”
+++++++++++++

such a matter of perspective they all are. kind of like the young woman/old woman optical illusion, and all those who see the young woman must be put out of the church.

and fussy(!)…. “Habitual, nitpicking doctrinal pest! He’s a habitual, nitpicking doctrinal pest!” (hops up & down, pointing finger)

“Encouraging false doctrine! She’s encouraging false doctrine!” (still hopping up and down)

Time for a Young Frankenstein moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9HsjyfHHdg

@ Deb:

Deb, I was perusing the website of a Northern VA A29 church and in the “beginnings” section of the site, they noted that they were a church plant initiative of 4 churches but didn’t name them.

Am curious personally about any links with the PCA – in the case of a new NoVA A29 church plant I wouldn’t be surprised if there were former PCA members in attendance but no formal institutional links. Pcapastor’s insights on this would be of interest of course.

Sigh – does anyone else besides me find the whole industry of church planting to be confusing, lacking in transparency, and a bit exhausting? 🙂

Deb wrote:

Lin wrote:
Ugh…..spell check. Should read, congregants, not contestants.
Made that change for you.   

TY……:)

I spoke up because I am worried. Worried that the Acts 29 Marc Driscoll infection is spreading. And I am angry. Really angry. When those men left the building they stole everything of value out of it. Anything that we could liquidate to pay our outstanding bills, all of it , gone. The sound system all the kitchen appliances, computers, all of it! These things were PAID FOR by Countryside Christian Church NOT Christ Church. Not Acts 29! By the many people who tithed faithfully for years! By members that were forced out, and their families. I asked repeatedly for Matthew 18 to walked with us. If I had sinned I wanted the scripture walked with me. I wanted to know who was accusing me and what I had done as well. You see, they had a list, and every time we met it got bigger and more involved, but no one showed up or admitted to me or our leadership what I was being accused of. When I made the point then even that became my fault. They told me people were afraid of me, did not want to come forward because I was such a strong personality. You see it was MY fault they would not come forward, so the leadership had to do it for them. (gagging noises ensue)Again why would'nt trust these guys? LOL Each meeting I became a even bigger sinner, pariah, etc. Nothing we did could stop the inevitable. They wanted us out, for my long list of sins. What they really wanted was to take my copy of the credit card statement and shred it and then throw me out so no one would find out. I just could not oblige them. And the fact that my husband stood with me bent their pretzels. So we were perp walked out with a off duty Police officer, and everyone out in the lobby watching… my son crying and yelling, my girl telling me she was done with church. You see they lied to us again…they told us in our meetings we would never have to deal with police, they would NEVER call the cops…but that is what happened..they lied and my children cried all the way out to the parking lot. I never would have brought them had I thought that might happen. Never. So fast forward a few years my daughter has not been back to church since, just like she promised. I and my husband and family are firmly planted in a wonderful and pretty healthy church body. My younger kids are really enjoying their new church groups, my hubby is working in youth group sound again, and we are moving forward. We did NOT give up and walk away from God. We won't either. Mark Driscoll cannot take from me my love and respect for my God. He cannot tell me that my Jesus doesn't love me because I am an opinionated woman. Matter of fact he made me that way!!

“Church discipline” as advocated by Acts 29, Driscoll, and other persons and organizations of this ilk is as heretical a practice as any that has been seen in the history of Christianity – this is not hyperbole. Nowhere is the goal of loving God and loving neighbor, the two foundational principles of Christianity, even hinted at, much less practiced, as the hoped-for outcome of this process.

Note the list of ‘sins’ for which one can be disciplined are in no way grounded in helping people spiritually in walking in the way of Christianity. When you strip it all down to what their ‘church discipline’ is really all about, the major ‘sins’ listed of ‘gossip’, ‘divisiveness’, ‘busybody’, ‘appointing oneself to leadership’, the purpose of ‘church discipline’, has nothing whatever to do with Christian doctrine at all. Sure, they will toss out a few Bible verses to claim Biblical support, but it’s a sham. They have twisted Scripture in the most heinous way possible because, for these people, it’s not at all about being Biblical, it’s really all about control of the congregation and silencing any and all accountability of the leadership.

In short, their ‘church discipline’ is church fascism, making sure the congregation does and goes along with whatever the leader desires without any questions asked. And in many cases, the leader himself won’t even deign to discuss the issue directly with those who have questions. Instead, he has brownshirt lackeys to do his dirty work for him.

These people are the worst kind of plague on Christianity, the only gospel they preach is a gospel of oppression. Were it not for the U.S. Constitution, we would have religious leadership controlling government that would make the power of any medieval Pope jealous.

Deb wrote:

Yep, I’m now skeptical about EVERYTHING Driscoll writes. Remember the machete incident in Vintage Jesus?

These days Bee Jay DOES have plausible deniability.
He can claim his ghostwriter made it up, not him.

BTW – Isn’t it a supreme irony that Christian beliefs that were born out of opposition to a medieval dictatorial Pope and forged the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers are being jettisoned to create dictatorial mini-Popes on that same medieval model?

Isn't Matt Chandler the president of Acts 29 now? Strange how that came about.

I can give a partial example of a successful use of Matthew 18 – the only time I ever used it. I had just moved in with a long time friend of mine, when she proceeded to move her boyfriend into the house, with talk of them getting married. First, it was fraud on her part, getting me to move in without telling me her intentions concerning him, and it was morally wrong for her, as a professing Christian. She did not listen to the appeals from me, nor from her family, so I called her ladies’ care group leader at CLC, even though I had left the church awhile before that. They talked with her, and I honestly don’t know what they did after that in terms of discipline. I moved out hastily and had no contact with her for about six months, since she had caused me emotional and financial distress. Then she called me and over breakfast, confessed her sins to me and asked forgiveness. Her boyfriend had left her, stealing property on the way out (he ended up being a drug addict as well as a con man), and she had reconciled with CLC. AGain, I don’t know what interaction they had with her, but she attends CLC to this day.

JeffT wrote:

BTW – Isn’t it a supreme irony that Christian beliefs that were born out of opposition to a medieval dictatorial Pope and forged the doctrine of a priesthood of all believers are being jettisoned to create dictatorial mini-Popes on that same medieval model?

That’s because to them the only reason Medieval Romish Popery was wrong was THEY weren’t the one on top.

Not “dictatorial mini-Popes”. These guys go well beyond even the worst of the Borgia Popes in their Arrogance and Thirst for Power and throwing their weight around. For example, actual “Ex Cathedra” pronouncements from the Pope are actually fairly limited in scope by precedent and protocol — limited to a binding decision on a Matter of Faith and Morals that must not conflict with established precedent (Scripture and Tradition).

These “dictatorial mini-Popes” have NO such restriction — they can Announce Ex Cathedra that God Hath Said Two Plus Two Equals Five or to make their Horse one of their Board of Elders.

@Dee and Deb – because another poster mentioned an Acts 29 church in Northern Virginia, I was curious and googled churches in my area that are affiliated with Acts 29. There’s not too many in Maryland, where I live. However, I saw that Redeemer Church of Arlington, pastored by Eric Simmons and church plant from Covenant Life Church, is now an Acts 29 church. Did you know this?!

Many heartfelt thanks to all (on this thread and other ones) who have encouraged me to comment at TWW. Even as much of the pain of rejection and shunning from (most of) my Reformed friends has lessened with time, I don’t know that I will ever completely “get over” those losses. I have forgiven them and moved on as best as I can by God’s grace. I have new Catholic friends, and some non-Reformed Protestant friends who have stuck with me, and they have helped with the healing. In a way though, I think that I have a form of “spiritual PTSD” that I did not previously have, pre-shunning-as-church-discipline. It’s hard to really articulate. Hopefully, it is not affecting my faith in God and my life as a Catholic Church member…. at least not too much… I hope and pray.

