"I knew how to read a contract by 10 years old, but I didn't know what it meant for somebody to come in and tell me they loved me and kiss me goodnight. That's a problem."-Corey Feldman link
Mark Dever recently presided over a 9Marks conference held at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. It was subtitled "a conference about the church, for the church". It is essential for thoughtful Christians to understand 9Marks lingo. Words have meanings, and all too often we assume that everyone is reading from the same dictionary. In today's church that is a dangerous assumption since you may well get caught up in patterns and behaviors that can border on abusive.
Mark Dever: What might his words look like in practice, not in theory?
The Associated Baptist Press published an article on Dever's conference titled Pastors Calls Out Tolerated Non-involvement in Southern Baptist Churches written by Bob Allen. I was impressed by his analysis in which he highlighted portions of Dever's talk and then juxtaposed Todd Wilhelm's experience at the hands of Mark Dever's right hand man, John Folmar, of UCCD. I listened to the 48 minute talk as well.
Words take on meaning when they are used to "enforce" a concrete action. In order to understand what Mark Dever and 9Marks mean by discipline, we will refer to the story of Todd Wilhelm. For those of you who are not aware of the whole story, please refer to our post called My, My Dubai: 9Marks Played Hardball.
Quite simply, Todd Wilhelm was a member of UCCD, a 9Marks church in Dubai, and being tapped for leadership. He found out the church was pushing CJ Mahaney's book in their bookstore. Todd has stood in solidarity with the victims of the SGM child sex scandals and asked for the books to be removed. The leadership refused and Todd bravely resigned his membership.
Why bravely? He is living in a foreign country and he had established relationships which were now put under strain. The church refused to let him resign until he joined another 9Marks approved church. He refused even though he intended to attend another church. His resignation was a conscientious objection to the church's fealty to CJ Mahaney. He was then put on a "care list" which is 9Marks speak meaning that you are headed for church discipline since he wasn't following the program. Sound a bit controlling?
Why do some think 9Marks is a cult?
Todd's story is linked to by Bon Allen, who said the following:
Dever’s model has critics. Some compare such high-commitment membership expectations to a cult.
Today we will look at Mark Dever's words on church membership and try to fathom what it means in practice. On Wednesday, we plan to look at a post by Jonathan Leeman in which I will attempt to demonstrate the problems inherent in the meaning of words. Leeman and I agree on the bottom line of one issue but for radically different reasons. Those reasons could lead to serious consequences for those who have decided to "sign on the line" with Mark Dever.
Here is a link to Dever's SEBTS talk. His enthusiastic audience was comprised primarily of pastors and future pastors which likely means you will see these methods being implemented by a church near you, especially Neo-Calvinist Baptist churches and Neo-Calvinist "whatever else" churches.
What does Dever think about people who do not commit to church membership?
Bottom line: unless you are near death or going to war, you are a sinner.
Dever claims that 2/3 of all members of Southern Baptists churches do not attend the church of which they are members. Unless it is for good reasons such as illness, Dever claims that the reasons for this is either sin on the part of the member or sin of the part of leadership that isn't teaching obedience.
Interestingly, there is another reason and this reason is usually studiously ignored by certain pastors because it might point to them. There are people who have been abused by pastors and ministries for standing up for issues of conscience. Todd Wilhelm is an example of this. So, in a 9Marks type of church, if you deeply disagree with an action, leave and do not immediately join an approved™ church, you are a sinner in the eyes of Dever and should be disciplined. But nobody ever questions if Mark Dever and John Folmar are the sinners in need of discipline because they are the "authority".
Membership should exemplify/witness of love for one another.
In his talk, Dever claims that churches should be known for their love for one another. He claims that this will result in a witness of the Gospel to the world and cause people to come to a saving faith. Now think. How many churches do you know that are known by the community for their love towards one another? I have yet to hear of the marvelous love witness by the members of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. Why is it that many churches are known more for their "lectures" on the sins of those "outside" the church? The next point may be the reason.
Love often means discipline but discipline is not defined.
(ABP article) “You first have to take steps to recover a positive understanding and experience of membership, where it becomes normal for people to know the truth about each other’s lives,” he said. “Once that becomes normal, well then it would begin to seem strange if you weren’t speaking to each other if somebody is regularly committing adultery. Then the lack of church discipline would begin to seem strange.
Dever quoted 1 Corinthians 5 which discusses a man who is sleeping with his mother-in-law. Dever claims that the congregation was in trouble because they didn't confront the sin. He claims that love also means to discipline someone. This is where it gets tricky. Most people would not have trouble with a church intervening in a 1 Corinthians 5 situation.
Listening to Dever, you think he is saying that really, really bad sin needs to be called out. In fact, he mentions serial adultery in his talk. But, that is not how it really rolls at 9Marks churches, and there is a good reason for this. Dever and 9Marks do not define the rules of the game a priori. You are not told what they will punish, so they are given a wide latitude to punish whatever they darn well want to punish.
Todd Wilhelm's situation is an example of this. He believed deeply that Mark Dever and John Folmar should not be pushing books by CJ Mahaney. He requested that they reconsider their stand. UCCD refused, so Todd left the church; however, UCCD's "leadership" would not "let him". Todd stood for a righteous cause, but UCCD and John Folmar appeared to be too invested in their relationship with CJ Mahaney to wish Todd well. They should have shaken his hand and just let him go on his way.
Instead, they decided to punish him. This, folks, is the reason why you should be very, very careful in joining any church which says it will discipline but fails to define the parameters of the punishment.
Since this talk was recent, I wondered whether Dever might have learned anything from Todd Wilhelm's situation. He apparently hasn't. He still endorses open ended, ill-defined discipline, so my guess is that there will be more "Todd Wilhelm" situations in the future, if there haven't been already. Hint, hint…
Churches should require a signed membership covenant
In order to get away with punishing people for whatever they darn well please, they need a contract to protect the church legally when they hold their "rah rah, let's consign them to Satan" all-church discipline meetings. (Those of you who sit in these types of meetings and vote for whatever you are told need to get a clue.)
(ABP) 2. Have and use a congregationally agreed upon statement of faith and church covenant.“You’re showing that within membership in the congregation comes responsibility,” he said.
Here is a link to the CHBC (Mark Dever's church) covenant. Please remember that you are signing a legal contract, not some "let's all love and pray for one another" Hallmark card. Once you sign this, you are bound to the church that has been given quite a bit of latitude over your life. Read it carefully. These contracts are usually one-sided, placing the burden on the members, while giving maximum latitude to the pastors.
Remember this: they are watching you and will tell you just how and when they want you to be obedient. It is one-sided.
…We will walk together in brotherly love, as becomes the members of a Christian Church, exercise an affectionate care and watchfulness over each other and faithfully admonish and entreat one another as occasion may require.
…We will not forsake the assembling of ourselves together, nor neglect to pray for ourselves and others.
...We will endeavor to bring up such as may at any time be under our care, in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and by a pure and loving example to seek the salvation of our family and friends.
…We will seek, by Divine aid, to live carefully in the world, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, and remembering that, as we have been voluntarily buried by baptism and raised again from the symbolic grave, so there is on us a special obligation now to lead a new and holy life.
…We will work together for the continuance of a faithful evangelical ministry in this church, as we sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines. We will contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the Gospel through all nations.
…We will, when we move from this place, as soon as possible, unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God’s Word.
After you sign this contract, you can't leave the church until you die or they say you can leave. (Repeat this 10x.)
( ABP) 6. Realize that admission into church membership is an act of the congregation. “Somehow the congregation needs to be taught that it must act to admit someone into membership, and that apart from death it must act to release someone from church membership,” Dever said.
…You can't unilaterally agree to join the church and you can't agree to leave by yourself.
Make sure you understand this. The leadership of a church could be engaged in activities that you consider immoral, unethical, flawed, etc. However, as a member of that church, you have little say. Also, remember that the elders have been put in place to support the pastors. Their knee jerk reaction will be to protect their man.
According to this contract, you have no right to quit on the spot. You must be given "permission" to leave. Todd believed it was unethical to sell books written by CJ Mahaney. This is a reasonable point of view. However, he was expected to stay in membership until he found a 9Marks approved™ church.
Todd refused, acting on his conscience. He wanted out of there and out of there immediately. He could no longer fellowship with those who promoted what he believed to be an unethical ministry. (Todd was formerly a member of an SGM church.) They refused to let him go! Can you imagine this?
Todd wasn't committing adultery, embezzling funds, hitting on young women in the church, etc. He was such a good member that they considered him ready for leadership. But he needed to be disciplined for his reasonable belief. He went from "leadership" material to "discipline" fodder. Do not forget this. It has nothing to do with serial adultery. It has everything to do with "obeying" the pastor, no matter what. You are essentially stuck in the Hotel California with no ability to check out.
Children should stop being baptized.
Dever apparently believes that baptism is something more than an outward expression of one's inward confession of Christ. He believes that children can have saving faith but, in order to be baptized, they need to something more. That "more" is a bit difficult to find in the Scripture but Dever *knows* this to be true. It must be one of those "keys to the kingdom" thing.
(ABP) Dever said the question is not whether a 5-year-old or 10-year-old “can savingly confess Christ.”
“Of course they can,” he said. The question for the church is whether its members have the capacity to make an informed, lifelong commitment to follow Christ. “The large number of nominal Christians and rebaptisms in Southern Baptist churches seem to answer that we have gotten something badly wrong in the 20th century,” he said.
Dever has some rather strong ideas on baptism that have been given to him because of his "keys" thing. (Question: Does Ligon Duncan have those keys or only those who follow Mark Dever? More on this on Wednesday.) He does not allow those who believe in infant baptism take communion at his church, including his friend Ligon Duncan. Apparently, you need to have 9Marks™ approved baptism teaching before you can take communion, just like it says in the New Testament, right?…Perhaps it is in Acts 30??
(From TWW) Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan's paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist.
Membership is the way to be assured of your salvation.
Dever seriously means this. You are not assured of your salvation when Jesus becomes the Lord of your life. It appears that the Spirit cannot give you that assurance. Only by being a member of a 9Marks approved™ church will you know that you are truly loving God.
(ABP) “Joining a church is joining an assurance-of-salvation cooperative. We are to observe evidence of God’s grace in each other’s lives. We are to encourage one another. We are to correct one another when occasion requires.”
Dever said church membership is not optional for someone serious about following Christ. “Membership functions to assure us that we have truly known God’s love and that we are truly loving God in response,” he said.
Upon reading this article, @soloner tweeted the following. I think it says it all.
Folks, be very careful that you understand the meaning of words before you sign a membership contract. In fact, please call a covenant a contract in order to understand what you are signing. Ask yourself this question. Would you live in a country which did not define the laws and the expected punishment for breaking those laws? If you wouldn't, ask yourself why you should trust men like Mark Dever to decide when they will, or will not, discipline you and for what? Always keep Todd Wilhelm's situation in the back of your mind before you sign on the dotted line.
TWW has written extensively on church discipline and membership covenants. It is our opinion that covenants are legal contracts which are in place to protect primarily pastors and leadership from lawsuits. There is little to nothing in these contracts to protect the individual church member. We caution everyone to think twice before signing one of these documents. Ask yourself this question: Why should I trust these leaders to do the right thing?
If you wish to do more reading on this subject, here is one link to get you started. It even has a letter that you can send to your current church should you wish to "get the heck out of Dodge" and do so with minimal damage.
The SBC is going to keep on with associating with people like Dever and membership will continue to drop….and they’ll wonder why….
This whole contract, business disturbs me….after attending SWBTS in the 1980s I trust very few ministers….and if you are a lay person, you should question, question, question these SBC preachers…especially today….
First? Can it be? Little ole me?
@ Nancy: So close… 😉
Deb wrote:
Sorry Dr. Nancy…..:(
It is an interesting world right now. I just finished reading what is being said about what seems to be happening at the synod going on in Rome right now, and here is this about Dever et al. Some folks trying to be more hard line and others apparently talking about toning down some vocabulary in another direction. Interesting. Very interesting.
I read about that synod Bishop’s report as well Nancy. Wish I knew more about Roman Catholic history/politics to really get what’s going on, but from what I gather this is potentially a rather big deal.
Well, at least you get pain killers with a root canal. :/
Isn’t this great. Funny how the reality is that these membership agreements are always enforced one way – by a so-called ‘minister’ on the congregation. The minister is never held accountable in these churches. In fact, even raising an issue about the ‘minister’s actions lands the member under discipline. No, this is all about church ministers as dictators. Dever and his want to be medieval Popes.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
The membership contract at CHBC (Dever) makes Dever a dictator with more powers than any previous dictator has had. He can have the church declare you to be on the road to hell and you have no recourse. You forfeit every legal right to defend yourself or to seek compensation for ill treatment. Unless they engage in a physical criminal act, you have no rights at all, except to kowtow and kiss the ring.
It seems that 9 Marks is a sort of Purgatory, since the leaders have the final say in whether a confessing Christian is truly saved (ready for baptism), or approved to depart for a different church. This is disturbing.
Didn’t Dever let C.J. Mahaney take refuge at CHBC after Mahaney abandoned his own church before heading off to Louisville? I wonder if Mahaney was in attendance at this shindig?
Oh yeah, I’m thinking that a 9 Marks church is like getting shingles. You’re not sure at first what those bumps mean and when you finally figure it out, there’s nothing the doctor can do for you because you waited too long to come in to have it checked out. So you have to suffer until it’s all over. I know this from personal experience (shingles, not 9 Marks).
Nancy wrote:
Some people want to hang on to the “intrinsically disordered” language regarding GLBT persons for dear life. It’s not just enough to tell GLBT people they’re wretched sinners, but that they’re at the absolute BOTTOM of the wretched sinner pile. Says volumes to me.
We also reaffirm our commitment to the covenant at all members meetings and before taking communion, when we stand as a body and recommit ourselves to it.
Commit to the (their) covenant before taking communion? Ummm…..
The Gospel Coalition featured an article on Mark Dever earlier this year.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/how-mark-dever-passes-out-authority
How Mark Dever Passes Out Authority
Here’s what stood out to me.
Oh the joys of living in Washington, D.C….you wouldn’t believe the stories I’ve heard in “my backyard”
Here’s an interesting one…CHBC will only allow you to transfer your membership to one of a select few churches in the area. You want to transfer your membership to McLean Bible? Forget it…
Want to transfer your membership to DC Metro? Forget it.