On this whole matter of Acts 29/church discipline/Mark Driscoll’s dictatorial ministerial style, one thing that is *incredibly ironic* to me is that Driscoll and many of the Acts 29 leaders seem to believe that they are truly, faithfully teaching what the Bible teaches about “the grace and freedom of the Gospel.” They would have us believe that they oppose the “legalistic false gospel” of the Catholic Church. Well, I am a practicing Catholic, a “revert” to the Church, and I can say that I have experienced more true freedom in Christ in the last three years than I ever did at Capitol Hill Baptist (and, to a lesser extent, at the other Calvinistic church in New Mexico). I’m not talking about license to sin either. I’m talking about freedom from legalistic shackles which were taught me as “Biblical principles” or, depending on the situation, supposedly Biblical “prudential judgment.”

Here’s an example of what I mean. No Catholic priest has told me that, as a man with a physical disability who uses a wheelchair, is unable to drive a car (I’ve tried), and has terribly struggled in the job market, that I still must be the sole or main provider before I can marry a woman. To be clear, I agree that, *in the main, in the overwhelming majority of cases*, it is highly recommendable, even important, for a man to have steady employment before, or while, pursuing a relationship and marriage. Heck, having steady employment is healthy for basically *anyone*– I know that (and wish that I had it!). However, in the past, when I asked my Reformed leaders if, given my particular physical condition, and my transportation realities and struggles, it might possibly be “Biblically allowable” for my girlfriend or wife to be the main provider, not necessarily perpetually, but just for a time– the answer was no, that would not be good at all, not “Biblical.” This kind of pastoral counsel actually helped to wreck a relationship and engagement that I had with a woman at the time.

By comparison, I have found the Catholic Church to have an atmosphere of much more freedom, in terms of not dictating the exact terms under which Christian men and women should pursue relationships and marry. Of course, there are still general principles which are taught, such as respecting each other’s basic dignity as human beings and not having sex outside of marriage. However, the extremely “hands-on” approach to dictating about the terms of relationships, and about certain other things, that I experienced as a legalistic burden in my Reformed past is refreshingly absent in my experience of the Catholic Church. The negative, and ironic, comparison with Mark Driscoll and others of his anti-Catholic bent, hardly even needs to be made… so much for the “freedom of the Gospel!”

Mr.H wrote:

At our new church (EFCA, non-Calvinista-infiltrated) I have yet to even hear the words “gossip” and “slander” uttered by the lead pastor. Of course, he is in his 50s, has an MDiv, a DMin, and over 25 years of ministry experience. He is also one of the most gentle, sweet, loving men I have ever met. Confident and secure but also humble and gracious. No need to be worried about “gossip” or “slander” from his congregation…if anyone tried, they’d be laughed at by everyone else

Mr. H…be careful. The Evangelical Free is struggling with Hyper-Reformed theology as well, and parts of the EFCA have been hijacked. This reason is why I don’t attend of get involved in the EFCA. Here are some examples for you to consider:

Look at this example from Clovis Evangelical Free Church in Clovis, California

http://www.clovisevfree.org/value-and-teach.php

Whiskey Tango Foxtrott to having expositional teaching and discipline so front and center. Poke around on the website and your eyes will pop open.

Then here in DC there is an Acts 29/EFCA church plant I guess Capital Hill Baptist isn’t good enough for this crowd. Poke around on the website…

http://www.redemptionhilldc.org/about-us/networks

Here’s another Evangelical Free..the Senior Pastor Bill Keynes is on the Board of The Gospel Coalition with CJ Mahaney. This one is down the road from where I live.

http://cornerstoneefree.org/

former Sojourn member wrote:

Some formerly Acts29 churches have split off from the movement – such as Sojourn here in Louisville. Sojourn has its own network of churches. Mars Hill seems to be doing the same thing.

Sure this isn’t a Pastor(TM) splitting off from a Dictatorial Mini-Pope so HE can be THE Dictatorial Mini-Pope instead of the other guy?

Deb wrote:

Former CLC’er wrote:
@Dee and Deb – because another poster mentioned an Acts 29 church in Northern Virginia, I was curious and googled churches in my area that are affiliated with Acts 29. There’s not too many in Maryland, where I live. However, I saw that Redeemer Church of Arlington, pastored by Eric Simmons and church plant from Covenant Life Church, is now an Acts 29 church. Did you know this?!
Oh my! Thanks for letting us know.
http://www.acts29network.org/church-detail/redeemer-church-of-arlington/

Was Mahaney’s middle name Adam?

From their core practices page:

“Under Adam we sought to build altars and communities that worship ourselves.
In Christ we are builders of His church community who live life together.

Under Adam we sought to use our gifts, talents, time, resources in deeds that produce more for us even at the expense of others….

Under Adam we were students of false teachings and false words that perpetuated the lie that was started in the garden….

Under Adam our mission was to make our name known….”

Rebecca Lynn (and other knowledgable folks), did I misunderstand something? I have read the Acts 29 document. “Responses to a Sinning Christian” lists scripture passages of diverse sinful attitudes and actions, and within those scripture passages the appropriate Christian responses. For example: “Proverbs 20:19: A gossip betrays a confidence; so avoid a man who talks too much.” Are they acknowledging that this is sound advice, or are they saying that the sin of gossip (as they define it) will be dealt with by way of shunning and excommunication? The document ends with “Ephesians 4:32: Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” So I am confused about the specific Acts 29 discipline algorithm; exactly what sins committed by which people merit the involvement of leaders and termination of fellowship? I assumed from the biblical context of most of these verses, that most of these issues were to be overlooked or resolved brother to brother.

@ Deb:

You are welcome.
I tried to find a copy on Google cache too, but the pdf was not turning up, just the page that links to the bad link.

Christopher Lake wrote:

By comparison, I have found the Catholic Church to have an atmosphere of much more freedom, in terms of not dictating the exact terms under which Christian men and women should pursue relationships and marry.

Really? I believe the church’s teaching regarding artificial birth control is well known. I assume you are in 100% agreement and would abide by their teaching. But if you have a problem with the teaching (I understand many Catholics do) and used artificial birth control, would you tell your priest that the church’s teaching is wrong? Would he say what you are doing is a sin? Would there be any church discipline? I don’t think its a matter of dictating the terms; its a matter of enforcement of the terms which may be lacking.

@ Daisy:

Thanks Daisy for pointing that out about the name calling. I was going to post that if no one else did. Just from following enough id Driscoll’s other comments about wives I’m thinking that when he was that intern he was probably also entertaining thoughts about what the poor wife may have done to deserve all that she was testing from her husband.

Daisy wrote:

hallway):
On the other hand, the man and his whorish girlfriend

I suppose we could debate the accuracy or merits of referring to a mistress as “whorish,” but what gets my goat is that I do not see the adulterous husband being described in such terms.

The bottom of that post says: “By: Mars Hill Church”

I believe the two to be related. Mars Hill, whose pastor/dictator described Queen Esther as a ho. Whose Visions from God(TM) are always voyeur-porno (“I SEE Things…”). And who is male supremacist/it’s always the woman’s fault.

dee wrote:

@ Christopher Lake:
I pray that you will receive much support and love from your new church. I have been consistently impresses with the kindness and understanding that is offered to congregants by the priests who, in many instances, who more compassion than that of men like Driscoll who are supposedly “theologically sound.”

Whenever I hear of “Theologically Sound” in that context, I can’t help thinking of the Communists and their “Purity of Ideology”.

P.S. Chris? When they ask you online “What church do you go to?” here’s the answer I use: “ROMISH PAPIST WITH SATANIC DEATH COOKIES!”

You’re not the only one to find Fundamentalism-to-Catholicism a breath of freedom like jumping the old Berlin Wall into the West.

dee wrote:

This woman caught in adultery account is not found in the earliest manuscripts.

True, but I didn’t want to let that particular can of worms out of the bag.

In other news, Manchester City (from being 2-0 down after 12 minutes) have just taken the lead against Bayern.

Iiiiiiiiiiinteresting game in Munich; there may be more goals to come.

Christopher, thank you for sharing! Praying for the Lord’s blessing and guidance in your life. He loves you very much. I am thankful on your behalf that you have found a place to worship that features loving, gentle guidance from your leader(s).

dee wrote:

I have a great deal of respect for the faith of devoted Catholics and priests and deeply admire the current Pope. He puts some of our current crop of arrogant leaders to shame.

Me too. The fact that I investigated catholicism and did not convert did not in any way diminish my respect for a lot of catholics and a lot about catholicism. I hope I did not give that impression. My issues were doctrinal, not personal.

@ dee:

I did read in a book on King James Version Onlyism that the woman caught in adultery could have been an oral tradition, and that is how it got carried into later manuscripts. So it’s possible it’s true and happened.

@ Mr.H:
I talked about an Ed Welch book I read on this blog a few months ago.

Some of Welch’s views do not have support in the Bible, and are very uncompassionate. His book was worthless. I got more help with my issues (such as anxiety attacks) from reading books by Non Christian authors.

I typed up portions of the Welch book and sent that in an e-mail to Deb and Dee. The guy is a bit on the victim-blame side in some regards.

He, yes, tosses out a comment or two in the book that he’s not into victim blaming but then does that very thing at a few points in the book.

dee wrote:

However, to Daisy’s point, men were not as frequently punished as women. In fact, it has been a societal custom since forever that the women’s virginity is to be inviolate and the man’s conquests to be winked at. And now I shall duck!

P.S. I’m still a virgin in my 40s, and it still does not matter – some quarters of Christians just assume all adult women my age are having sex all over the place.

I’m still suspected of being a big hussy just from sheer fact of being an unmarried woman, even though I’ve not had sex and was waiting to get married.

@ An Attorney:
The generally accepted definition of “whore” involves personal gain even if not a one-off monetary payment as such. But maybe in Mars Hill, it just sounds like a good , mean-sounding word to use for a woman we don’t like.

Daisy wrote:

P.S. I’m still a virgin in my 40s, and it still does not matter – some quarters of Christians just assume all adult women my age are having sex all over the place.

They assume all adult men, too.
(And Celebrity Pastor/Dictators usually are and then some…)

It’s just the Christianese version of “Everybody’s Doing It!” and/or “If you’re not Doing somebody, YOU’RE A NOBODY!”

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Not sure on what basis the example purports to know that the man was paying her for sex, though.

Maybe he was working from an “All Women Are Whores” mindset?

I cannot imagine penning or signing a letter such as the one Becky received.

Very sad.

Hmm, @ Tim:
Tim wrote:

Former CLC’er wrote:
God brought us out of Egypt kicking and screaming with tears on our faces

Hmm, didn’t mean to attribute that to the wrong person, sorry!

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Arghhhhhhhhh!

Yours truly,

Rafiki-the-Bayern-fan-and-in-particular-think-Manuel-Nuer-is-dreamy 🙂 -in-addition-to-being-one-of-the-best-goaltenders-in-the-business.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

former Sojourn member wrote:
Some formerly Acts29 churches have split off from the movement – such as Sojourn here in Louisville. Sojourn has its own network of churches. Mars Hill seems to be doing the same thing.
Sure this isn’t a Pastor(TM) splitting off from a Dictatorial Mini-Pope so HE can be THE Dictatorial Mini-Pope instead of the other guy?

I can’t say that, HUG. Perhaps it’s mainly about growing their brand and network.

Ian Elsasser wrote:

Perhaps Driscoll borrowed the observation from Wright.

It would please me to hear that Mark Driscoll reads Tom Wright.

Rafiki wrote:

can someone kindly clarify what the heck is the offense of being a “wingnut”??!!

I would like chapter and verse on that myself.

Have you all seen this panel discussion with Acts 29 “worship pastors”? It puts it all right out in the open that this actually is way beyond just different views. These are invented stereotypes. It makes me very upset, because I realize now that my suspicions over the years were accurate.

http://theresurgence.com/2011/06/21/a-conversation-with-worship-pastors-on-complementarian-relationships

@ Bentbutnotbroken:
You can find that on audio here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDWJDQMsHuQ

Rebecca…just as a heads up. Its Mark Driscoll NOT Marc Driscoll. Its cool…you can ask Deb I made a huge snafu in saying CJ Mahaney was a high school drop out. Deb corrected me last week and I was grateful. As you can see I have no problem submitting to female authority…just don’t tell Mark Driscoll or John Piper that! 😛

You’ve been through a lot and I’d hate to see some of these clowns jump all over you for not getting Mark Driscoll’s name correct. If I was where you are at..I’d give you a hug and we’d weep together over all this.

@ rebecca lynn:

Becky has refused to repent of gossip, slander, deception, lying,

You ever considered a defamation lawsuit? Seriously, they’ve crossed the line

@ JeffT:
Honestly I have not ever wanted to sue, I just cannot reconcile that with the word or who I am. What I want is an acknowledgement of the wrong that was done us and the total shutdown of Acts 29. I know it’s such a little thing right? I want Mark Driscoll to shut his piehole and get over himself too. LOL Think I will be waiting a long time for these things since some people here in town are still shunning me.

If Acts 29 are going to be serious about forgiveness and reconciliation here’s what they need to do.

1. Apologize and work out all issues with people who were slandered and emotionally assaulted. Do whatever it takes to restore their reputation.
2. Close down Christ church and take those stolen resources and give it back to Countryside Church.
3. Corporate Acts 29 re buy Countryside and leave it financially sound.
4. Remove Galloway from all further church planting. Seriously I wouldn’t trust this guy with a lemonade stand.
5. Galloway and Chandler should meet with the former Pastor who led Countryside for 30 years and beg for his forgiveness.
6. Leave Countryside alone.

Reconciliation and true forgiveness is not cheap. I've learned a little about this in the last few months!

A pastor who led a church for 430 years!!!! ROFL…. I’m fried!!! LOL!! I need to go to bed.

Eagle wrote:

One other thing about Galloway…I would be curious to know this. What was his record as a cop like?

Maybe the power of being a cop gave him a thirst for more and he created a God complex for himself?

Bridget wrote:

Anyone awake please pray for my son. Eye probelm diagnosed as pink eye last week has gotten much worse. I made him go to urgent care today. They sent him to ER. He is in extreme pain and we are concerned about his eye. Thanks.

You son and you and your family are in my prayers.

Joe wrote:

Really? I believe the church’s teaching regarding artificial birth control is well known. I assume you are in 100% agreement and would abide by their teaching. But if you have a problem with the teaching (I understand many Catholics do) and used artificial birth control, would you tell your priest that the church’s teaching is wrong? Would he say what you are doing is a sin? Would there be any church discipline? I don’t think its a matter of dictating the terms; its a matter of enforcement of the terms which may be lacking.

Joe,

Thanks for your questions. To be clear about where I stand, I am both 100% in agreement with the Church’s official teaching on artificial birth control, *and* I also know, from the testimony of other Catholics, and from simple logic, that this teaching can be challenging (although *not* impossible, by God’s grace!) to consistently follow. I have heard that, in individual situations, priests tend to be very understanding about the difficulties of living out this teaching for lay Catholics– but it is very important here to make some clarifications.