The top churches on the list that they allow people to transfer their membership to are:
1. Covenant Life Church
2. Portico
3. Redeemer of Arlington with Eric Simmons
Now here is how I learned some of this, at CHBC they maintain a private file on you. Think of Mark Dever of being the J Edgar Hoover of fundagelcialism, with ALL the spying. Someone I spoke to a couple of years back decided that CHBC wasn’t for her, and the church she was allowed to transfer her membership to was Eric Simmons Redeemer of Arlington. So, she shows up to Redeemer for a service, and without ever knowing, having met, or personally interacted with Eric Simmons, Eric Simmons comes up to her introduces himself, calls her by name and tells her a little about what he knows that CHBC has passed on to him. It deeply spooked her.
It’s kind of like Mormonism in this sense…you move from a Ward in Boise, Idaho to Provo, Utah and the LDS Church will transfer all the private and known information they have on you between two LDS Bishops.
Where is the kool-aide? 😛
Eagle wrote:
Creepy!
@Eagle – weird. And kind of ironic, since my colleague at work transferred to Capital Hill Baptist from McLean Bible.
Tolerated non-involvement by a Baptist?
Like when Dever chose to attend a non-Baptist church (PCUSA) while away at college?
Or his years as a minister at this United Church of Christ congregation:
http://www.topsfieldchurch.org/
From what I understand, Capitol Hill Baptist Church is NOT what we would describe as a megachurch.
An online review poated by Karen L. (back in 2009) revealed the following:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/capitol-hill-baptist-church-washington
Is there any doubt that all members were in attendance that Sunday? Otherwise, absentee members would face 'discipline'. 😉
I wonder how much it has grown since then given the overt promotion of Mark Dever by the Neo-Cal crowd.
Deb wrote:
You betcha! See how he continues to love on CJ Mahaney!
Arce wrote:
Dang!
@ Former CLC’er:
A lot of people from McLean Bible end up there. I’ve heard a lot of stories of people who go there frustrated over being in a mega church.
Jerome wrote:
I grew up in the area and used to go to the Topsfield Fair.
I think it is hysterical that Dever used to the pastor of this affirming church!
It’s easier to come up with an offense that a member has committed if the rules are not clear a priori, therefore it is easier to control the actions of the members because they must be exceedingly careful and deferential to avoid committing an offense.
The concern regarding re-baptism is a little curious coming from Baptists whose sacramental theology is strictly symbolic. It seems that concern over giving “false assurance” is what is behind the practice of delayed baptism. Aside from the lack of any biblical warrant for this, and despite contrary evidence from the Bible, they persist, and in so doing, totally disregard the real loss experienced by the person denied baptism. Must be grand to be so powerful!
I wonder if there is a large initiation fee like all of the most exclusive clubs have.
Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose a teenage boy or girl comes to faith in Pakistan where being baptized comes with substantial personal risk. They could be killed at any time by their family or others. They desire to be baptized to show that they are a Christ-follower. *If* there were a 9Marks church there, they would deny baptism to someone just because of their age?
If the teenager were killed due to his faith, would the 9Marks church recognize the in-ness of the new martyr, or would they just say, Oh well. Next time don’t get yourself killed for your faith before you are old enough for us to decide if you’re in or not.
Ridiculous.
(By the way, I changed my name on Twitter to “Christian Janeway” and will do the same here next time.)
Hey guys, we just found out that, if the security clearance goes through, we *will* be moving to the DC/Baltimore area next may or June. That “list of churches to avoid/check out” would be so helpful right about then!!! 🙂
@ Calvinist Janeway:
Welcome to the East Coast. We will have to have another summer reunion. I still need to get my Segway tour under my belt.
@ dee:
He has seen the light and understands the true gospel now!! (No doubt) 🙄
Deb wrote:
I want to know where Dever got the authority he passes out so I can get some without paying intermediary fees and Markup.
Oh, wait. Wrong gender with no plenary indulgence available for the sin of being female. Nevermind.
Dee in the OP:
Yes and No.
Yes, he and his followers can do whatever they want.
No, because if one already knows everything with absolute certainty, there is nothing to learn that is worth learning. Learning is not for Leaders.
__
“Knock! Knock! Hello, Is Anybody In There?”
(bump)
9 Marks: Sin sniffing observation enforcers who do fealty to CJ Mahaney…
hmmm…
Gotcha ya.
(where do I sign?)
(grin)
hahahahahahaha
SKreeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch !
…have ‘certain’ members of 9 Marks churches possibly become “comfortably numb”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FrOQC-zEog
Or worse?
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Intermission: “The Lone Ranger”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XChIBk_MBsk
🙂
—
Folks really need to ask themselves why they think the pastor can run their lives better than they can. Seriously, these churches need to come straight out and tell the people why they (members) are not capable of running their own lives, making their own decisions, following Christ (especially as mature believers) and why they (the people) need the pastor and elders deciding how they should live.
Honestly folks. Think about it. Don’t sign these covenants where you give up your adult rights in order to be parented by someone who thinks they know better how you should live than you do.
Dever’s never mentioned being disciplined for his own defections. Does he think he should have been?
How would CHBC treat a young adult departing to fellowship with the PCUSA or UCC?
SERIOUSLY YOU GUYS!!! I was just sitting down to write a post on this for SSB! That’s what I get for working today.
OK, it’s all ironic and I love you for doing it.
Gram3 wrote:
See “Hooliganism” in the Russian penal code. So broadly defined that “Hooliganism” can mean literally anything.
Gram3 wrote:
Isn’t this the same “binding and loosing” they deny St Peter and his successors?
Deb wrote:
Like Baba Saddam at a Baath Party Congress.
__
9 Marks: “Bah, Humbug?”
hmmm…
I’ze don’t think Mark Dever, dat there is anything in that proverbial 501(c)3 black bag of yours for me…
Thank you very much,
-snicker-
(forget ‘M.a.h.a.n.e.y Mania’)
I’ll stick to the streams of ‘living’ water; there is no plaze like it…
Tap, Tap, Tap,
there is no plaze like home…
there is no plaze like home…
there is no plaze like home…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Y9eQAFYdg
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
__
Intermission: Lee Hi Rose – ” Over The Rainbow”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwhx77BORA8
🙂
—
Dever says: “Joining a church is joining an assurance-of-salvation cooperative. We are to observe evidence of God’s grace in each other’s lives.”
Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit says: For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him. Romans 8: 15-17 NASB via Biblehub.com
My guess is that the Apostle Paul trumps Dever when it comes to authority and the Holy Spirit witnesses to his own work and where he is dwelling and whom he will keep safe just fine without the assurance-of-salvation cooperative giving their seal of approval.
Thanks for the kind words Dee. I am so thankful for the work you and Deb do.
To Mark Dever, the man who would be Pope:
“…Turn our thoughts, in the next place, to the characters of learned men. The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. Read over again all the accounts we have of Hindoos, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Teutons, we shall find that priests had all the knowledge, and really governed all mankind. Examine Mahometanism, trace Christianity from its first promulgation; knowledge has been almost exclusively confined to the clergy. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate a free inquiry? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes.”
[Letters to John Taylor, 1814, XVIII, p. 484]”
― John Adams, The Letters of John and Abigail Adams
“God once spoke through the mouth of an ass. I will tell you straight what I think. I am a Christian theologian and I am bound not only to assert, but to defend the truth with my blood and death. I want to believe freely and be a slave to the authority of no one, of a council, a university, or pope. I will confidently confess what appears to me to be true whether it has been asserted by a Catholic or a heretic, whether it has been approved or reproved by a council.” – Martin Luther
“Many are friends to the success of reformation, not to reformation.”
― Samuel Rutherford, The Trial and Triumph of Faith
The answer to your question in the post title is, yes.
Calvinist Janeway wrote:
As someone in the same position (Having to look for a new church because ours closed) I would suggest that the “9 marks” list should be avoided like Ebola. Seriously there is something for everyone here.
Judas Maccabeus
Jerome wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
9 Marks joins Acts 29 in the “permanent quarantine” category. I may be paranoid, but I’d put SBC churches as a whole in the “temporary quarantine with extended critical observation” area. With the SBC, it’s more that if I catch a whiff of a culture war mentality, I’m out.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In fact, section 213 of the Russian Penal Code is more specific in definition than, say, the California Penal Code.
Ezekiel 34
The Lord Will Be Israel’s Shepherd
The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.
7 “‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, because my flock lacks a shepherd and so has been plundered and has become food for all the wild animals, and because my shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock, 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.
11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.
17 “‘As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? 19 Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet?
20 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. 23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the Lord have spoken.
25 “‘I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of savage beasts so that they may live in the wilderness and sleep in the forests in safety. 26 I will make them and the places surrounding my hill a blessing.[a] I will send down showers in season; there will be showers of blessing. 27 The trees will yield their fruit and the ground will yield its crops; the people will be secure in their land. They will know that I am the Lord, when I break the bars of their yoke and rescue them from the hands of those who enslaved them. 28 They will no longer be plundered by the nations, nor will wild animals devour them. They will live in safety, and no one will make them afraid. 29 I will provide for them a land renowned for its crops, and they will no longer be victims of famine in the land or bear the scorn of the nations. 30 Then they will know that I, the Lord their God, am with them and that they, the Israelites, are my people, declares the Sovereign Lord. 31 You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, declares the Sovereign Lord.’”
@ srs:
Yeah, at least when I was involved there, CHBC had “open communion” (open to all professing, baptized believers), but they didn’t like it, and MD stated that if he could restrict communion only to covenanted members, he would have.
@ TW:
Very well observed, IMHO. A whole generation of leaders has emerged believing itself to be entitled to an authority on a par with that of OT prophet, priest or king, whether or not they actually use those terms. (Some, of course, even go so far as to do that.) More often than not, this goes hand-in-hand with an explicit declaration that they are beyond the reach of the “membership” as regards accountability. What they forget is that this puts them directly in line with an altogether more terrible source of accountability.
Dever seriously means this. You are not assured of your salvation when Jesus becomes the Lord of your life. It appears that the Spirit cannot give you that assurance. Only by being a member of a 9Marks approved™ church will you know that you are truly loving God.
WHAT????? (She shrieked, appalled). It's a cult. He's a cult leader. Run, people; run for your lives.
My quotes, above, are broken. Can somebody fix them, please???
(That’s what I get for being too angry to quote properly).
Arce wrote:
Hah!! They haven’t met me yet. There is always the alternative of biting the finger that wears the ring…….hard.
Eeyore wrote:
It’s interesting that nobody has authority to leave “a church”, but some people believe they have authority to create “a church”, and isolate it from the rest of The Church so that it includes only those under their own aegis. Then, they presume to take ownership of what was supposed to be the Lord’s covenant meal, and make it their own.
Personally, I consider it an honour to share bread and wine in Jesus’ name with anyone who names him as King (or Lord, or similar – I’m sure you all understand that precise vocabulary isn’t the point here). But a faction that has set up its own table is, to my mind, just that: a faction. I would have nothing to do with such a group, and would certainly not consider sharing a counterfeit “Lord’s table” with it.
Bridget wrote:
H essays that he asks all new members to explain the gospel.™ I have come to wonder if my simple answer, John 3:16 would suffice.
@ Gram3:
Great answer.
Rob wrote:
I should add that if you stand and repeat the covenant verbally, it is still considered enforceable since you gave verbal assent.
Gram3 wrote:
But, Paul didn’t have the benefit of Calvin and is thus suspect.
@ TW:
Wow! Those quotes are incredible. I shall use on in my post tomorrow which I bet you will find relevant.
@ Steve Scott:
Succinct and to the point!
Josh wrote:
You had me at the quote by Sulu!
dee wrote:
Absolutely correct….
Eeyore wrote:
Well, he has! And he is so sure of his restriction that he won’t share communion with Duncan. They are eating their own!!!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Never forget our benevolent King Sutton Turner! He has now returned to the business world. Can you imagine the reaction of his co workers if he continues to refer to himself as king.
Here is what I do not understand. Suppose somebody in one of these “covenant” churches decides to go. I mean really “go” like move away or else convert to let us say catholicism or else declares himself an atheist. So he goes. Big time and publicly goes. The church does not like it, but what do they actually do? If they try to harass on the job and in the community can they be sued for that? Is that legal to harass people? Sure, it might and maybe would get ugly, but who would win the fracas once it got ugly?
I have never been in a church that tried to hunt down and destroy? its former members, so this is a serious question, not some bravado. What are the options here, that is the question.
Rob wrote:
Rob, You have hit the nail on the head. We are seeing this thinking all through our society concerning both church and government.
@ Nancy:
the law views your church relationship as voluntary. You CHOSE, as an adult, to sign or agree to the covenant. Therefore if the church decides you did not leave properly ( you agreed to this when you signed the covenant) they can do all sorts of things you might find unbelievable. I know some people who have had outside employment trouble over this simply because the mega church was so influential in that area with many CEO’s and such attending there.
It really depends on the gravitas of the church and their reputation within the city/community. If you are painted as a troublemaker or someone who dissed the elders who care for your soul, then what? You did not submit to the process you agreed to–contractually, because they get to define “leaving well” as the elders. Where do you go to get your reputation back when all these men have decided you are the problem?
If folks want to leave, they need to make it legal (but voluntary) and revoke their membership in writing sent certified mail.
If they decide you are dangerous as in talking too much or too influential to other members, they often put the word out you are not to be trusted or you are “emotionally unstable” or worse. If you have been in something like a redemption group then you have most likely shared personal information/problems/ sins with a group who then can use them against you to prove their point.
The bottom line is you signed a document (or agreed to it verbally, publicly) that gives the leadership the right to define the parameters of how you can leave.
The problem is that people give them too much information in the first place. All the things people thought were so spiritual and wonderful when they got involved are now used against them. They actually thought they were talking to well meaning leaders. Therefore the leadership often knows WHY you are leaving and where you are going. Big mistake. The best thing is to put it in a legal letter sent certified mail you are revoking your membership. You don’t even have to give them a reason and it is best not to.
Another mistake people make is thinking they can sue a “church” who harasses them if they leave or even while they are there. If it comes to that, a better way to go is to sue the individuals. The mega legal counsels out there (some in my own family) LOVE it when the church is sued because they know it is not going anywhere. They don’t think it is so funny when an individual leader is sued– although they usually have insurance for such things. But it is a whole other can of worms, a bit more complicated but often sends a message they will take more seriously.
Churches can do just about anything short of murder. Most of what they do in how they treat people or with your money is perfectly legal because as an “adult”, you agreed to it by voluntarily joining the group.