It seems that, from what Dee wrote, the counsel she has been given, as a non-Catholic inquiring about the matter, is that Catholics are allowed to “dissent” from the Church on artificial birth control. Certain priests and/or individual Catholics may have actually told her this (I’ve been told the same in the past), and they may have told her that this teaching is not infallibly defined in the Church, and is not a “non-negotiable” part of the Catholic faith. If so, unfortunately, whether from a priest, a nun, or a lay Catholic, she has received mistaken counsel. Dee, please feel free to clarify about your experience on asking about this matter if you wish (and only if you wish– no pressure from me!).

Both in my time as a Reformed Protestant, and as a Catholic, I have done careful research on this issue, from the Bible, from the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, and from papal encyclicals and other Church documents. In a real sense, the so-called “ban” on artificial birth control is a non-negotiable part of Catholic teaching and always has been so. It was taught in the very early centuries of Christianity by the early Church Fathers, it was reaffirmed in 1968 with the Papal encyclical, “Humanae Vitae,” and the current Catechism speaks clearly about it as being part of the Catholic faith.

Actually, it may surprise many Protestants here to read this, but literally, from the 1500s until 1930 (beginning with the Anglican Church), all *Protestant denominations* officially taught that artificial contraception interferes with God’s design for sexuality within marriage. This article explains more about *that* historical (but today, widely unknown!) reality of Protestantism, and about where the teaching “stands,” officially, from Scripture and Church documents, within the Catholic faith. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

Joe, to be completely honest with you, I can’t knowledgeably speak as to how any possible “church discipline” might be enforced, if I were married and consistently choosing to disobey this teaching. I have never been in this situation myself (I’m 40 and never married, though that is definitely not what I wish!) , and I have never personally talked to, nor heard of, *any* married Catholic person who has described an official “church discipline” process for consistent disobedience against this teaching. With that said, any Catholic who is consistently choosing to disobey any part of the Church’s teaching on matters of faith and morals is strongly encouraged to refrain from taking the Eucharist *but* still attend Mass, and hopefully, take the matter to his/her priest in the confessional. The same goes for a Catholic who is consistently choosing to disobey what he/she knows the Church teaches about pre-marital sex, adultery, *and* any other mortal sin, including the ones which are not sexual in nature, as most of them are not!

I understand that, for contemporary evangelical and/or Reformed Protestants, *and* for many Catholics, the Church’s teaching against artificial birth control may seem “legalistic” and ridiculously intrusive. However, I think that the teaching speaks, in a deeply profound way, to God’s revealed design, in our very bodies, for both male and female sexuality, in ways that are rarely considered today in the Western world. And, again, as I wrote above, I have heard that priests tend to be, personally, very understanding with Catholics who struggle with the teaching. (Sometimes, though, some priests can be so “understanding,” and so wanting to sympathize with the difficulties, that they actually deny that the teaching is part of the Catholic faith, and this is mistaken.)

Dee, and *everyone else* who has replied to my comments in this thread,

Thank you all so much, for your sympathy and love, regarding my painful past experiences in Reformed churches. I do want to say that I *haven’t* been shunned by *every* Reformed friend in my social circles (only by most of the ones at Capitol Hill Baptist), and I would be heartbroken if readers here took my experiences to somehow be a normative representation of most Reformed church life in America.

To be clear here, I have no reason to think that *most* Reformed, or “Calvinistic,” churches in America practice shunning, or any other heavy-handed aspect of so-called “church discipline,” that I’ve personally encountered. As a Catholic, I am still very thankful for all of the good, true things that I learned about God and Scripture, in sermons, Bible studies, and in conversations with friends, while I was a “five-point-Calvinist.” I seriously differ with certain aspects of Reformed theology now, as a Catholic, but I would certainly never say, and the Church does not teach, that Reformed people are not fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, seeking to follow God as they sincerely understand Him from Scripture.

Praying

@ Bridget:
I have read all of the updates to here, and I am praying. I have several friends who have had a similar extended pain issue with an eye, and it is a most difficult pain to manage. I am praying and will until we get an update that says it will be OK.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

nonsense talk. A quick web search will demonstrate all kinds of people showing how . . . driving a Chevy [is] “based on biblical principles.”

Nonsense indeed! Who would say that driving a Chevy is more biblical?! Obviously, they haven’t read Acts 5:12. The NASB says: 12 [a]At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s portico.

Clearly, the apostles had a HONDA ACCORD, so don’t give me any of that biblical Chevy talk. 🙂

True story tangent: I still have the Honda Accord my parents bought me back in 1985. It was just after I had returned from working a year in Indonesia. I was excitedly telling them about how most of the Indonesians rode motorcycles instead of cars. It was so much fun, I told them, I had decided I wanted to buy a motorcycle to use in the States. Very shortly after that, out of the blue, my parents told me that they wanted to buy me a brand new car. Pretty amazing, right? I’d never even asked for one. 😉 And yeah, their plan worked; I never did get that motorcycle.

@ Big Blue Fan in Asia:
LOL. I’ll have to try that tactic with my wife…

rebecca lynn wrote:

I want Mark Driscoll to shut his piehole and get over himself too.

I think we *all* want that. 😉

An Attorney wrote:

I have seen it once or twice referring to a left winger, but it seems less applicable in general.

Why? You don’t think micromanaging the personal lives of 300 million people is wing nutty? :o)

BTW: I read yesterday of a woman who said she was excommunicated from Doug Phillips’ church because she told him she voted for George Bush. It seems they were told not to.

@ Anon 1:
The idea of a “wing nut” is someone so far to one end of the spectrum that they refuse to vote for the primary winner of their party b/c that person is not extreme enough, therefore possibly causing the candidate of their party to fail to win the election. It seems that is rarer among Dems the Repubs for some reason. Another use is that of a candidate that is so far to one end of the spectrum that he/she cannot win the general election in a district that has a majority of the electorate voting for their party but not the wing nut candidate.

Ken wrote:

I have never liked the democratic mentality behind the average Baptist church meeting, but at least it does have the merit of holding the church leadership to account if they are getting too big for their boots.

Sort of like democracy. Full of flaws. But many times with many less flaws than the other choices.

A flat open meeting congregational church business setup has it’s flaws. But it general the flaws are in the open for people to see and deal with or not. And if they deal with them badly at least it is public. Most of the other structures let the cockroaches hide in the dark closed rooms where the doors are not allowed to be opened. 🙂

Rafiki wrote:

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Arghhhhhhhhh!
Yours truly,
Rafiki-the-Bayern-fan-and-in-particular-think-Manuel-Nuer-is-dreamy -in-addition-to-being-one-of-the-best-goaltenders-in-the-business.

Well hey – so far on TWW, then, we have Liverpool, West Ham and Bayern. This has “superleague” written all over it.e>

@ dee:

Some hours yet before we can get to ophthamologist. Feels better due to pain meds. Will update later in the day.

Thank you all for the prayers.

__
@ Bridget

Praying.

(sadface)

Sopy
___
Inspirational relief: “Thy Loving Kindness”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdjV6Tt7oyM

—

@Thom:

First of all, unique spelling of the name Tom.

Secondly, it would be much easier to separate the Acts 29 wheat from the Acts 29 chaff if the godly, humble leaders you refer to would actively speak out against the high-profile, embarrassing, offensive, unqualified ones. At minimum, silence is seen as tacit approval in a close-ranked group like A29.

Also, it would be helpful for everyone is Acts 29 would just stop allowing such guys to become lead pastors.

@Ken:

Not sure if it was sarcasm, but using the term “psychobabble” is moderately offensive to professional psychologists. Contrary to what you may think after listening to the warnings of some Calvinistas, modern psychology, if practiced well, is not a combination of stage magic and nihilism. Evidence-based therapy is legit. And concepts like “projection,” while very complex, do accurately describe real world dynamics.

@ Ken:

Look at the assumptions Paul was making. He was assuming that the church was composed of believers. He was assuming that there were specific people in the church who could function to judge matters. He was assuming the civil courts were composed of unbelievers. And then he assumes that issues can be resolved, indeed, without lawsuits. He does not say anything about what to do if the situation and the assumptions change, or if there is no resolution without a lawsuit. Only that things ought not come to that.

So, what to do now? We could assume that Paul’s assumptions are still accurate and valid. We could even assume that to leave a thing unresolved and/or permit injustice is better than to admit defeat and go ahead and solve it whatever it takes. Or we could solve it, take a good look at the areas in which the solution was something Paul called a defeat, and then remake the system so that the system functions better. But “see no evil” is not in the bible.

Are there a large number of Acts 29 survivor blogs? I know there are a couple. I would be fascianted to know how Acts 29 is different under Matt Chandler than Mark Driscoll. To me the only thing that has changed is the figurehead. One is more likable than the other.

Ken wrote:

Although this at first sight seems like letting wrongdoers get away with it, there is a coming judgment at which everyone will appear that will put right all the injustices ever committed, so it is not as though anyone ultimately gets away with anything.

“In the Sweet Bye and Bye,
You’ll get Pie in the Sky when you die…”
— old Wobbly anthem “The Preacher and the Slave”

Eagle wrote:

One is more likable than the other.

Although, when they made the change, I did read one Chandler sermon. It was about shooting “Wolves” to protect the flock. Then the example he gave of “Wolves” was– shallow young from the big city who might want to MARRY the beautiful young flock-daughters. Very Driscoll-like.

I am not impressed by Matt Chandler. Actually I think he’s overrated. Before my faith crisis he was the one people told me to read when it came to pain and suffering due to his brain tumor. So everyone would drool over what Chandler would say. When my Dad had his brain tumor I was curious so I listened to a couple of things by Chandler and read a couple of articles. I was disgusted with what I read, I recall him saying he only doubted God once during his brain tumor. And my reaction was like “ONCE? Are you ^&%$ing kidding me!!” This was when my family was going through MRI scans over my Dad’s brain tumor. And it was an emotional roller coaster ride. One doctor would say good news, another would say bad news…and we were trying to figure out everything amidst all that. I think of the times my Mom cried on the phone while my family hung on through all this. And I got disgusted to think that Chandler only doubted God once. And who knows since Matt Chandler uses Docent, I wonder if that was after or during his brain tumor.

But Chandler is overrated. I had a guy who gave me Chandler’s stuff and he would get flustered when I critiqued it. He said I always had to listen to it and not just read the text. I was puzzled as to why because the content would always be the same regardless. The downer, and I admit this, is that read a sermon is kind of like reading an email. You can’t get voice fluctuations, emotions, etc…

JeffT wrote:

Bridget wrote:
Anyone awake please pray for my son. Eye probelm diagnosed as pink eye last week has gotten much worse. I made him go to urgent care today. They sent him to ER. He is in extreme pain and we are concerned about his eye. Thanks.

You son and you and your family are in my prayers.

Me too, Bridget.

Mr.H wrote:

At our new church (EFCA, non-Calvinista-infiltrated) I have yet to even hear the words “gossip” and “slander” uttered by the lead pastor. Of course, he is in his 50s, has an MDiv, a DMin, and over 25 years of ministry experience. He is also one of the most gentle, sweet, loving men I have ever met. Confident and secure but also humble and gracious. No need to be worried about “gossip” or “slander” from his congregation…if anyone tried, they’d be laughed at by everyone else!

Hi, Mr. H. Sounds like you’ve found a good local church. Please may I point something out? I was bludgeoned by church discipline in an EFCA church, including shunning, for making a complaint in writing to the EFCA District Office about a personal matter my elders insisted on handling for me. I gave permission in writing to the EFCA District Office to share everything I had written with the elders. The “sins” the elders presented to the congregation at my excommunication were that I had “slandered the elders in my email communication with the EFCA.” The congregation was advised that I had refused to repent (that is, sign a document starting that my (true) comments were lies, and then sign another document promising never to speak about it to anyone), and that talking to me about it would be gossip.

What you should know is that each EFCA church is accountable only to itself. The EFCA District Office in Turlock, CA, told me to find another church where my son and I could heal (not submit myself to the elders and repent), and when I contacted the President of the EFCA, Dr. Greg Strand, he advised me the same, but said each church handles its own affairs and the national office would not get involved either.

The certified nouthetic counselor on staff at my former church told me the problem was that even though the elders might have sinned against me, the real issue was that I had the responsibility to accept the blame for a sin I did not commit as a sign of submission, then never speak of it again as a sign of forgiveness.

My points are this:

1. The quality of your pastor has nothing to do with the EFCA affiliation of your church.
2. The EFCA affiliation of your church means that your elders are accountable only to themselves.
(Please do not sign a membership contract! Discipline was taken against me after I resigned in good standing, a clear violation of our church membership contract, yet neither level of EFCA office would address this violation).
3. A nouthetic counseling certificate does not make one competent to counsel.

I wish you and your church the best.

Rafiki wrote:

Shut the front door, did he really insinuate that a guy from a city/town larger than a patriarchal nut-job’s fortified family compound in the woods who is interested in dating is a “wolf”??!!

Wow, this IS Craster’s Keep near The Wall in North Westeros.

Just ask that “wolf” Sam of the Night Watch….

Nancy wrote:

For everybody interested in this check out the article “Pontifical Commission on Birth Control” in Wikipedia.
I was in internship (at a catholic hospital) and then in residency (partly at a program affiliated with a Jesuit university) and then on the lowest possible clinical rung of faculty at that same university during the time that this was going on. This was such a hot issue at the time. Note, that the church’s position could have been changed but was not. It was not that it could not have been changed at that time, only that it was not changed.
My personal observation is that the proverbial large catholic family seems to be relatively rare these days and that the size which is considered “large” in our culture seems to be a lot smaller than before the pill hit the market.
When I was in RCIA about 10 years ago this issue was avoided like the plague and we were all told to “talk to the priest” about it. IMO, it is probably easier to get forgiveness that to get permission.

Nancy (and anyone else who is reading and curious– one never knows!), 🙂

It’s very unfortunate that your RCIA class avoided directly talking about the Church’s stand against artificial birth control. I know that this teaching seems ridiculous to most people today, but there is a very serious Christian anthropology of the human person behind the teaching, and it has always been held by the Church. On a purely practical level, people who are looking into what the Catholic Church teaches, especially with the possible intent of becoming Catholic (which is part of the reason for the RCIA process, of course), have every right to know what the Church teaches, and what Catholics are called to accept by the Church, and what they are not called to accept.

When one joins the Catholic Church, one is (or is *supposed* to be asked at least) asked to affirm all that the Catholic Church teaches. This would include the teaching on artificial birth control. I’m not saying that it’s easy to live the teaching. That would be dishonest at worst and naive at best. It is challenging.

In particular, the teaching challenges the modern sensibility, found among even among most Christians now, that human beings should somehow get to enjoy the physical pleasure that was “built into” the act of lovemaking, by God, while deliberately choosing *not* to be open to the reproduction of new life– which is, just as obviously, “built into” lovemaking by God! 🙂 The part of me that wants life to be (more) easy and comfortable struggles mightily with the Church’s teaching here! However, the part of me that cannot ignore how God clearly, biologically designed lovemaking, with the possibility of new life as an intrinsic, logical part of it, sees the point of the Church’s teaching. It’s a matter of respecting the marital act *as* God designed it, not as we might wish to “tweak it” to make it more convenient for what *we* may want out of it (closeness, comfort, physical pleasure) or not want out of it (the possibility of a new life).