No one in the U.S can be compelled to attend church. If the law views us as adults over our choices for church membership, it makes sense for us not to check our brains at the door when we go to church. :o) But too many churches these days consider it a sin to question things. That is a red flag to get out.
@ TW:
TW, Love that passage from John Adams letter. I wonder if David Barton has read it? :o)
@ Gram3:
No Gram. Devers gets to INTERPRET the Apostle Paul for you. It is in the membership contract.
People may not realize that Rick Warren’s church at one time had a membership contract worded very nicely but the same sort of agreement “not to speak negative of the church or leadership” type language in it. Which meant they got to define what speaking negative meant. That one was more about protecting the “brand” than not allowing you to leave. But this stuff is not new.
I read the ABP about Dever’s presentation.
I cannot find anything in that summary that is not in keeping with the New Testament.
And I believe that Dever is correct about practice in SBC churches in much of the 20th Century. It is not healthy that so many people apparently belong to a church and never darken its doors, and yet keep their membership in tact.
Our church keeps up with how members are doing and we have done this since the church was founded. We started with 10 people. It was easy, and natural, when the culture is small and personal. This is one of the good things about small churches.
Our church is larger now, but the culture is the same. If someone is not around for a while, we follow up to see if they are o.k, if they have left town, if they are attending another church etc. If they are no longer attending and have made that decision permanent, we remove them from membership. If they are having trouble, we help them, etc. But we don’t just let them drift for months of years.
The large mega churches are basically preaching stations. If the message is solid, those places can do some good. The ability for fellowship and close follow up varies from place to place. But I will say that in our city it is very easy to hop from one mega church experience to another and never really unite in heart and soul with a group of believers. This is not a healthy thing.
I believe it is healthy for pastors to hear the things that Dever is saying.
With regard to application, however, the Devil is in the details. While the language and concepts that Dever uses are NT, it is very easy for the application to run off the rails. The Dubai church thing is an example. I can’t imagine a church exercising discipline against a mature member in the church who doesn’t want to run the church bookstore because he disagrees with some of the offerings there.
Also, I do not find the concept of not allowing someone to leave a church in the NT.
It also bears mentioning that being a “9 Marks” church is a little confusing. There is no membership in that group. It’s just an affinity thing. And practice, and doctrine, differ in “9 Marks” churches.
Our church is a church that is recommended by 9 Marks. But we do not subscribe to some of the 9 Marks teachings, and there is no problem with that. For example, Dever is really big on Congregationalism, where the congregation makes all of the decisions. We have more responsibility vested in the Elders, including whether to remove someone from membership. We have never done that in over 20 years. But if we ever had to do it, we thought that possible privacy issues and the peach of the congregation would be preserved if the Elders retained that. I can’t imagine having a public vote before the congregation on kicking out some member who may be living an openly immoral lifestyle etc. We have had some people leave our church because they chose to pursue an immoral lifestyle, but they had the dignity and common sense to know that they did not want to be in a church that taught something that was contrary to what they wanted to pursue. Also, we recognize that we are all immoral. None of us is perfect. We all deserve to be kicked out for something we think or do. So our efforts for the last 20 years are on helping people improve their lives. As I said, we have never kicked anyone out or had to do that, but if we ever did, we would want to afford that person some privacy and not tear them or the congregation up with a pubic meeting.
Our church covenant is also very loose compared to Dever’s.
These are only a couple of areas of disagreement. But there are other areas where we disagree with Dever, but are still considered in affinity with them.
But I can definitely see the danger in the unwise application of even truths that are articulated in the NT.
I would argue that problems don’t necessarily lie in what Dever says (while also saying that I don’t agree with him on all theological points) but the application of those points.
Wisdom is not only knowing what the Bible says, it is in knowing how to employ what the Bible says.
And church polity is one of those areas where there is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement, which makes this area even more tricky.
Anonymous wrote:
But I am letting you know that there is a problem with this. If I look at your website and see that you are affiliated with 9 Marks or Acts 29, I might visit your church, but I will never want to be a part of a group that believes in the types of leadership and membership that they subscribe to. Men trained by Dever in regards to membership or Driscoll in regards to leadership scare me to death(.) Many churches subscribe to both phylosophies – double whammy!
@ Lydia:
Rick Warren was involved with Leadership Network as well. Seems a lot of “leadership” ideas were planted by this network. I’m not convinced these ideas had much in common with Jesus’ leadership ideas.
Bridget wrote:
P.S. – Driscoll was involved with the network for a time as well.
Anonymous wrote:
The greatest danger in the world is in my opinion the misapplication of NT truths. The devil’s in the details, as you say in your post, and the devil is most definitely in the unwise application of biblical truth, we need only look at the temptation of Christ for a clear illustration of this concept. The document is utterly one-sided, like a washing machine unbalanced that’s walking crazily across the floor, it’s leader-centric, flock controlling. And I personally believe the devil’s very much in that and behind it. Wouldn’t want to get within 500 yards of a 9 marks-affiliated church, I’d guess that your leaders have some utterly reprehensible ideas regarding their position vis-a-vis that of the congregation and that all you’ll have to do to find out is to challenge them on something.
I’m an SBC pastor in an area not as influenced by the neo-cal movement as of yet. We don’t require you to sign a contract to join. We have open communion. We will exercise discipline for ongoing sin as defined in the bible(not attending church is not addressed, nor objecting to a leadership decision). I encourage our congregation to question everything I teach and compare it to scripture, as I’m not perfect, and make mistakes. We preach the gospel and attempt to make disciples, not wage a culture war. There are still far more in the SBC like us than Dever, they just get all the pub now.
dee wrote:
Given how many company executives think and talk about themselves, they would simply think of him as a kindred spirit. Unfortunately.
Speaking of wacky churches and beliefs, this one is not far from me. They own a local TV channel and push their stuff over the airwaves. But this article is news – they kept this part quiet.
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/ernest-angley-s-grace-cathedral-rocked-by-accusations-involving-abortions-and-vasectomies-1.531094
@ JP:
I'm involved in a Southern Baptist church like you have described, so I agree with you.
What I find disconcerting is that the Neo-Cal leaders are highly influential in the seminaries where future leaders are being trained.
Anonymous wrote:
At least you are 'in the know' should your church slowly adapt to the 9Marks way of doing things. Would you let us know if things start to change?
With regard to your above comment, I have listened to Dever's talk at Southeastern, and he emphatically stated that a member IS NOT ALLOWED to leave the congregation without the permission of the church members. I find that deeply disturbing.
Lydia wrote:
I am wondering if this is occurring in congregations comprised of predominantly younger Christians who don't know any better.
@ Bridget:
I am aware as it was the precursor to what we see today taken to a Neo Puritan height. I can remember when Bob Buford, Peter Drucker and all those guys were all the rage in the seeker world. I can remember when Ken Blanchard took the oxymoron, “servant leadership” to new heights with his church leadership training. I will say that the Neo Reformed are the new masters of this control stuff and my guess is the seeker guys are saying, why didn’t we think of that!
Anonymous wrote:
The body of Christ is about relationship not attendance rolls and checking attendance boxes. My goodness, the pedophiles never miss a meeting and would be in GREAT standing according to your rules. :o(
Can you show me the attendance and membership rules for the body of Christ in any examples in the NT?
Is common sense no longer allowed?
dee wrote:
Oh, I see your point and realize I failed to take a couple of things into account: Paul only had Jesus to follow and he had no idea Calvin was coming to explain everything. Also, Paul did not have a Ph.D. from Cambridge like Dever.
Anonymous wrote:
So why is your church recommended by 9Marks? Based upon what?
@ Law Prof:
Excellent points!
So I guess if you smear yourself with feces and let spittle drizzle down your beard they might let you go? What a mess. LawProf is right; the devil is behind this, however one understands that statement.
Dee, has your comment on the ABP article disappeared? Mine seems to have. The article now shows zero comments (I think there were five before), and my comment has also vanished from my Disqus profile. Just checking.
Anonymous wrote:
That is Founders propaganda. Dever is not old enough to know anything about the SBC in the entire 20th century. What he is old enough to do is to want to change the very nature of what it means to be Baptist. They want to rewind back to the Particular Baptists in England.
They have made a sweeping diagnosis of a “problem” and then applied the solution which grants them the most importance and power while diminishing the power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. So, altar calls get banned, certain hymns get banned, baptism must be delayed so that we are “sure” they will continue in the faith, members must be covenanted, they can’t disaffiliate without permission (!), etc.
I need to re-read the article to see if I agree with you that Dever’s thoughts are consistent with principles found in the Bible. Regardless, an application that becomes a rule means that the underlying principle has been replaced by the rule. This is worldly religion, not the Christian faith which is a walk in faith and which is not the successful completion of an obstacle course set up by mere men.
__
Ministerial Masquerade : Contemporary Compulsionary Religious Service To A 501(c)3 Not For Profit, Stately Sanctioned Tax Exempt Religious Cooperation?
huh?
There is absolutely nothing in the Bible New Testament that says that an individual must join and maintain a good standing membership in a 501(c)3 ‘religious’ nonprofit Corporation.
SKreeeeeeeeetch !
This is a blatant corruption, a maniacal manipulation, an abscessed abuse of the intent of the holy scriptures.
What?
We are to gather together, not under some type of legal sanctioned compulsionary service to a rancorous self-righteous religious figurehead, but willingly assemble ‘together’ for common christian purpose, ministering one to another according to the scriptures with the faithful assistance of the Holy Spirit, the sent One, as we watch for the return of Christ Jesus to draw near like He said He would.
duh.
(bump)
Ahem!
Slick proverbial religiously ‘professionally’ licensed pulpit ‘bugbears’ like Mahaney and Dever have cleverly established 501(c)3 religious corporations that ‘mimic’ only the portions of scripture that advance their own ‘insidious’ purposes, (telling huh?)…what ever ‘they’ may be. It is painfully obvious that they presume to callously cover each other’s sin while covering each other’s big kahunas, and unsuspecting ‘common church folk’ are required to ‘pay’ the check.
kiss, kiss.
Beware!
(sadface)
Remember Dear Heart, that Jesus came ta bring ‘abundant life’, not to ‘force’ some type of “BIBLICALLY SANCTIONED” compulsionary religious service.
Krunch!
—> religious phony’s abound.
(no duh!)
nice, nice, very nice, so many people in the ‘insidious’ religious device?
(tears)
—> accept only da ‘real’ thingy.
Kirrrrrrrrrrrrrk!
This has been a providential perspicacious propitious public service announcement, I now return you to your regularly scheduled pa, pa, pa, program!
(grin)
Sopy
__
Interlude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ffgAVd6UU
🙂
—
JP wrote:
And they have gained control over the resources in the SBC. In other words, every member of the SBC who contributes to the Cooperative program is promoting 9Marks doctrine whether they know it or not, including training future pastors who will perpetuate it here and abroad.
I must have my history all wrong. I thought one of the fundamental tenets of the Reformation was the priesthood of all believers. I had no idea it meant going from one pope for all to one pope for each church. Next up – an Inquisition as part of their ‘church discipline’ for recalcitrant members.
Anonymous wrote:
Does being a 9Marks church mean that the church pays 9Marks a fee or contribution? If so, do you know how much your church pays to 9Marks for membership or materials? Just curious.
What Dever is = high church, although a Baptist is rarely that! HC gives leadership a lot of authority, focuses on Word and Sacraments to the exclusion of mercy and justice as a church (although at least Dever’s church didn’t go for the latter. You will find these churches by looking at affiliates of Westminster California, the White Horse Inn, and Modern Reformation magazine. Some PCAs go for it, some OPCs, United Reformed Churches. The Rev. Brian Lee in DC is a perfect example. Reformed Theological Seminary in Washington, DC is pretty much taken over by High Church types. These churches tend to be Session-centric, I.e., there’s a big focus on the leaders and all they do. It is insidious and it is wrong. I am a member of a PCA that is not HC. HC leaders take themselves VERY seriously. Beware.
Here is what the law says about leaving churches.
“Guinn v. The Church of Collingsville, 775 P.2d 766 (Okla. 1989), upholds two propositions: First, a church can discipline its members without fear of judicial intervention only while the person remains a member; second, individuals can terminate their membership without regard to church rules.
Since Guinn, the courts have followed the Oklahoma Supreme Court and held that “a church can discipline individuals without fear of judicial intervention” only while “the complaining individual was a member at the time of the disciplinary action” (Smith v. Calvary Christian Church,—N.W.2d—, 1998 WL 842259 [Mich. Ct. App. 1998]). As the Michigan Court of Appeals framed the rule: “Where the plaintiff is a member of the church at the time of the defendant church’s alleged tortious activity … ‘the church has authority to prescribe and follow disciplinary ordinances without fear of interference by the state’ ” (Smith, supra, quoting Guinn, 775 P.2d at 773–74, and citing Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978,987–88 [Okla. 1992]; see also Hester v. Barnett, 723 S.W.2d 544,559–60 [Mo. 1987]: If plaintiffs were members of the church, “they presumptively consented to religiously motivated discipline practiced in good faith”). But this absolute privilege from judicial intervention applies only if the discipline “does not pose a substantial threat to public safety, peace or order” (Guinn, 775 P.2d at 779).”
Taken from an interesting book called “Christian Ministries and the Law, Revised Edition: What Church and Para-Church Leaders Should Know”
Oh and this bit as well
“In Guinn, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that once the individual’s relationship with the church has been terminated, either by the individual or the church, the Free Exercise Clause no longer shields the church from civil liability (Guinn, 775 P.2d at 783–84). While Guinn suggests that an individual may voluntarily waive his or her right to withdraw from association with a church, the court in Guinn was not presented with that situation. Since Guinn, the cases suggest that the courts may uphold an absolute right to unilaterally withdraw from association with a church; see, for example, Hadnot, 826 P.2d at 988 (“On the other hand, no citizen of the state may be compelled to remain in a church which his conscience impels him to leave”). If presented squarely with the issue, the courts may very well hold that the right to disassociate from a church cannot be waived.
Even after the member terminates his or her membership, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the church can complete the disciplinary process (Hadnot v. Shaw, 826 P.2d 978, 989–90 [Okla. 1992]). In this situation,however, the absolute privilege may no longer apply.
In the event of withdrawal or of post-excommunication activity unrelated to the church’s efforts at effectuation of valid judicature, the absolute privilege from torl liability no longer attaches. Any action at this point, if it is to be protected, must be justified by other means. Under these circumstances conditional privileges may be applicable. The church may take such steps as are reasonable to protect itself and to complete the process occasioned by the withdrawal or other termination of the consensual relationship with a member (Guinn, supra at 775–82; Hester, supra at 559–60; cf. Hadnot, supra at 987–88).
In such situations, a privilege may apply to activities or communications after termination of membership “if these may be termed as mere implementation of previously pronounced ecclesiastical sanction which was valid when exercised” (Hadnot, 826 P.2d at 987). Thus, completing the disciplinary process exposes the church and individuals to civil liability. Any actions after the person leaves the should be carefully considered, perhaps after consultation with an attorney.”
Sopwith wrote:
Amen, Sopwith, Amen!
JeffT wrote:
I’ll spend all my upvotes on this one!
This post is both foolish and ignorant of Baptist history. It’s foolish because it paints a picture of some kind of cultish control by Dever and company by using phrases like “they won’t let you leave”. There is no coercion or physical restraint (which is what that language sounds like) but a discipline placed on the person that only affects their relationship to that church and others who are with it. If said person thinks he was disciplined unrighteously then what does he care if he can’t be a member at Nine Marks churches? He obviously wants to go elsewhere anyway. Regarding Baptist history, Dever’s use of church covenant is something all Baptists have used for centuries. It shows that the person is agreeing to the discipline of the whole congregation and is also willing to contribute to that loving accountability. It has nothing to do with legal constraints since it predates such legal issues by 400+ years. The elders have no power to put people in or out of membership. That can only be done by the entire congregation who agreed to these terms when joining the body. What is unrighteous is accusing and attacking believers by comparing them to cults and claiming they have evil motives merely because you disagree with their ecclesiology. CJ claimed to have no knowledge of the events related to the scandal at his church and their is no evidence to the contrary, merely speculation. Unless clear proof shows otherwise we Christians have no right to accuse him of covering these things up. I’m sure that is the basis for Nine Marks refusal to remove his books and the basis for their discipline on this man; lack of love. That same lack of love is enough evident here.
@ Gus: I heard a sermon on 1Peter 2: 9 by a High Church pastor which took pains to expound carefully the whole verse except “a royal priesthood”. After the text was read you would think that phrase had never been in there! As I said before, beware.
What can a church possibly gain by hanging on to somebody who wants gone–for whatever reason? Looked at from a calvinistic viewpoint are not the elect trapped in the system whether they want to be or not and regardless of what they do? And are not the un-chosen hopelessly lost regardless of whether the have their name on some church roll or not? So either way there is nothing the church can do, of eternal consequence, about anybody at any time. Only if one believes in the possibility of actual apostasy (losing one’s salvation) would these people’s behavior make any sense. But SBC style baptists believe in eternal security of the believer, (and increasingly I suppose eternal hopeless lostness of some folks who have no chance of being “a believer”) so what is the point of what they are doing?
Now, free will baptists, that is another story, but SBC is not free will baptist, and calvinist baptists are not free will baptists.
Anonymous wrote:
I re-read the article and the 12 points. I agree that points 1 and 12, especially 1 are consistent with the Bible’s teaching. Point 9 might be included if it were clear that the church is to make disciples of Jesus and not of men. Anyone who is teaching or preaching should include the Gospel along with the God’s grand plan, depending, of course, on what one considers core Gospel and what one includes in God’s grand plan. The problem is that they have substituted their plans for God’s plan, and they have made secondary or even tertiary doctrines into Gospel imperatives.
The others are interpretations with applications. Or completely made up rules.
Please show me chapter and verse in the Bible where church membership is required and I’ll sign on.
SGM tried the membership “contract” (all in favor of SGM of course)and it failed quite miserably. My old SGM church wouldn’t even go through the steps of offering it to people because many said they would give up in their membership (and stop tithing) if they were forced to do so.
Remember gang, it’s all about the Benjamins to most of these people. Membership=tithing.
Nancy wrote:
Well, there is the power of making an example of the departing member to keep the others in line and on task. I think this is what happened in the 9Marks Dubai case with Todd. Obviously, he was the taking the Biblically supportable position, but he went against the official position of 9Marks in support of Mahaney. Therefore he had to go, and not quietly because they needed to warn others not to follow his example of dissenting from the “authority” over him.
The New Calvinists are stuck in the Augustinian confusion of the visible church and the invisible church. If your focus is on the visible church, then the visible “authorities” become “vicars of Christ” though not all use that language. That is in fact what is happening. They put an entrepreneurial spin on Roman Catholic authority structures and make tons of money selling it.
rike wrote:
Mine has as well. But, there may be a reason for this. ABP has just changed their name to Baptist New Global and is merging with another news organization. Take a look. All of the formats have just changed and that has happened in the last day.
If they had to move over all of the articles to the new format, they may have chosen to do that without moving the comments. A few years back we did the same thing. We decided not to move the comments because it was too much work to do so. I am not saying that is the reason for sure but it might be.
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
Perhaps it didn’t back 400 years, ago but it does now if you have been doing your reading on the matter. You appear to be interested in history so I might suggest that you do some reading on more recent history. Read why contracts, not used for awhile, showed up in full force in the late 90s. Here is something to get you going.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/08/12/membership-covenants-are-primarily-legal-protection-for-the-church/
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
Before you go declaring me foolish and ignorant, you might do some reading. Start with the links in this post. You may disagree with my conclusions but I am far from ignorant on this matter and have written about it for 5 years.
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
When you read church history, as I am sure you do, you will find that churches which make efforts to prevent people from leaving are also known for highly controlling behaviors. In some circles, those behaviors can lead to some to consider cult like behavior.
Also, in the United States, when one severs a connection with a church, and said church “bad mouths them” in the guise of an all church “disciplinary” hearing, such actions can, and have led to lawsuits which have been decided against a church for doing so.
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
So, how many times have you gone to an all church meeting to boot someone out and the vote was against what the *elders* wanted? Did you ever think that people in said church might be a bit afraid to go against the grain?
I do agree with you that people who join a church have agreed to those terms. That is why I educate people so they can understand exactly what those terms might include. You can be sure I will continue to tell people they are signing a legal document and that men who call people *foolish and ignorant* for disagreeing on a matter might one day be in charge of judging them. Caveat Emptor!
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
What about the Christian families whose kids were abused? They are the ones doing the accusing. You do know about the Grant Layman confession under oath, don’t you?
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
And you know this how? Are you judging motives here?
Thank you for demonstrating, with your thoughtful words and historical perspective, on how to be loving. It has been a lesson for why our readers should be careful about signing church contracts.
So it appears the membership=control. I don’t recall reading that in the Bible.
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
Obviously, you never read the ‘brilliant’ 9Marks post that ends with this admonition to pastors:
It sure sounds like the 9Marks shepherds are doing everything they can to control every.single.sheep.
Anonymous wrote:
I am not so sure about that. There is a strong emphasis on authority and discipline which is ill defined and broadly applied from everything to serial adultery to asking too many questions about the church budget. You are a nice guy and I would trust you. However, I need to tell you that I view with suspicion, any church which affiliates with either 9 Marks or Acts 29. I am not saying such an affiliation proves they are problematic, but I would tell anyone joining such a church to ask hard questions before signing anything.
Anonymous wrote:
That’s what he says when he is talking but you can be darn tooting sure that he gets his way. Dever is the man in charge.
Anonymous wrote:
Well, you know the SBC. Once on a membership roll, always on the membership rolls. I always get a big laugh out of SBC churches who claim their membership to be far higher, in some cases, 300% higher than actual attendance.
deb wrote:
Spare the rod and spoil the sheep. Or, as one pastor whose name must not be spoken said: Dumb, egotistical sheep who think they are sooooo smart. Bah!
Somewhereintime wrote:
Well, at least the congregation won out on that one. However, I have heard the SGM pastors would call pastors and report the “discipline” of errant sheep for such serious matters as the sin of pride.
@ Gus:
@ JeffT:
Oh, the priesthood of the believer is the subject of much study by controlling pastors. It appears that we have this one all wrong and are too stupid to know it. One of these days Google that phrase and see how the usual spinmeisters are spinning this one. I really should do post on this.
Gram3 wrote:
As we say in the South: Bless Paul’s heart. He didn’t have John Piper…
It seems to me to be heretical on Mark Dever’s part to suggest that those who have received the sacraments of baptism and confirmation/chrismation, even as infants, and have then partaken of the Eucharist, are not members of the Church. Dever confuses legal membership in a local church with membership in the Body of Christ, and the Gospel makes plain that membership in the Church is procured through the sacrament of baptism, which is why our Lord did not sign a contract reverently furnished by St. John at the Epiphany, but was instead immersed in the Jordan.
As far as Dever refusing communion to those not sharing his theology, this actually doesn’t bother me, because as an Orthodox I believe you are what you are in communion with. The ancient canons of the church prohibit sharing a common chalice with heretics and schismatics. For this reason, though one of my best friends is an Episcopal priest, I won’t take communion from him, because he in turn communicates with his bishop, who advocates what I consider to be heresy, and priests in communion with him in neighboring dioceses make use of the Gnostic gospels dug up at Nag Hammadi in their worship among other things that I can’t square with the Gospel as I was taught it. This does not stop me from loving my friend, his church, the liturgy, and the extremely nice, largely elderly congregation that he serves. Because the Eucharist represents the summit of Christian life, we should only communicate with those who share a common interpretation of the Gospel, and of the meaning of the Eucharist itself.
This does not necessarily mean communion along jurisdictional or denominational lines only; the Assyrian Church of the East communicates anyone who shows up, has been baptized, and believes the Eucharist to be the body and blood of our Lord, and not a symbolic representation thereof. Thus, many Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans and other Eastern Christians can communicate there, although the elephant in the room known as Nestorius might make a few of them unwilling to avail themselves of the hospitality offered,
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
No, you don’t understand. This is a common freshman-type error that I quickly correct in my classes, the common law system that largely governs in our country that we borrowed from England predates our country by centuries. Many of these legal doctrines go back to a time well prior to the Reformation.
So you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.
Tim wrote:
That sparked a thought. I agree that sort of control isn’t in the New Testament. But you’re not just dealing with the Bible, you’re dealing with almost 2000 years of Christian tradition, including a long, long period under fairly rigid control of the Roman Catholic church. That’s a lot of history and tradition with control issues to contend against. And of course human nature leaves it primed for abuse, sadly.
I think I get non church going Christians a bit better now. Oh and mind you it’s been years since I’ve read the New Testament in any real way, so if I’m off on the Bible and congregation control, mea culpa.
@ pk47tech:
I posted about that in a previous thread here yesterday. There is a ‘Part Two’ today with more accusations about the preacher.
@ Manley C. Beasley:
I do want to thank you for one thing Mr. Beasley. You do an excellent job of confirming to me and others just why we need to continue exposing people like Mr. Dever (who may or may not be a true believer, only the Lord knows) and the systems and methods he promotes.
You are a sterling example of the hatefulness and condescension of a certain religious mindset of which all believers must be aware and guard themselves against. Thanks for so unequivocally providing that example.
Somewhereintime wrote:
A lot of Christians tend to, IMO, misuse the “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves” verse (which is in Hebrews 10:25) to argue regular meetings with other Christians is required, or membership in a church is required, but I’ve never understood that verse to be a commandment in that manner and do not know why some churches insist on presenting it as such.
I’ve always taken that Heb 10:25 verse to mean it’s to your benefit to gather with other believers, it’s a great idea if you do – not that God gets angry with you if you do not.
In the original post, I believe Deb and Dee quoted someone as saying if you claim to be a Christian but do not attend church regularly, that preacher thinks you are in sin or are unsaved.
I have different reasons for why I do not attend any church now as an adult, but as a kid and into my twenties, my family moved very, very frequently due to my father’s vocation.
We simply could not keep joining new churches every two, three years. Do some of these guys who beat people up over church attendance not realize this? There are many other families in the same spot today, the mom and / or dad also work in this same profession my dad did.
And this was in the age before the internet, for me. It was exhausting (and today even with the web, IMO, still is exhausting) to “church shop” and find a church that is close to you that you feel comfortable attending, where you fit in.
So, my family stopped regular church attendance. It also takes an emotional toll on you, to move in to a new town, find a church, get close to the people there, then have to pull up stakes and move on after two years. It’s easier just to stay home and not mess with church at all.
On Sundays, in the years after we stopped going to church at one city we lived in, my mother would have me read a few Bible chapters aloud to her in our den, and we’d discuss them for awhile. That became our “church.”
@ Deb and Gram3, there is a lot of consternation regarding leadership in the SBC entities right now with seemingly every open post going to one of the TGC or neo-cal crowd. Southeastern and Southern are definitely Calvinistic seminaries now and Midwestern will move in that direction now that one of Mohler’s men is in charge. Southwestern, New Orleans and Golden Gate are still clear from this. The fact that the new heads of NAMB and the IMB, not to mention the ERLC are also noted Calvinists has many of the 70+% of SBC’ers who are not Calvinists questioning many things. I don’t know when, but I still believe we see a split in the convention at some point. When the majority is left out time after time, people eventually act. One area it’s not as obvious is with the state bible colleges. Here in SC, two of the three are solidly Calvinist now, and many of the people in the pews are ignorant of this
@ Anonymous:
So, I was ironing and chewing on your comment and I though of a question. You know that 9 Marks is run by a man who is into disciplining for stupid reasons. He, according to the ABP article, has been accused of being cult like.
So, why would your church, which does not discipline 9 Marks style, wish to be affiliated as with Mark Dever? Why not be your own church without that affiliation?
Could you imagine Jesus saying to the Disciples … “Verily verily I say unto you, signith here on the dottith line to show me that you are REALLY going to follow me and keep my commandments!” ?
Membership contracts in a church setting are ANOTHER addition of man to the gospel of Grace in the Kingdom of God. Man MUST control! It’s an aberration from the Bible. It’s Western pharisaical behavior. It’s unbiblical.
Biblically the proper response is to let you yes be “yes” and your no, “no”. Nothing else is required.
JP wrote:
It is too gosh darn sad that the Calvinistas could not find a way to work with others. They violate the kindergarten rule to “play nicely with others.” However, it is not in their DNA. They must always be right and the rest of the folks can come along since they are just barely Christians, poor souls.
I think you may be correct. There is a split that will occur but the Calvinistas don’t mind. The 70% are not important. Their theology trumps all.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
You are right on the money.
Josh wrote:
Postcard arrived in the mail from one of the local baptist churches. “We teach the Bible and patriotism”. Syncretism is out in my book as well.