From the 1960s up until today, some Catholic theologians, and priests, and nuns, and lay people have maintained that the teaching can still be changed. However, according to the official Church documents, it cannot be changed. Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, “Humane Vitae,” made that very clear yet again (although many Catholics choose to ignore it or dissent from it): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html The current Catechism also reaffirms the teaching.

I completely “get” that most readers here probably see this issue as a “Catholic thing.” However, up until 80 years ago, that was not the broad Christian consensus. From the 1500s until 1930, all Protestant denominations officially taught that the use of artificial contraception is an intrinsic evil too. Now, one may certainly choose to think that, up until 1930, Protestants were just holding onto a Catholic remnant that was/is unnecessary and legalistic. For myself, when I seriously asked myself the question, “Why did all Christian churches officially agree on this subject until 80 years ago, and why is the Catholic Church the only one still teaching the historic Christian position on it?”… answering that question helped to lead me back to the Catholic Church (with sincere respect for all of Christian brothers and sisters who disagree about it!) 🙂

Yawn. This has been going on since the early 90s. New Calvinism, the 5th resurgence of authentic Calvinism since Geneva, will now begin to die out because of this primary reason among 6–tyranny. The original Reformation will keep coming back and dying again unless it can get back in bed with the government. I wouldn’t even know where to start in these situations, other than to say that biblically, ELDERS HAVE NO, AUTHORITY IN YOUR HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!! MEN, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@ Janet Varin:

Janet…you’re not far from my hometown of Fresno. The problem in the EFCA from what I gathor is that it is structured loosely like the SBC. There is a lot of freedom in the individual churches and they can go in differing individual directions at the whim of the leadership. My first exposure to evangelicalism was at Fresno Evangelical Free Church, which is called The Bridge today. Back in 1999 it wasn’t half bad..still pretty evangelical in teaching. But Neo-Cal theology was not an issue. As far as I know its still not, but I wonder if Turlock falls under the Fresno district. The other local EFCA Church that has become corrupt is Clovis Evangelcial Free on Armstrong. I exploded last year when I saw the Pastor there on his blog pushing Sovereign Grace material. He was touting CJ Mahaney’s book on Humility and writing about how much humility Mahaney exhibits even in stepping down in leadership from CLC. I was livid at seeing that crap at an EFCA.

Thom wrote:

Without at all wishing to take away from what sounds like a heartbreaking story – can we be careful before tarring every A29 church with this brush? These churches, by and large, are filled with humble godly parishioners led by humble godly pastors. The problem of “this A29 church may have done a terrible thing” is certainly serious, and it may even extend to “A29 leadership enabled this and needs to repent,” but that doesn’t reflect one way or another on the other 300 A29 churches, their pastors, or their congregants.

I’ve been thinking about this all morning.

Here’s where I am at this moment. If there are 300,000 churches in America and only 300 belong to Acts 29, then with only 0.1% of all churches, Acts 29 really isn’t a significant movement. Yet it already has one (or more) survivor groups.

What’s the attraction? What does Acts 29 promise to those churches? What’s worth the price of membership? What does the pastor get out of it that’s worth the time and financial commitment?

Good theology is free. You don’t need to join a group to have it.

Janey wrote:

What’s the attraction? What does Acts 29 promise to those churches? What’s worth the price of membership? What does the pastor get out of it that’s worth the time and financial commitment?

Those are my questions as well. There may well be good Acts29 or 9Marks churches, I don’t know. But what is it that Acts29 or 9Marks provides that helps churches and their communities grow in Christ and love for God and neighbor? Reading their own material I can’t see anything they bring to the table that remotely addresses that. In the case of Acts29, it’s really all about planting more churches – the Gospel is secondary if at all. That’s the main thrust of their 5 “Doctrinal Distinctive”, a secondary thrust is to get women out of the pulpit and church leadership. Some is terribly wrong with an organization when it lists it top five priorities and one of them is to marginalize women, and not one of the priorities discusses spreading the love of God and love of neighbor which, foolish me, I thought was the core of Christianity.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

As for the other, it is no guarantee that the man won’t be a scoundrel.

That’s because they make up their own definition of “Godliness” which so often seems to have little to do with morality.

There’s another reason why I think these churches become popular. And its something that I think should raise many eyebrows. With the exception of Mars Hill Seattle, The Village, etc… many of these churches are small. And I think there are lots of benefits to that fact. The Sovereign Grace church that I visited twice was quite small. There is a Sojourn Church around the corner from where I live that is quite small. And Acts 29 churches from my understanding tend to be small. I think this is a reaction to the mega churches that many evangelicals become enamored by.

But I for one would prefer a small church community. Why? You get to interact with the Pastor and Elders. You get to know members of the congregation. You can be intimately involved in other people’s lives and not just a beep on the radar. Not only that…but look at how society is going today. From banking, to companies, etc.. the emphasis is always on bigger and growth. How many here get frustrated when you call your bank and you get transferred to a call center in the Philippines and the person on the other end is struggling to understand you? Or how many get frustrated when you call your credit card or utility company and all you deal with is an automated system. Much of society is impersonal.

I think many young people are pushing back from all that. Plus I think many people want community which is what these Acts 29 or SGM churches also offer. I can tell you from living in the Washington, D.C. area for 8 years. It’s a lonely place. It’s probably the loneliest place I’ve lived because of how transitory the area is. In the last year most of the people who I hanged around with have moved away. It’s a cold, harsh reality of life here in DC. Plus another unique thing I have noticed living here is how many people die alone and bequeath their gifts to the counties of Arlington, Fairfax, etc…

But when people ask…what do these churches want…I think what many people want…myself included is community. Genuine friendships, loving relationships, etc… That is the draw to small churches and I think Acts 29 knows and exploits that fact.

Muff Potter wrote:

Dave A A wrote:
Then the example he gave of “Wolves” was– shallow young from the big city who might want to MARRY the beautiful young flock-daughters. Very Driscoll-like.
It would appear that these guys are obsessed with youth and virginity almost to the point of it being a demi-idol in the various brands of fundagelicalism. It seems that the more testosterone laced the sect is, the more pronounced this mindset is.

It is a semi – idol of sorts. Some what reminiscent of fertility cults. Incessant emphasis on sex (within marriage of course) and a full womb.

Dave A A wrote:

Anyway, my plea fell on deaf ears– which may not have happened had I typed in an intelligent-sounding British accent.

Dave A A,

Don’t think for a moment that an intelligent-sounding British accent will get you anywhere! When I wrote to the pastors/elders of the church we attended for 24 years, to tell them about my concerns over issues which I now recognise as being the result of Neo/Cal influences, I was charged with having a “tone” and “shouting” at them because I capitalised SOME words for emphasis. It didn’t matter that my husband, one of their fellow elders, was fine with my letter. All hell broke loose and now I am free! It seems I am now a slanderous woman, for telling people our story. So the Acts29 stuff rings very true. And yes, I am British. And I am intelligent. Perhaps my great downfall is being a woman.

Dave A A wrote:

There are young men in the city of Dallas who know that there are young, beautiful women at the Village Church, and so they come here to hunt.

This statement from Chandler is BEYOND ridiculous on so many levels.

Firstly, and I’m sorry, it can’t be denied, it doesn’t take a massive leap of logic to thing that ‘young men in the city of Dallas’ is a not-so-subtle reference to young BLACK men in the city of Dallas. If not, why didn’t he say “young man-wolves from the ultra-exclusive suburb of Preston Hollow?”

Secondly, the statement whiffs of the ridiculous Christianese meme of “say hi to my smokin’ hot WIFE” only geared at the youth group set. “Our church’s youth group girls are smokin’ hot!!!”