You can also put in isolation anyone who has EVER been a part of Sovereign Grace. While they have left, the abusive methodology is sure to be present. I sat through an “exercise ” in an about to be adopted church that was soon dubbed “Rate your mate”. I solved the problem by saying nothing, just writing “10” on a piece of paper and holding it up. From where this “exercise”? Sovereign Grace.”
Seriously, some of the guys were sharing stuff I never would have spoken about, even to my best friend. What you want to bet this stuff was judiciously reported to the pastors. I would prescribe isolation for at least a number of years.
This stuff is Ebola of the soul.
Judas “The Hammer” Maccabeus
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
Just like Jesus!!!!
Judas Maccabeus wrote:
I see you are keeping track of John Piper’s weird tweets as well.
@ William G.:
Well, old Dee has been known to take communion from Catholic priests who secretly believe that communion should be open to all believers, no matter their view on transubstantiation. However, there aren’t many. I will take communion with anyone who will give it to me so long as they believe in the Cross and Resurrection. That probably means I am some sort of heretic.
dee wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Bridget wrote:
I will attempt to bring these 3 comments together by giving an example.
Many moons ago I was on staff at a Congregational church (not UCoC) with a declining membership and a large, old, inner-city building in need of much TLC. Many moons passed by, as both I and the church changed. I believe that such change is a legitimate reason for NOT signing marriage-like, til-death-do-we-part covenants. Indeed, I imagine change on the part of member, church, or both is a far more likely reason for moving on than either abusive leaders or wayward sheeple. I became more conservative and charismatic in some ways, the church became more liberal and tinier, and the building became older and even needier.
So, a little less than 2 years ago, a growing Acts 29/9 Marks *family* of churches bought the building for a very tidy sum, and spent another tidy sum fixing it up. Since then, this not-a-denomination (or is it all one church? I’m confused) has undergone at least 3 changes. 1: They were excommunicated by Acts 29. This process was traumatic and newsworthy. 2: They left 9 Marks. This only happened after the end of September and I think no one noticed it but me. 3: It has been proven, only in the last few days, that the Founding Pastor (unlike his former friend of Elephant fame) did NOT have the spiritual gift of real estate acquisition. Only time will tell if the old building will be put up for sale once more.
Just to be clear, though the pastor I mention has the initials MD, he is NOT Mark Dever!
Dave A A wrote:
I can’t imagine to whom you are referring!
Speaking of MD and Elephant Rooms and Debts, I just saw this prophetic question 2 years back:
Val on Fri Oct 12, 2012 at 01:41 AM said:
Mark Driscoll is also in these conferences, is he too drowning in debt?
Answer– YES!
Answer from me– 2 years late– not Val.
Anonymous wrote:
I appreciate your willingness to sing the alto part * on this thread! I suppose my primary issue with Dever’s output here is a subtle, but huge, bait-and-switch on the word “church”.
In the New Testament, “churches” in the plural (and, by implication, the idea of “a church” distinct from The Church) is in every case the entire body of believers in a city of similar region. To a good approximation, believers in other cities were too far away to maintain any realistic day-to-day contact with. Thus, each city had its church, but only one, and that church comprised Jews and Gentiles, men and women, slaves and free citizens, and any other sociological juxtaposition you could find. They all had to find a way to love, serve, honour and respect one another, and this is crucially important. They couldn’t just hang out with their natural social peers, or others whom they felt comfortable with. Because (to paraphrase Jesus) if we only love people it’s easy to love, how is that evidence that God became human, died, rose again and lives within us?
But when Mark Dever (and, to be fair to him, many others) refer to “a church”, he means something that is completely different. To wit, a sub-group of local believers that is isolated from other sub-groups and almost entirely self-sufficient locally, who sign up to a particular subset of currently-accepted Christian doctrines, answerable to a leadership that itself is not accountable to other believers locally. This idea, though almost universally accepted among Protestants today, is completely alien to the New Testament. All the more so if indeed Dever has such problems breaking bread with so many believers.
dee wrote:
Oh, OK. That explains why Paul is so logical and straightforward and non-weird.
dee wrote:
Certainly. On the plus side, you’re my sort of heretic.
@ Somewhereintime:
I left my comment after the format change, but that’s not to say there wasn’t some lagging functionality. Thanks.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
It could be argued that “the church” was already splitting into other little ” sub-churches” of Paul, Apollos or Peter and that what we have now is the historical out working of that process.
dee wrote:
Hmmm. I wonder about that. No doubt that their theology trumps all. But I think if they wanted a split, there would already have been one. I think that the NewCals want 100% control of the message and 100% control of the resources, and they would not have that if the SBC split. As long as they can control the majority, they really have no reason to care what the majority thinks.
Also, I don’t know about the Cal-NonCal thing being the main dividing line. It seems more to be authoritarian church vs. non-authoritarian church. So, Patterson and maybe some megapastors are in the authoritarian camp without being NewCal. The Calvinism committee seemed to me like theology theater, much like the TSA is security theater. In the video I saw, Mohler was smooth as usual, and Tom Ascol looked like he was ruminating a green persimmon.
All NewCals are authoritarians but not all authoritarians are NewCal. Thinking out loud…
Law Prof wrote:
you’re talking my language, Law Prof! I dealt a bit with historical common law and natural law theories and how they affect my job as a present day trial judge in a post a while back.
Somewhereintime wrote:
I can hear Judas saying it, though. Can't you??
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
First, paragraph breaks, please. It is difficult to follow your run-on rant.
Do you think that it was “unrighteous” for Dever, Mohler, and Duncan to accuse the people concerned about the abuses at SGM, including but not limited to the child abuse coverup, of merely being upset because C.J. had founded a ministry that has benefited “vast millions” of people (this is from memory, so it may not be exact.)
Do you think that Dever, Mohler, and Duncan were attacking believers and claiming they had evil motives when they wrote their love letter to Mahaney? Was it merely because they disgreed with the people like me who were concerned about the abuse? Or do you think this slander thing only goes one way? I suspect we already know the answer to that.
If you read the comments here, many of us are saying that Dever’s ecclesiology is fundamentally not Baptistic as Baptist ecclesiology has developed over the past 400 years or so. They deny any influence of the Anabaptists over the English Baptists while they were both in exile in Holland.
They further deny the influence that Wesley and the Anabaptists had on Baptists in America. Haykin is doing a swell job of revising history at SBTS. They want to return to a golden era which never existed.
Do you seriously believe that a practice which is carried on for several centuries is legitimized by that history? Are you sure you want to establish that as a principle?
@ Manley C. Beasley:
I wondered when a member from CHBC would show up? What flavor is the Kool-aide? 😛
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
It most certainly is. You have not expressed one ounce of concern for the children sexually abused in SGM churches. You do know that a couple of perps went to jail, right? It happened and it happened to little, tiny children and teens as well.
But, you expressions of love is only for CJ Mahaney who is lived a most comfortable life until recently. You have failed our prime directive test. You are welcome to express your point of view. However, when you do not mention victims, we realize that you are an ideologue who doesn’t give a thought for the little ones who were hurt. And for that, shame on you.
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
There is the spirit of coercion, and there certainly is emotional and spiritual restraint, as you might discover if you would consider the experiences of real people who are in cult-like organizations and the insights of those who have studied cults. Because of our laws in the West, they lack the legal means to do what they have demonstrated they have the spirit to do.
Do you really mean that no wrong is perpetrated or harm is done to someone who is unrighteously disciplined by a church? And that is true because they “obviously wanted to go elsewhere anyway?” I cannot follow your reasoning here, and this seems like a giant and “obvious” non sequitur.
Are you a troll or a master spoofer of a troll or a follower of a power religion?
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
OK, you got me here. I don’t love C.J. Mahaney more than the children and adults abused at SGM. I don’t love Mark Dever or any other man more than Jesus. Do you?
You are saying that Todd was disciplined because he lacked love? Seriously? He may well lack the idolatrous love of men that you apparently think he should have. In the lingo of the NewCals, those men, his “friends” have not loved Mahaney well. They have enabled him to hurt many people, and they have hurt many others in that process. That is not love, at least not the love that Jesus showed for the non-powerful and the non-elite. That is a mutual admiration high society.
Lydia wrote:
Another reason why, given the reality that The Church in a city/community is usually splintered into numerous different churches, it’s particularly bad for one of those splinters to be too powerful.
The CEO of the Glasgow church who threw us out a while back had no influence outside his own walls. Though he commanded total influence within them, of course, to the degree that people would listen to anything he wanted to tell them about us, and even pass it on to us as proven fact. But they didn’t want to hear our side of the story because it was beneath them to listen to gossip!
Though as many regulars here will tell you (and you may have experienced yourself – apologies if you’ve shared such a story and I’ve forgotten it), that’s par for the course. We were officially labelled as “divisive”, I gather, which of course meant that none of those who had been our friends could have anything to do with us in case we corrupted them. Oddly enough, though, the one place where my emotional stability has been called into question by someone who didn’t like some questions I asked them was… here at TWW! But there you go; we are a diverse community!
Tim wrote:
Tim – Did not know you were a judge, outstanding. Never even have been considered for that. I’ll make sure everything I say is carefully thought out lest I be caught by you in a misstatement!
Law Prof wrote:
Hey, you’re the law professor. So you’re the one who has ME looking over my shoulder!
@ Nick Bulbeck: Excellent comment.
___
“CJ claimed to have no knowledge of the events related to the scandal at his church and their is no evidence to the contrary, merely speculation. Unless clear proof shows otherwise we Christians have no right to accuse him of covering these things up. ” – Manley C. Beasley
hmmm…
Maybe Manley C. Beasley may be interested in reading the following material(s):
http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/the-stories/
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/
—
Sopwith wrote:
“I KNOW NOTHINK! NOTHINK!”
— Sgt Schultz
dee wrote:
Not “theology”, Comrade.
PURITY OF IDEOLOGY.
dee wrote:
“For in the Devil’s theology, the most important thing is to be Absolutely Right and to prove everyone else to be Absolutely Wrong. This does not lead to peace between men.”
— Thomas Merton, “Moral Theology of the Devil”
JP wrote:
This is called “Salami Tactics”, and it is how Stalin took control of Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW2 (touching off the Cold War). Infiltrate Loyal Party Members until you can stage a Coup From Within. Then once The Party has seized Power, “the Rule of The Party is Forever.”
Deb wrote:
You can never eat too much Mutton.
You can’t let YOUR Mutton escape.
This overemphasis on ” discipline” disturbs me. It’s like all they want to talk about is discipline.
The concept of love is missing…..
I’m sorry those of you who support Dever and ministers like him….you scare me.
Gavin White wrote:
True, but it doesn’t mean that what we have today is the only or correct version of what gathering together should look like. Also, most of the NT men built in different cities, not next door to one another.
Dave A A wrote:
I was channel surfing early this morning, and MacDonald was on a religious channel. His TV show advertised the 2014 “Act Like Men” conference.
http://actlikemen.com/
@ K.D.:
You've got it! I couldn't agree more.
Gram3 wrote:
This. is. it. The goal was a covert takeover of the entities and churches. And they have pretty much succeeded in my neck of the woods with churches and the important entities are firmly in Cal control. Many of them totally debt free. When that started to become known the focus was on church planting and Mohler put his protégé Kevin Ezell in at NAMB.
The former president of SWBTS, Dilday, said after the CR that the next big fight would be Calvinism. Few paid attention.
Mohler missed his real calling: Political Strategist. He is the James Carville of the SBC with the tactic of triangulation. People tend to forget he built his foundational influence as a culture warrior…not as a Calvinism. An easy sell in the SBC.
Lydia wrote:
My understanding, IIRC, is that he started out as a journalist at a Baptist paper in Florida and that at the time he was what would be termed a moderate. I don’t know how his conversion to Calvinism and gender hierarchy occurred, nor how he turned into the “Most Intelligent Theologian on the Planet” with a library bigger than Congress.
I do know propaganda, and a journalist would be very adept at shaping narratives, and the whole NewCal thing is one big narrative. Seriously, if you press any of them you get talking points, not theology. You get big ideas without coherent exegesis. You get people who will furiously defend their heroes but disappear when challenged.
Nobody worships Carville or Rove. Lots of people worship Mohler and the others, and that worship of men is truly scary and seriously creepy to me. So, if your life’s goal is to be power broker and king and lord of the largest Protestant denomination, then he has fulfilled that ambition. He had to go that way because the Catholic position is filled already.
And, speaking of seriously creepy, who else had a similar “conversion” to Calvinism? After having a conversion to charismatic protestantism. I’m convinced these guys are Gospel Chameleons who become whatever they need to be.
@ K.D.:
KD, it is weird to look back and see the trajectory on this issue. First it started out about 5 years ago with all this talk about “membership rolls”. Fair enough. The SBC numbers were not real and everyone knew it. So it was about cleaning that up and publishing more real numbers. Who can disagree with that? Then it was “regenerate” membership….with a bunch of intense, biblicalese stuff on that. Then it was about “discipling” membership. I mean it is amazing if you are following this stuff to look back and see how subtle they are and how they build on issues to get the shepherding cult effect. Like being boiled slowly.
Someone on this thread (or another thread) mentioned something about the lack of understanding on the concept of the Priesthood from these guys. Here is something interesting from 14 years ago when the SBC gurus (like Mohler) were rewriting the BFM that only a few caught on to until the last few years. That Mohler is some sly “strategist”:
http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html
Every.single.word.is.redefined.to.use.later
Dave A A wrote:
Has anyone considered Trump for the BoAA at Mars Hill? He seems to be “gifted” for real estate acquisition, liquidation, and workouts including sales with leasebacks. Cultural DNA seems like it might be a good fit, and he seems as qualified as any to step into a corporate mess and make a profit. He’s pretty good at the firing and underbussing thing, too.
I am very fortunate to belong to a church (First Baptist, Williamsburg, KY) where we can designate our mission money to a place of our choice. Many still give to SBC Cooperative Program; others, as myself, give to CBF Global Missions. There is no problem. We have women deacons. Again, this is no problem. I realize we are a unique church. We are trying to be the presence of Christ both in our community and elsewhere. Just paint me a free and faithful Baptist. I will be 91 next month, still have all my teeth, read a lot, in fairly good health and still have some of my marbles (I think). God is so good! Thanks for letting me contribute (here for the first time).
Florence in KY
Gram3 wrote:
He also worked for one of the pre CR SBTS presidents I think in some fundraising capacity. Raising money for the liberals? I read a blog post about his conversion from egal to patriarchy years back:
http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-al-mohler-became-complementarian.html
See, comp is about “inerrancy”.