The cheese factor would be overwhelming if the whole statement wasn’t so derogatory to both men and women.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

🙂 Couldn’t agree more.

Let’s see, in about a year or so of following TWW, I’ve learned lots about “godly” men like: John Piper, Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, Larry Tompkins, Al Mohler, Douglas Phillips, Esq., Mark Chandler, “Pastor” Galloway, among many others. All of their followers, books, websites, and conference materials say they are really, really “godly!”

Knowing this, I’ll take “well-behaved” over “godly” ANY DAY.

@ Janet Varin:

Hi Janet,

Thanks for sharing your experiences at an EFCA church – I’m sorry you had to go through that. It sounds pretty horrible!

I’m not sure what exactly you are trying to say, though. I agree with most of what you say. EFCA as a denomination is pretty loose, structurally and hierarchically – intentionally so. I actually attended the EFCA seminary (although I am baptist in background) and took a required class about EFCA as a denomination. They want to be as broadly and inclusively evangelical as possible. I think that this is a good thing! This does mean that the district offices and the national offices aren’t as willing to get involved in local church matters, but it’s a double-edged sword.

Honestly, and respectfully, it sounds like the EFCA “higher ups” acted pretty fairly to you and your family, all things considered. (And compared to some of the horror stories I’ve heard coming out of Mars Hill). They heard you out, didn’t automatically side with the pastors, and tried to take a neutral position and not get too involved, either on behalf of your church leader or on behalf of you. They counseled you to leave the church to heal, rather than telling something like “repent, submit, and go back to your old church.”

I’m sure you can understand that, for a denomination like EFCA, which is founded in part on the principle of local church autonomy, they have to try and be fair and limit their involvement in discipline cases where there isn’t grievous sin (adultery, theft, etc.).

As for your statement about nouthetic counseling – I agree with you. Again, not sure what point you are trying to make? I am a strong advocate for legitimate, clinical psychology as the way to address mental health issues. I absolutely do not endorse nouthetics and I actively discourage anyone I can from getting involved in it.

Long story short – I think we’re on the same team. 🙂 I think we both want churches to be led by trained leaders who are also gentle, humble, and careful in how they care for their congregation.

Hester wrote:

But of course. If they meet someone from off-compound they’ll figure out that compound life is not normal and daddy is really just a controlling nutjob…

VERY good point. As I recall, there was a Greek film nominated for the Academy Awards a few years ago about a man and his wife who try and control every aspect of their childrens’ lives, to the extent that they limit any contact with the outside world. (Disclaimer: the film contains gruesome and disturbing scenes illustrating the extremes the parents will go to . . . probably not for most viewers. I myself wish I had not seen a few of the scenes.) I believe there was also a film a few years back about a group of parents who create and live in a fake medieval village to protect their children from the “evil” outside world…

—
Acts Of Da ‘Religious’ Bruiser: “Axe29 Proverbial Busing Measure?”

hmmm…

“…not ‘one’ of the [Acts 29] priorities discusses spreading the love of God and love of neighbor which, – foolish me, I thought was the core of Christianity.” ~ JeffT

Love God first, love your neighbor as yourself?

Nahhhhhhhhhh!

—> get on da Axe29 bus, Silly, fo youze get run’d over…

-snark-

sugar-coat-it-any-way-you-want,

…it is proverbial ‘religious’ terrorism in Santa suit?

What!

Hijack Calvin’s sled, n’ go 4 broke?

VaRooooooooooooommm!

huh?

(See the holy scriptures for da details…)

(sadface)

Sopy
___
Comic relief: ‘Lost In Neo-Cal Space’, F-o-r-e-v-e-r ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gD3cF6UlW0

—

@ Eagle:

None that I know of. It takes a lot of guts to start one of those things and persistence in maintaining it, because it can make you a target for a lot of people who wouldn’t like what you have to say.

Bridget, sorry to hear of the more serious diagnosis but hopefully you can take some tiny comfort in the at least receiving an answer for your poor guy’s condition!

I am sure he is so uncomfortable and that must be terribly difficult for a parent. 🙁 Hoping for the best for the meds to kick in quickly and nail this infection.

Bridget wrote:

To those praying for my son, please continue to pray. He went to ophthamologist today who diagnosed a serious eye infection . . . not conjunctivitis. He is putting a special drop in eye every hour. Dilating his eye twice per day as well to help medicine get deeper into eye. Going back again tomorrow. Don’t remember what it was called. Thanks so much for your prayers.

Bridget, I’m very sorry about this distressing news, but I will keep hoping and praying that your son’s condition improves! At least there is more clarity now about the problem. God bless, and keep us updated!

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Dave A A wrote:
good behavior and godliness aren’t the same thing
I agree completely! I think all women should only date well behaved men. As for the other, it is no guarantee that the man won’t be a scoundrel.

I’ve been there and done that. One daughter married a *godly* man from church, and within a year he proved to be a scoundrel. Last I heard of him involved 2 years probation and a bunch of community service.

@ Mr. H:

a man and his wife who try and control every aspect of their childrens’ lives

One of the male anti-patriarchy bloggers (Lewis at Commandments of Men) was engaged to a girl from a patriarchal house. Very dysfunctional family, controlling dad. He was essentially helping her get out by marrying her…or trying to. He never finished writing out what happened, but it sounds like the family may have kidnapped her the morning of the wedding and successfully reprogrammed her. Very sad.

former Sojourn member wrote:

I would say it may be more prevalent than you think, for legit reasons (spousal abuse and/or abandonment, for example) and illegitimate reasons (disagreeing with the elders, questioning Acts29/SGM influence as two other examples).

I hope that I’m understanding you correctly here. By “it,” what do you mean? Are you referring to church discipline in Reformed churches in America?

If that is what you mean, I’m certainly not denying that Reformed churches tend to practice church discipline more consistently than many non-Reformed churches. As you mentioned, sometimes, they do so legitimately, and sometimes, non-legitimately.

However, as for the heavy-handed elder counsel on relationships and marriage, and the shunning-as-church discipline that I have encountered, from most of my Capitol Hill Baptist friends, I don’t think that those things are at all representative of what one will find in *most* Reformed Churches in America.

I have a friend who has spent all of his Christian life in PCA and EPC churches and one other similar sort of theologically conservative Presbyterian church. My friend was once very hurt and upset with me, because he felt that the way I was talking publicly, repeatedly, on Facebook, about my experience at CHBC and, to a lesser extent, at another “9 Marks-friendly” church, gave non-Reformed people and non-Christians a very poor view of most Reformed Christians and churches in America. My friend’s reaction forced me to stop and think. How much did I *really know* about the wider Reformed tradition in America today, beyond the two “9 Marks-friendly” churches where I had been a member?

Specifically when it comes to Catholicism, my friend is Reformed, and most of his friends are Reformed, yet he has many Catholic books in his library, and his pastor is very Catholic-friendly. Upon serious reflection, I came to think that this more “ecumenical, broad-minded” stream of Reformed Christianity probably actually reflects more Reformed churches in America than all of the “9 Marks” and “Acts 29” churches put together. At least that is my hope and prayer.

On the matter of relationships and marriage, I can’t imagine my friend’s Presbyterian church saying that a wife can, or should, never be the main provider in a household. His wife makes much more money than he does, and to my knowledge, his elders have not said one negative word to him about it. The Reformed world, even just in America, is much, much bigger (and healthier) than some of the more extreme 9 Marks and Acts 29-affiliated churches. Many Reformed people completely disavow those churches as even being Reformed at all. (I write here as a Catholic who simply wishes to be fair to my Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ.)

Dave A A wrote:

I hope one day it isn’t so white, but for now, these are the men God has given us, so I delight in running with these men.”