His most “intelligent theologian on the planet” was helped with him being named one of the up and comers in Time Magazine years ago. But this myth started at SBTS because he was hired as Prez when only 33– so lots to overcome and one must consolidate one’s power quickly. it was the mantra around here for years and it grew and grew. One of his first acts was to fire a man who was about 9 mos from retirement because he dared to correct a chapel speaker (Tom Eliff who was recent president of the IMB) who said no conservatives had been allowed to speak there for many years. Mr. Paul Debusman (Library archivist who had been there for over 20 years) wrote Mr. Eliff to give him names of conservatives who had spoken in chapel and correct the record as any good archivist would do. Mohler fired him for doing that. And he did not get his full retirement.
That is how these men operate. The 33 year old firing the old man right before his retirement. Have to make an example, you know. Scare the rest of the troops into compliance to the young tyrant.
dee wrote:
No can do Dee. Potter is the only true heretic here at TWW.
Sure you can. You look them in the eye and tell them they have no power over you. If that phrase makes you nervous, how about, “Pound sand.” “Bite me” also springs to mind. (I’d put it a lot more forcefully than that, but I’m self-censoring here in your virtual living-room.) How in blazes are they planning on enforcing that? Take you to court? Yeah, I’m not seeing a judge finding that you must attend Church X or find another that Church X will agree to you attending.
Yes, signed contracts are generally binding. “Generally” is the important point–there are exceptions to that. I could be forced by my place of employment (let’s use a restaurant as an example), to sign a contract with a “non-compete” clause that says I can’t work at another restaurant in any capacity within a 500 mile radius for 2 years after leaving their employ. Courts have traditionally found that far too onerous and refuse to enforce it. Your (now former) employer is taking away your right to work. I really can’t see a court getting involved in the question of what church you must attend or what constitutes “repentance” or what “discipline” is–that whole separation of church and state thing. Why on earth people would agree to be bound by rules made up by a bunch of yahoos that think they have some magic power over them is beyond my ken.
dee wrote:
The relevant canons of the early church (apostolic canons 45 and 64) do not indicate that taking communion from a heretic makes one a heretic. They merely impose excommunication, which could be lifted by way of confession (in the early church, this was regrettably accompanied by humiliating public penances; fortunately, since that time, this practice has ceased; the early Church is to be revered for its close temporal proximity to the lifetime of our Lord, and thus, its interpretations of the Bible, its theology, and its praxis, are of great importance, but being an institution run by fallible humans, is itself certainly not infallible). Denying the Cross and the Resurrection is, in and of itself, the root of most heresies; I would strongly suspect that you would also probably not want to take communion from someone who denied the reality of the Incarnation, or the divinity of Christ, and denial of those four things, in various forms, is the basis of all heresy (for example, iconoclasm is considered a heresy because it denies the reality of the incarnation; since the Word of God became man, it follows that the divine Word, that is to say, Jesus, can be depicted in his humanity).
In the case of my local Episcopal priest, he isn’t a heretic; he believes in none of the classical heresies, but his bishop does, and he is literally the vicar of his bishop, and not the rector of his parish, thus, he has no autonomous faculties in any sense as a priest. In the past, I did take communion from him, and it caused indigestion; I believe that the body and blood of our Lord cannot cause indigestion, and came to the realization that my friend, as the vicar of his Bishop, in fact, had not consecrated the Eucharist, and as long as he remains the vicar of a heretic, cannot consecrate the Eucharist, because as a vicar, he is merely consecrating the Eucharist on behalf of his Bishop, who for his part, is supposed to be consecrating the Eucharist on behalf of Christ. Since the local Bishop lamentably does not believe in Christ, or at least, does not believe in the Gospel as received by the church for the previous nineteen centuries, the Bishop cannot be expected to consecrate the Eucharist in His person.
I should stress that this is a very High Church ecclesiology, one believed in by Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans and Lutherans, but one denied by Calvinists, Baptists and most Evangelicals. However, since I am Orthodox, that is my own view, and indeed, many of my co-religionists would go so far as to say that communion outside the Orthodox church is not acceptable under any circumstances. For my part, I am inclined to consider Orthodoxy as “right belief”, and not necessarily confined to the Eastern churches; rather, whichever churches and individual Christians who do not believe in any of the ancient heresies are surely functionally orthodox; for that matter, within the Orthodox church there are known to be heretics; prominent recent examples would include Sergei Bulgakov and Pavel Florensky, who taught that the Virgin Mary was hypostatically joined with the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation, a position condemned by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia as heresy; Bulgakov however was in a different jurisdiction and to my knowledge was never defrocked. Florensky for his part remained in Russia and was martyred along with many other Orthodox priests in one of Stalin’s purges.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that the canons of the Roman Catholic church do allow non-Catholics who are properly disposed to receive of the sacraments under certain conditions; for example, all Eastern Christians who are not Catholic (Orthodox, Assyrians), can receive the Eucharist, Confession, Unction, and so on, from a Catholic priest, if a priest of their own jurisdiction is not available, and if they are properly disposed to receive such sacraments. There are more restrictive provisions in place, if memory serves, for the Anglicans and Lutherans. In my experience, Catholic priests, even traditionalist Catholic priests, are not vigilant about this, and I suspect that people who are not formally members of the Roman church account for a small but substantial minority of its communicants, and given the general direction of the current Papacy, I suspect that sooner or later, some effort will be made at regularizing their status.
However, I do think its unethical to attempt to receive communion from a church where one knows one is not entitled to it. If one presents oneself to receive the Eucharist at a given church misrepresenting to the priest one’s own ecclesial status, and obtains the Eucharist by false representation, this is clearly fraudulent. In your case, you communicated with permission of the Priest, however, unless you fall into one of the canonical exemptions for non-Catholics cited above, you did violate the canon law of the church, and so did the Priest, and this seems to me to be something best avoided.
I think its very important to remember that churches with episcopal hierarchies are not like independent congregational churches, such as Baptist churches, or even collegial Presbyterian churches, where its just a relationship between you and the pastor. In a church like the Episcopal Church USA, the Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, some Lutheran churches, and the Eastern churches, the true pastors of the church are the bishops. One should consider, in one’s relationship with these churches, the views of all of the bishops thereof, as expressed in the canons of those churches and by the public statements of them. If you, in taking communion, and your local parish priest, in giving you communion, would scandalize the diocesan bishop, or if the diocesan bishop in turn would scandalize his peers and superiors by approving of it, then it is best to abstain from the chalice, rather than risk partaking unworthily, which as St. Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, can have dire consequences.
One reason why I am not a fan of the Revised Common Lectionary (or indeed the contemporary Catholic lectionary) is that these verses were excised from the Gospel read on Maundy Thursday, and thus many modern churchgoers have no idea that you can actually die (or be damned, or both, depending on how you interpret Paul) as a result of partaking of the Eucharist unworthily. In prior centuries, most Christians would, on account of those now-suppressed verses, only communicate a few times a year, or the canonical minimum of once a year, out of fear of partaking unworthily, and only with extensive preparation at that. Now, it is in fact beneficial to communicate weekly, with proper preparation, but we must not forget that the chalice should be approached with fear and trembling, for just as the body and blood of our Lord remit sins and grant eternal life to the worthy, they can also condemn the unworthy.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
__
One does not have to lòök very hard at the stories of abuse coming out of SGM to sēē that this is a culture of coverup where the worst of sinners was a protected personage, the victim a protagonist. -Sopwith
—
This reminded me of some of the stores of the Mars Hill Refuge people, and one who told a story on your blog- Frankie? Both her daughters were in controlling marriages to MHers…was she ever able to speak with her daughters again?
That troubled me a lot…
Our church has a covenant for you to sign…but we’ve had lots of comings and goings without any hub-bub. some people have left very quietly, but generally anyone who leaves, we gather around to pray for and “send out”…be it going to another church, moving, or just exploring God’s call elsewhere.
It basically reads that for the duration of time you feel called to be a part of our church, you covenant to serve, give, be in community, and live purely/Biblically.
Explanation- that those who are members aren’t just checking a box, becoming a member for the sake of being a member, but locking arms with one another at this local church to share the gospel.
We do I believe have a church discipline process…I believe it’s primarily if one seeks it out themselves, but there are some getting counseling from our pastors. Only two instances in the years I’ve been there where something was made “public” to members (1/3 or so of attendees), and I don’t think it was a “discipline” but support aspect.
They were both addiction related, and discussed thoroughly with each party- beforehand, and approached in a way of asking for prayer, and in one instance financial support for a treatment program, and one for a place for a man to stay while he and his wife worked through how his addiction was affecting their marriage. So, to find support for the men, with their permission. They even wrote the letters themselves.
But I don’t know, I watch things carefully wherever I am.
From the capitol Hill Baptist Church I think it is.
“We will walk together in brotherly love, as becomes the members of a Christian Church, exercise an affectionate care and watchfulness over each other and faithfully admonish and entreat one another as occasion may require.”
It took a few minutes to fix the irony meter. I mean they disciplined the leadership seem to punish Mr. Wilhelm when he brought up concerns about selling some material from a questionable leader. They did not talk brotherly love he got, let me put this in the vernacular, gutted. I would sign an agreement as long as it gave equal weight so the congregation could have redress of grievances.
I know the true believers out there dont buy into this secular nonsense unless it furthers their cause, but seeing it is the constitution of the United States.
“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
A contract is non binding if it is illegal for lack of a better phrase. So you being able to go to whatever church you wish is a first amendment right, it seems to me you cant sign a legally binding contract that contradicts the first amendment. Maybe if you are part of a denomination or group of churches and one disciplines you and the others in the denomination will not allow you fellowship. That seems rather clear they are exercising their rights as well. But to say you can get sued for leaving one church and attending another is just stupid. I am not a lawyer and could be wrong but I dont think these covenants are legally enforceable. They may be morally enforceable but seeing that many who require them and use them as clubs to control people lack any morality in said matters I think it safe to say, ignore the man behind the curtain. Let them do their little voodoo dances and cast their spells. Personally I dont believe in magic.
When I say I don't believe in magic, I am not referring to God or acts of prayer, etc. It is the magic systems people use to control us and cause the People of God fear. The idea that if you leave "our church" God will get you kind of thinking.
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
There is a lack of love here – for weird church stuff that puts people off Christ. But actual love for actual people? That definitely happens here, & spills into real life when it can. Stick around, you might like it.
@ Gram3:
I think it would be fair to say that Mr Beasley is none of those things. I think I am correct in saying that he is related to a well known, highly respected Southern Baptist evangelist and is offering his view of what is being discussed.
@ Bridget:
I think there were local churches next door to each other, or at least, in the same town. See Eckhard J Scnabel’s “Early Christian Mission” where he discusses the role and impact of house churches.
* Schnabel not Scnabel.
Godith wrote:
I’m a bit surprised by the way to see High Church used in this manner. It is correct, but this was the context for it only in the early 17th century, when it represented the authoritarian element in the Church of England. By the end of that century, High Churchmanship instead implied a preference for Patristic theology over Reformed theology, and the use of more ritual in the liturgy.
In the 19th century, the high church party was violently persecuted by the low church party, with priests being sent to prison for wearing chasubles or burning incense during the Eucharist. The charity of high church entities like the Benedictine monks of the Order of the Holy Cross, who rivaled the Salvation Army in their devotion to the poor of London, combined with the cruelty of the Low Church party in their treatment of high church priests, ultimately caused the high church movement to win the war of public opinion and to eventually dominate large chunks of the Anglican communion.
However, one thing one does not see in the high church movement, or in modern low church Anglicanism, as exemplified by parishes such as Holy Trinity Brompton, is the kind of suffocating authoritarianism we see coming from the 9Marks people. Historically, Baptists fought for religious liberty, but Mark Dever seems to want to take us back to 16th century England.
Comment 1 of 2 (before going out to do an eclectic day’s work)
Manley C. Beasley is most likely a bungee-bomber. If so, (s)he didn’t visit to engage in a discussion and would not read anyone’s reply. Personally, I wouldn’t bother.
Comment 2 of 2
Bridget wrote:
Gavin/Bridget – I’d go with both of those observations. Factions aren’t just about ambitious and divisive leaders, after all; as often as not, they’re about ambitious and divisive “followers” who want to hang onto the coat-tails of some folk-hero figure. Like the crowd in 1st-century Judea who wanted to make Jesus king by force (in John 6).
At the same time, not every tradition of men is established and ordained by God – Jesus declared this emphatically. We don’t have to fall in with accepted practice just because of its antiquity. Looking at it another way, all the traditions we see around us were built by a previous generation who were not fundamentally better or worse than us. Let’s suppose, then, that they assembled these traditions (as they now are) in good faith and according to conscience. We have both the same rights, and the same responsibilities, as they did.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
The reality of pre-war and post-war Polish politics in relation to Communism and Stalin is far more complex than portraying Stalin as a schemer who engaged in “salami politics”. The Communist Party of Poland made a tactical error in supporting Pilsudski’s coup d’état in May 1926 and this ” May Error” subsequently provided Stalin with the opportunity in 1939 to dismantle the party which was Trotskyist in outlook and supported Comintern rather than Soviet interests. Poland’s fate at the end of WW2 was decided at “The Big Three” meetings in Tehran, Yalta and Potsdam and Stalin’s subsequent political interference in Poland was tolerated by the Western powers (much to their shame, imo). It also overlooks the fact that Polish Communism in the post-war period sought to mitigate the worst excesses of Stalinism/Soviet Communism.
Gram3 wrote:
From my research, Mohler was greatly influenced by Carl Henry when he visited the Southern Seminary campus.
Lydia linked to a posts that shares this information.
http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-al-mohler-became-complementarian.html
I have a biography on Carl Henry and am doing some background reading.
@ Muff Potter:
By the powers invested in me (I bought the domain), I nearby declare Muff the official, and dearly beloved, *heretic* of TWW.
Florence B. Young wrote:
WELCOME!!!! Thank you for sharing on this blog. 91! My 85 year old mom will not touch a computer! I am so glad that you commented.Your church sounds like the type of church I might like.
Please, please keep commenting. We could use your experienced perspective.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Heretics who blog together, stay together.
@ rike:
Bob Allen and ABP are not part of the extreme right wing crowd as far as I can tell. They have posted comments before that have been critical. Also, Bob was the one who brought up the Todd Wilhelm story which shows he is digging.
Now, have things changed? Do me a favor. Try commenting again and let me know if your comments are deleted. If they are, I’ll contact Bob Allen and ask.
Dave A A wrote:
I would love to tell this story. Is it possible? I have heard rumors of something like this happening in our area and am trying to get details.
@ Deb:
On a related note, I believe it is worth mentioning how Mark Dever came to be the pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (CHBC). Here’s a bit of trivia from Andy Naselli’s blog:
http://andynaselli.com/c-j-mahaney-and-matt-schmucker-interview-mark-dever
Also, Carl Henry was a longtime member of CHBC, as this excerpt from a 9Marks post reveals:
http://www.9marks.org/blog/golden-oldies-interview-carl-fh-henry
Carl Henry was very influential in the lives of those who would emerge as Neo-Cal leaders. This movement had obviously been in the works for quite a while before we learned about it. For me it was in September 2006 with that Young, Restless, Reformed article in Christianity Today. And let's not forget that the tome Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was named Book of the Year in 1992 by Christianity Today.
@ Gram3:
You keep writing these comments and I am turning over the blog to you! Great response!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Was it by a troll or a *true believer*?
Divisive™, gossip™, etc.? What, no bitter™? How utterly unoriginal which probably speaks to your former pastor…a ho-hum, unoriginal, 3rd grade bully who thinks he is hot stuff when in reality he is an admiral in a decrepit rowboat.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I worked on the Navajo reservation for 2 years. Mutton stew was always on the wood burning stoves in the hogans since many were sheep herders. One of my prized possession from my days there is a bumper sticker, designed by a Navajo wit that says “Mutton Stew-Breakfast of Champions.”
@ Sopwith:
They will not read. Don’t you know it is gossip™?
Bridget wrote:
Somehow, I don’t believe Paul could have imagined 5,000 denominations with many of them saying they know exactly what Paul meant and all of it contradictory. 🙂
Tim wrote:
I am so excited!!! I guess that you might be a judge. There is something about your picture that screams respectful- stand when he walks into a room! Awesome! Now, about that speeding ticket….:)
Gram3 wrote:
That’s it. The blog is yours!!!! Great comment.
Manley C. Beasley wrote:
Check out my 9 Marks/mark Dever-inspired discipline process. You can hear on tape where the pastor says since Paul skipped involving the congregation, then so would he. The congregation simply agreed to a mass shunning without knowing the “sins” which I had committed. (Doesn’t everyone typically assume adultery?). And by the way, my resignation of membership was denied, even though I had done nothing meriting discipline.
It does happen, far more often than you think, with no recourse for the victimized.
BMK wrote:
Great comment.
The problems arise in some communities when the church members are told to shun the person who leaves. They are often fed a pile of malarkey which is unprovable. Then, some pastors will call places of business to report on the bad behavior of the *disciplined* person. In some areas of the South, that word still holds some sway. They can also call a new church that the person flees to and advise the new pastor that he has *troublemakers.*
So, let’s say you are in a small community. You are now shunned, rumors are spreading, your boss is getting nasty and your new church pastor hauls you into his office to tell you that you are no longer welcome.
That is when the courts can and have, gotten involved.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Great quote. I need to start a quote page.
Mandie wrote:
Good for you. Many people do not watch carefully and are blindsided.
brian wrote:
I would be most cautious in this regard. I have said, over and over again, “The congregation always votes for what the elder/pastors want. It is rare circumstance when they do not.”
After a few decades of experience, I have gone back in my mind to see if I can recall the congregation that did not do what they were told was the *best* option. Why? Most people do not want to be perceived to be a troublemaker-going against the grain.
Unfortunately, I have heard story after story in which people believed they had options, jumped through the hoops and still landed outside the church, bruised and battered.
brian wrote:
I don’t think anyone is saying that. The point is the opposite. The church, behaving badly by ruining a person’s good name, could get sued, have gotten sued and have had to pay out settlements.
brian wrote:
I know far too many Christians who believe this sort of thing. In one instance, a person who left the church got cancer. Although the pastor was too savvy to say anything, most of the members of the church said that God was punishing him.
@ Gavin White:
*Ignorant* and *foolish* is not offering a viewpoint. It is judging another. It was evident to me from his comments that he listened to Dever’s talk, took a talking point, and then proceeded to castigate us showing his own lack of understanding of the topic under discussion.
I do not mind pushback. Goodness knows we get a lot of it. But i weary of those who read one article or hear one sermon and think they are now*experts.*
he is obviously mistake on other points as well. UCCD did say why Wilhelm was added to the infamous care list and had nothing to do with “lack of love.” Said reader did not think it important to actually read the account of what transpired.
And I don’t care if he is John Calvin’s brother. His comment was ill informed and unnecessarily negative.
Gram3 wrote:
You might be interested in this interview with Al Mohler published by Southern Seminary.
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/towers/wistful-for-his-presence-and-grateful-for-his-influence-mohler-talks-about-carl-f-h-henry-and-his-centennial-celebration/
Here is the portion of the interview where Mohler speaks of his conversion from egalitarianism to complementarianism.
@ dee:
And the peace of Merton’s Panentheism leads quietly to oblivion.
dee wrote:
Hmm… it has to rhyme, really. Try this:
Heretics who blog together, clog together.
Gavin White wrote:
He is doing or condoning exactly what he is accusing others here of doing. If he wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to make his point with evidence and without evident hypocrisy. Being related to someone famous doesn’t add weight to his comment. Neither does being well-respected. By whom and why are they respected?
You may have noticed that appeals to authority, which is what that was, are not valued much here.
First, to Mark: If I wanted to join a church with a dictatorial figurehead who had the privilege of inventing sins, I would join the Roman Catholic church. At least they have pretty buildings and a history.
Second, to everyone else: The real issue here is not that someone has an opinion on these matters, it is that Dever et al interprets every other position as essentially sinful. Ridiculous. As in “open to ridicule”. Which I am happy to provide (inside joke with Mark). Also of concern: an almost complete lack of the fruit of the spirit, and nine “marks” of a “healthy” church that do not include anything that was centrally important to the NT authors. I don’t wish any ill on Dever or people like him, but I can’t in good conscience wish them success either.
dee wrote:
As I tell all my friends, I can provide excellent directions to the traffic court.
dee wrote:
Well, children and other small mammals have been known to run screaming when they see me, that’s true.
My Church just instituted Church Discipline and it is scary. They told us if we don’t tithe, attend regular, serve in a ministry, and in a small group then we are no longer members in “good standing”.
I then got a letter in the mail informing me that we are behind on our tithes.
It feels like a debt collection agency!
We have 3 kids and they love this Church and I hate to tell them about this shakedown going on but my nerves are shot!
We are going to start tithing but it will be really tight at our house and I really need everyone’s prayers.
__
“Count It All Joy…” ?
dèé wrote this:
***
🙂
hmmm…
They will not read?
fine.
“Do as thou wilt.”
-snicker-
We will read, we will pray, we will seek God’s face, and with His Spirit’s assistance, we, citizens of heaven, will expose the darkness.
Yep.
Kind folk understand compassion when they experience it; they understand that religious leadership that is ‘forced’, is no leadership at all.
…the greatest among you shall be your servant?
huh?
…on a clear ‘day’, you can see the Heavens open, and the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God, –that is when He is not ‘here’ visiting His precious little ones!
“…when two or more are gathered__________.”
<3 cuz He duz,
(grin)
Sopy
__
Comic relief: Mindaugas Piecaitis, CATcerto – "Nora,The Piano Cat"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeoT66v4EHg
🙂
—
Forget the contracts … my wife and I have already talked about how we WILL NOT become members of our current church. We really like the church, the pastor, the missions they support, but we won’t become members. We attend, we give, we get involved. I don’t see a biblical reason to formalize my relationship with them. Never again.
Somewhereintime wrote:
I am with you. Unfortunately, there are some “oh so biblical™ churches” who are now forcing people to join or leave. It’s the gospel,™ you know. Me- exit, stage left.
dee wrote:
“O GREAT CHEMOSH! O GREAT BAAL! SEND DEATH AND DESTRUCTION DOWN UPON THESE MY ENEMIES!”
— Imprecatory Prayer from some Fifties Cecil B DeMille Bible Epic
Papa Chuck Smith, Pope of Calvary Chapel, used to do that a lot.
Ex Cathedra.
Funny how they made an exception when the ManaGAWD himself was diagnosed.
And then there was the story of some pastor convicted of embezzling church funds who at his sentencing statement made a long prayer for God to smite the judge, jury, prosecution, and all his enemies with cancer and murder.
Tammy Jones wrote:
Get out of there and tell the kids they will get over it. Kids are resilient. Tell them what the church wants you to do and why you disagree with them. They will learn an important life lesson about churches.
Gavin White wrote:
I have no idea what this means. Can you do a Merton’s Panentheism for Dummies?
Tammy Jones wrote:
I understand this concern from first-hand experience. I’m not saying what you should or should not do. But another thing to consider is what you can teach your children by leaving this abusive church. You can teach them to value the teaching of Jesus and the Bible more than the teaching of a man or men. You can teach them that standing for what is right and true carries a cost, maybe friends or your “good” name, but standing for the truth is better. You can teach them that you will be with them regardless of whether their friends abandon them. You can teach them what real Christian love looks like and what it doesn’t look like. Those are just a few off the top of my head that we have had to teach and learn ourselves.
I will pray for wisdom for you and that the Holy Spirit will make his strength and presence known to you during the situations you will face regardless of your decision to go or stay.
Gram3 wrote:
PREACH
Thanks, Dee, for the welcome to your site! I am learning a lot. I can’t imagine the things that are going on in Baptist churches. I’ve been a life-long Baptist (for 80 years) and have never been asked to sign any sort of covenant, contract of membership, or the like. Not able to peaceably leave a church? Can’t believe it. IMO, churches have a more important mission than to check on members’ activities. Where is trust and confidence that we should be having in the individual’s spiritual guidance? Our church tries to minister to the “least of these,” and has no time for surveillance of its members. What a waste of time!
__
“The Power Of God’s Love?”
hmmm…
You’ll need a credit card to ride Mark Dever’s 501(c)3 proverbial religious not-for-profit ‘Cho-Cho’.
What?
SKreeeeeeeeeeetch !
(bump)
figures.
“…come unto Me all you that are heavy laden, and I shall give you rest.” – Jesus
huh?
…silver and gold, I have none, but ‘In The Name Of Jesus’, kind folk, walk?
(smiley face goes here)
Sopy
__
Comic relief: Huey Lewis and the News – “Power of Love”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkgYhtz64U
🙂
—
Tammy Jones wrote:
Tammy, we have never met and I don’t know anything about this congregation beyond what you’ve told me. Nor do you know whether anything I tell you is trustworthy, and I can’t prove from here that it is. So I may as well just come straight to the point.
I’m not saying prayer is useless or that I won’t pray for you. But what you really need is not, first and foremost, everyone’s prayers. If you’ve made a decision against your own faith and conscience – if you don’t believe it really is God who is demanding that you pay your “church tax” – then all the prayer in the world can’t replace reversing that decision.
It is not a question of what men there tell you the Bible “says”, or of what I or any of us here tell you the Bible “says”. Actually, it doesn’t “say” anything because it’s a book and it can’t talk. (The Bible has thousands of verses in it, and with a bit of imagination, it can be made to “say” practically anything.) It’s a question of what the Holy Spirit, who is God in Person, and who wrote and owns the Bible, is telling you from it.
@ Tammy Jones:
Listen to Nick Tammy, he speaks sound and wise counsel.
Correction on above: Where ARE trust and confidence!
@ Tammy Jones:
For God’s sake don’t tithe! It’s not biblical! Churches like that are not interested in you, only in your money and your labor. It’s hard, but look for a real Christian church.
Tim wrote:
Hey, in the interests of full disclosure, I teach in a business school at a U.S. state university, teach biz/corp law to undergrad and grad biz students, not true law students. My uni doesn’t have a law school. Just so you know I’m not one of those Order of the Coif summa/magna folks like the law profs and you judges. Just an average guy. But I do like to take gratuitous swipes at judicial rulings and second guess people like you in my scholarship. Kind of goes with the territory. But since it’s not like I’m publishing in Harvard Law Review or anything august like that, you probably don’t have to look over the shoulder!
Gram3 wrote:
In my experience, you are absolutely right. Mohler and Patterson make a big show of “look how well we get along as a calvinist and an armininian! We even swap chapel pulpits!” I think it means they have agreed to share power as long as they both toe the male-authority power line. They are willing to share power and money with a “theological enemy” in order to keep control of the Convention money and political power.
Tammy Jones wrote:
Tammy, I wrote on the legalistic nature of tithing and other practices. It might help you deal with what that church is putting you through. I hope you and the family weather it well.
Tammy Jones wrote:
Let me tell you this from experience: you will not protect your kids by staying there. It will not end with debt collection letters. If they are brazen enough to do that, they will stand over your kids and judge and harass them. They may even hurt them physically without fearing your reaction. If they can force you to hand over money, there is nothing they won’t try.
@ Tammy Jones:
That is horrible. I would quit IMMEDIATELY. Paul instructed the church that all people are to give cheerfully, not grudgingly or out of necessity. Your “leaders” are disobeying in this matter, and sinning against the church of Christ. False shepherds.
@ Tammy Jones:
In my ever to be humble opinion, it's time to say Bye-Bye!
On a related note, my daughter had been attending a Neo-Cal church while she was in college, and she apparently pledged some amount during that time. I am fairly certain she never became a member of the church.
She and her husband have been going to another church for the last two years. My daughter recently received correspondence out of the blue from her former church inquiring whether she was all right because she had not yet fulfilled her pledge. She was perturbed because church leaders obviously have not missed her until now. Again, she hasn't attended church there for two years! 🙁
Deb wrote:
i.e. until they needed her MONEY.
Tammy Jones wrote:
Are they going to send God over to break your legs or something?
Tammy Jones wrote:
Tammy,
Can I ask what denomination? Or is it non-denomination?
And like the people above….get out!
@ Tammy Jones:
Tammy
I agree with JeffT…
“For God’s sake don’t tithe! It’s not biblical!”
That might sound strange when you first hear it – I did to me…
Having been commanded to Tithe by so many pastors who said is was biblical.
And if I did NOT Tithe, give them 10% of my income, salary, then I was under a curse from God.
And used the Scriptures to prove it. Over and Over again. Oy Vey!!! 🙁
But one day I do my own research. And found out it was ALL Lies. 🙁
A Tithe means 10% – a tenth – That’s all it means.