Heaven forbid they’d make it a priority in the here and now TODAY to find minority candidates for elders.

Just kick back and run with the dudes that God gave us, sticking our collective heads in the sand, waiting passively for “one day” lalalalalalalalalalaaaaaaa ….

@ Christopher Lake: i respect your choices, but i don’t think people in the RCC are going to toe the Vatican’s line anymore, especially not with ongoing issues of sexual abuse, clerical good old boy networks that have been protecting offenders, and the unwillingness of many in the hierarchy to listen to what lay people are saying.

Christ is the head of the church, after all… not the Magisterium. and the RCC’s positions on LOTS of things are not – and never have been – set in stone. there’s been a great deal of change over time, and there will be still more changes to come.

@ Rafiki:
Maybe if they asked God, he could answer? Just what means did He use to give them the ton of Anglos, anyway?

Dave A A wrote:

Anyway, my plea fell on deaf ears– which may not have happened had I typed in an intelligent-sounding British accent.

Dave – I have, as I am sure you would all expect, an intelligent-sounding British accent. And I still attract patronising people like a jam-jar attracts wasps.

You would have had more success if you had spoken with an appearance of confidence and authority, warned them against being deceived and projected the impression that you were completely satisfied that the Biblescriptures agree with you.

People who don’t discern spiritually do the best imitation they can, which is to follow subtle non-verbal clues. In particular, they give way before someone who appears strong. That’s one reason bold and self-assured leaders are able to do such damage in churches.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

In particular, they give way before someone who appears strong. That’s one reason bold and self-assured leaders are able to do such damage in churches.

Ouch! I’ve been there with the giving way to those who appear so strong and have got it all together. And who have x hundred in their church to boot, and you can’t argue with that, can you.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

In particular, they give way before someone who appears strong. That’s one reason bold and self-assured leaders are able to do such damage in churches.

Early on, when dealing with Drisconians elsewhere, I learned this early. I learned that displaying Galatians fruit of the Spirit would get you NO WHERE with these guys. Displaying these spiritual fruit only made them think that you were a sissy, mamby-pamby, limp-wristed weakling. (previous phrase not meant to offend anyone. it just displays the inner working of the Driscolite mind.) So I knew that if I wanted to get anywhere with any of them, even if it was only to get them to acknowledge my existence or throw them off the trail of a searching wounded person, I put on a bold face and got straight up into theirs. As far as changing any minds, it didn’t do a whole heck of a lot of good, especially with some because of my gender. But others took notice. And even if it didn’t change their minds, it made them think a bit outside the teeny-tiny Drisconian box.

JeffT wrote:

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
As for the other, it is no guarantee that the man won’t be a scoundrel.
That’s because they make up their own definition of “Godliness” which so often seems to have little to do with morality.

And their own definition of immorality. So when Mahaney stepped back from leadership for his season of reflection, he could say he’d done nothing immoral– no prostitutes in sight! Pay no attention to the blackmail and coverups behind the curtain!

@ Dave A A:

Well,
One advantage that I have had is that I have NEVER belonged to a New Calvinist church or had to be ‘submitted’ to the leadership of any of these present day abusive pastors.

I had already done my time in an abusive church back in the 80s and early 90s and figured out then what an abusive set up looks like. That way, when Drisconians and the like came barreling in on certain blogs, throwing their weight around, I had experience under my belt to face them head-on.

Though they could play the gender card and question my salvation or my relevance (‘Mark Driscoll is well read’, ‘He has a churches of 1000s, what do you have?’, ‘He’s relevant, you aren’t’ etc…). But it was far too late for their bullying and circular logic to have any real impact except make me get further into their arrogant, wet-behind-the-ear, little faces. I’d BTDT and had ALL the t-shirts.

I’d already seen a train wreck. And I could see the tracks they were barreling down were heading for the same “bridge out” ravine that my church went down.
If I hadn’t already seen that train wreck, it might have been easier to walk away. But when you see people heading for the same crash you saw before, you can’t back down, because you hope that somebody will listen and jump off the dang train.

We are only seeing the beginning of the train wreck that is Mars Hill Church.
I’m thinking this might be true for some of these other abusive situations that this blog deals with.

@ numo: Let me leave this with a question for you: if the changes re. artificial birth control *had* passed, would you be defending that position as adamantly as you are now defending the present position of the RCC?

It’s entirely possible that substantial changes *will* take place on this issue (and many others), even if not in my lifetime. What then?

numo wrote:

Let me leave this with a question for you: if the changes re. artificial birth control *had* passed, would you be defending that position as adamantly as you are now defending the present position of the RCC?
It’s entirely possible that substantial changes *will* take place on this issue (and many others), even if not in my lifetime. What then?

I may have answered your questions here in my above reply. If not, please let me know, and I will try to clarify. Peace to you.

@ Christopher Lake: I do not believe Natural Family Planning is effective. Talk to women who got pregnant while trying that “method” (often repeatedly) and then see if you find it reasonable.

sorry; I shouldn’t go on about this, as it’s a side issue and not one I want to harangue you about. It just gets my goat.

@ Dave A A:

Aw shucks, Dave. You can see right through my tough exterior.

… But I like your alternate strategy!

@ Christopher Lake: thanks so much for your gracious reply – no matter how much we might disagree on specifics, I do believe we have several Creeds (and a lot else) in common, and i’m very glad for that! (And for your perspective, too – you’ve been through a lot, and your compassion and empathy for those who’ve been hurt is quite evident.)

As for your being a man, I didn’t assume any insensitivity because of gender. I know that some folks are very happy with NFP, so I get what you’re saying – though I still disagree, especially re. simple barrier methods, like diagraphms and condoms. But that’s not the be-all and end-all of this conversation by any means.

All the best to you!
n.

numo wrote:

The last two popes did a great deal to try and reinstate things as they were prior to Vatican II. The church has, historically – over its entire history – changed its stance on many things, including celibacy, which was a medieval introduction and was intended primarily to stop priests’ sons from inheriting church property.

Compared with the Megachurch (and splinter Fundy) tradition of the pastor’s son inheriting the church from his father. There’s a running joke that the main way to become a Megapastor is to be born the son of a Megapastor; becoming a certainty if your name is the same as your father’s with the addition of “Junior”.

“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to Bob Jones III…”

Mr.H wrote:

Eagle wrote:

I think many young people are pushing back from all that. Plus I think many people want community which is what these Acts 29 or SGM churches also offer.

Bang on, Eagle!

A little momento from classic Dr Demento:
http://youtu.be/nEUckHi0cGk
Ain’t sleep deprivation wonderful?

Mr.H wrote:

Not sure if it was sarcasm, but using the term “psychobabble” is moderately offensive to professional psychologists

I know it’s a bit late, but I thought you deserved a reply.

There is a study of psychology that consists of empirical observations about how people behave. That’s not the issue. Psychobabble, however, is the fruit of Freud and Jung, both of whom were decidedly unsypathetic to Christianty, especially the former. This has led to a whole host of therapies that are little more than superstition, or if not that, do not hold people responsible for their actions.

I have been in more than one church were sin has effectively been replaced with unmet needs and a whole load of excuses for bad behaviour, where building your self-esteem, that is self-love, is seen as a virtue. The four temperaments and all that. That’s what I have in mind when using psychobabble pejoratively.

Although reactionary, J Adams and his nouthetic counselling were a good start at being an antidote to this kind of stuff. The bible has the most honest and accurate diagnosis of the human condition, and I find it infinitely more preferable than blaming everyone or everything but ourselves for the mess we get into, uncomfortable that this is. There may be room for legitimate criticism of Adams, but getting back to the bible in dealing with human behaviour isn’t one of them.

of course they dont think church leaders are overstepping their authority–when your authority is absolute how can you overstep it?