Tithe – strongs #6237 aw-sar
KJV – tithe 4, take..tenth 2, give tenth 1, surly 1, truly 1; 9
Thayers 1) to tithe, take the tenth part of, give a tithe, take a tithe
1a) (Qal) to tithe – 1b) (Piel) to give a tithe – 1c) (Hiphil) to take a tithe
And, In the Bible, the Tithe was NEVER – Silver, Gold, or Money.
The Tithe was always food to be eaten and/or sacrificed to God by fire.
When was the last time you saw a Benjamen, $50, burnt on the alter. 😉
Under the law in the OT the tithe was always food; seed, fruit or animals. Never Money.
Leviticus 27:30-34
And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land,
or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S:[it is holy unto the LORD…
32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever
passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD…
34 These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel.
In the Bible, Silver, Gold, and Money was NEVER – The Tithe – Except once.
The story is in Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7.
A group of kings kidnapped Lot and stole his property.
Abraham, Lot’s uncle, took his servants and slaughtered the Kings and took the spoils of war.
Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, gave a tenth of the spoils to Melchisedec.
So Abraham, gave a tenth, only once, from the spoils of war, after slaughtering some Kings.
Hebrews 7:1
For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all;…
4 … unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
To Tithe ONCE, from spoils of war, after the slaughter of the kings – biblical. 😉
To Tithe WEEKLY, money, from income, salary – NOT biblical.
What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.
@ Tammy Jones:
Tammy
Also – There are as many as four different “Tithes” mentioned in the Bible, in the OT.
There is even a Tithe for you and your family to consume – Yup – Really cool. 😉
That YOU may learn to fear the LORD thy God always. (Fear = revere, stand in awe.)
And YOU shalt rejoice, You, and YOUR household, (You and YOUR family are to *celebrate*)
Deuteronomy 14:22-26
Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, (Seed – NOT money.)
that the field bringeth forth year by year.
23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, (Yup – You’re gonna to eat YOUR Tithe.)
in the place which he shall choose to place his name there,
the tithe of YOUR corn, of YOUR wine, and of YOUR oil,
and the firstlings of YOUR herds and of YOUR flocks;
that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it;
or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose
to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand,
and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
26 And thou shalt bestow that money
for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, (WOW – Whatsoever YOUR soul lusteth after.)
for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, (WOW – Srong Drink)
or for whatsoever thy soul desireth:
and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God,
and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
When was the last time you were told the Tithe is for you and your family?
I do NOT think you will ever hear these verses “Preached from The Pulpit.” 😉
Just tell them “Tithe guys,” “Church Discipline guys,” you do Tithe…
According to the Bible – Acoording to Deuteronomy 14:22-26…
And The Tithe is for you and YOUR family… 😉
And have some fun… 😉
@ Tammy Jones:
Tammy
In the Bible, OT, and NT, Giving seems to be an issue of the heart.
Aren’t believers, sons of God,, to be led by the Spirit?
2 Corinthians 9:7
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give;
Exodus 25:2
Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering:
of every man that **giveth it willingly with his heart** ye shall take my offering.
willingly – 05068 nadab {naw-dab’ AV – offered willingly 6, willingly offered 5;
Strongs – to volunteer ( as a soldier ), offer freely. ( Jesus came to set us free )
Exodus 35:5
Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD:
**whosoever is of a willing heart,** let him bring it,
an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass,…
21 And they came, every one **whose heart stirred him up,**
and every one whom **his spirit made willing,**
and they brought the LORD’S offering to the work of the tabernacle…
22 And they came, both men and women, **as many as were willing hearted,** …
1Chronicles 29:9
Then the people rejoiced, for that **they offered willingly,**
because with **perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD:**
and David the king also rejoiced with great joy.
Best I can figure – God loves a cheeful giver… 😉
Jer 50:6
“My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
**THEIR shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*
1 Pet 2:25
For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
Deb wrote:
I think that letter shows they missed her money, not her person.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I snorted so loud at that my wife asked me if I was choking.
Tim wrote:
The American Church…..” capitalism” driven….even though they “sell” not one thing….
Tammy Jones wrote:
I beg you to reconsider. Your church is descending into legalism, and it will likely continue to get worse.
I know it’s hard to leave. (I stayed in my former cult 23 years, which was about 22 years too long. It took a crisis of epic proportions to pry us out of there.) You don’t want your kids to grow up with a view of a god that is never satisfied with your sacrifice, only loves you as much as the money you contribute, and is waiting to knock you upside the head for missing a service. It’s amazing what kids can pick up on.
I know you’re in a difficult position. Praying for you.
@ Gram3:
Sorry I hadn’t noticed that. I’ve always thought this place to be the acme of acuity and the epitome of civility.
Hello everyone, my name is Mike and I have been reading TWW for some time now, but this is my first time posting. I just want to say that I appreciate the work that Dee & Deb are doing in bringing to light the unhealthy things going on in many of these churches, and I also appreciate each of those that comment and share their experiences & encouragements with everyone.
I just wanted to comment on the talks from this recent conference at SEBTS, which I did not know about until this post. I listened to Jonathan Leeman’s talk on membership, which was the one before Dever’s. I must say that I had a hard time getting through it, and was quite disturbed by some of the points he was emphatic on, namely that if you are not regularly attending and submitting to a local church, you are in outright sin. I then listened to the panel discussion following his talk and was somewhat surprised at Thabiti Anyabwile’s comment about authoritarian church structures, and was also surprised by the discussion following his comment. I was surprised that some on the panel affirmed that authoritarian/heavy handed leadership is not good, but it makes me question the true heart behind them affirming this.
Either way, I would recommend some of you to listen to Leeman’s talk and the panel discussion following it (the vids are on the same link that Dee provided in the post). It all is quite interesting. I’d love to hear some of your thoughts on it. I plan to listen to more of the talks to really see in depth what these guys believe about membership, and more so mainly for my own education to be informed of what is on the horizon of many of these churches.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Wow…excellent post….kids do know….
Gavin White wrote:
Please say what you mean straightforwardly. You’ve posted two comments which are oblique, at least to me. I doubt that you have failed to notice appeals to authority don’t work here
dee wrote:
Sorry Dee. I’ve no idea what I’m talking about either. One minute I was walking along the street, just an ordinary chap, the next I’d read Michael Horton’s ” The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way” and started quoting things like “In varying degrees of explicit dependence, panentheism is the working ontology of process theology and the theologies of Teilhard de Chardin, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and Jürgen Moltmann among many others, especially those working at the intersection of theology and the philosophy of science. Some panentheists envision the world as the body of God.”
If anyone knows what it means, answers on a postcard to Hug or Nick.
@ Gram3:
I wasn’t appealing to authority. I was wondering why you should suggest he might be a troll or anything else because he doesn’t agree with you. He expressed a contrary opinion that’s all.
Mike wrote:
Welcome to TWW!
You are gonna love today’s post that is now up. I dedicate it to you!
Congrats to Albuquerque Blue for being the first to recognize the resignation of Driscoll. We will write more tomorrow.
__
Dear Member,
…We are so delighted that you have come forward to receive Christ. And since you have also honored us with you membership commitment as well, we are happy to inform you that ten percent of your gross weekly salary is ‘now’ due; -would that be Visa or Mastercard, or check debit card? 🙂
Thank-you for your dedicated 501(c)3 compulsionary committed service!
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
—
__
The pattern of ‘giving’ in the nt is abundant love from a willing heart, not a demand for compulsionary hoary service, –that is a dastardly distortion of scriptural intent, -that distortion which is now firmly sanctioned by the present 501(c)3 not-for-profit religious establishment.
@ A. Amos Love
@ A. Amos Love
🙂
Sopy
—
dee wrote:
Thank you Dee! I am looking forward to reading it! 🙂
@ Mike:
Welcome Mike! So glad you chimed in. I have only heard Dever’s message via the internet, and I look forward to listening to Jonathan Leeman’s talk.
FYI, I used to be affirming of SEBTS. I guess it was six or seven years ago that I was driving out to the seminary to hear chapel speakers on a regular basis (meaning once every week or two).
Dee and I served together on the community panel of The News and Observer (our local newspaper), and I recall how one of the reporters went after Danny Akin in an article. We were upset about it and took two editors of the N&O to task by staunchly defending Dr. Akin at one of our monthly meetings.
I am terribly disappointed in the direction the seminary has taken.
Gavin White wrote:
It brings to mind a variety of warm, meditative emotions; closely allied to the sentimental and, therefore, self-conscious; but saved, at least in its nobler manifestations, by a genuinely childlike simplicity.
(For those interested, the above sheep of height was stolen from a musicologist’s description of Schumann’s music. It was read to us by Mr Brooks, my O-level music teacher, and I’ve never forgotten it. Other things I’ve heard once and never forgotten include the important number 2.99792458 x 10^8.)
(I hope this is helpful.)
Carl Henry had moved to Wisconsin in 1992, yet his obituary (2003) reports his church membership still being with “Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.”
Owen Strachan confirms:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2013/01/history-cage-match-did-carl-henry-or-harold-ockenga-invent-evangelicalism/
“I look up to Carl Henry, and was once a member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church when he was a watchcare member living in Wisconsin. . . .Since the days when we were church members together (this is how I choose to view it), he’s gone on to his reward.”
How does this situation fit in with Dever’s pontifications about meaningful church membership, regular attendance, etc. or the CHBC contract which states:
“We will, when we move from this place, as soon as possible, unite with some other church where we can carry out the spirit of this covenant and the principles of God’s Word”
Jerome wrote:
Excellent! Thanks for your astute observation.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, If you added m/s following the number I’d know what yo were referring to 🙂
Gavin White wrote:
I have to agree that Measley Weasley-Beasely doesn’t fit the profile of a troll. To qualify for trolldom, a commenter must have a transparently obvious aim to cause offence and provoke a reaction. In other words, trolls crave attention. The troll will always come back at least once to wallow in his/her own effluvia. Weasley-Beasely hasn’t been back.
That doesn’t necessarily mean I admire Weasley-Beasely’s contribution. I’m sticking with “bungee-bomber” – someone who bounces in, announces och aye, yeez are a’ pure sh**e so ye are and disappears as though retracted by an elastic rope, never to be heard from again.
@ oldJohnJ:
I deliberately left off the SI units, because I knew that anybody who recognised the number would do so with or without them!
@ nick Bulbeck:
P.S. Besides, having called it a “number” rather than a “velocity” or even just a “quantity”, I felt obliged to leave it dimensionless.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Per your previous taxonomy, I tend to agree. However, there is that nagging thought in the back of my mind that he might have been spoofing. I’m thinking if I wanted to make a position look absolutely ridiculous, I might spoof a True Believer which, in this case might look something like Beasley. I also keep thinking about what Mrs. Beasley would have said (that may not translate from American pop culture of a past era) which probably would have made as much sense.
Effluvia. Must think of a way to use that in the future.
Gavin White wrote:
When you imply that Beasley’s comment was serious because he/she is related to an evangelist, you are using said evangelist to bolster Beasley’s credibility. That is an appeal to authority.
I did not specify whether Beasley was a troll. I left open other options, such as spoofing a True Believer by making a position appear ridiculous. I think that is at least a plausible explanation for his comment. Several here have left comments and provided opportunities for him/her to produce and argument with evidence rather than assertion.
If Beasley comes back with a substantive response to any of the replies here, I will be pleasantly surprised. Engaging with opposing opinions is not a problem for me, but I’m a little ticky about reasoning and single standards and such.
Jerome wrote:
If I understand it correctly, a temporary arrangement (“watchcare” as it is called here) is sufficient to meet the requirement. What constitutes “temporary” is another matter. Legalism always comes down to this kind of thing.
@ Deb:
Thank you Deb! I appreciate your warm welcome, and I am glad to contribute
That is quite interesting to hear about your past experiences with SEBTS. I wasn’t too familiar with the seminary up until this point, but I am finding myself now doing a lot of researching and connecting the dots of the many things going on.
I am somewhat similar in that just a few years ago, I was affirming of all of these celebrity pastors and heavy into the reformed community. After being involved with a neo-Cal type church a few years ago, then leaving, my eyes have been widely opened to the reality of what is going on. To reiterate my first post, that is why I am so thankful for blogs like this and others that shine a light on these things and bring encouragement to those that have been hurt by church likes this.
@ Daisy:
In the last year, MacDonald has made 2 smart moves which would have greatly benefitted Fiscal, had he made them. 1: He announced that he was taking a 20% pay cut. For all I know, he’s since received a 30% raise, but it made for good PR. 2: He un-shunned several ex-elders and admitted that mistakes were made. For all I know, he still failed to listen to any of their original concerns– but it made for great PR!
@ Gram3:
Trump on the BOAA? He could become PASTOR Trump just for the occasion! When he resigned, he could immediately transition back to Billionaire Trump, and remove Mars Hill from his resume.
dee wrote:
You have told the story– extensively. It’s Mar(k)s Hill. Unless I misunderstand the details you’re after! My point was that it was a really big deal for MH to leave A29, but someone– either MH or 9M quietly removed them for the 9M list only after Fiscal went on sabbatical.
Dave A A wrote:
I don’t think Trump would take the job. Cashflows are going way down south, apparently, and not expected to recover. Not even Trump could sweeten them enough for the Mars Hill bankers who may well be popping Nexium and Valium right about now.
Driscoll has resigned, but there was no dead girl or live boy (thank you, Fast Edwin Edwards!), so he’s not disqualified. Well, that’s a relief! He has a problematic leadership style, so no harm, folks. He must have caught it from C.J.
Gram3 wrote:
I expect he’ll be called to plant a small church in Orange County, so he can be near Rick Warren….
Dave A A wrote:
That would follow the his mentor Wayne Grudem’s precedent. Did you know that Grudem gave up the lovely snowy white and breezy Chicago winters to move to Phoenix for the sake of his wife’s health? Who else but a loving servant leader would make such a sacrifice! People are moving to Chicago from Phoenix all the time to escape the oppressive sunshine.
But back on-topic, I’m not sure that he can just up and resign his membership like that. Has anyone checked with 9Marks to see if they issued an indulgence for him or is he covered by some blanket exemption because he teaches their brand of gendered gospel? This is so confusing…
DaveAA
I am losing it. I thought you were talking about a new story!!! I need a break.
Gram3 wrote:
Yep! 😆
And Grudem started out at Bethel in Minneapolis.
Gram3 wrote:
I, too. So much so that, if I am drinking kwafi at the time, it is likely to become (however transiently) effluvia.
I’m not sure about the spoofist theory. It’s certainly a spoofing sort of name (sounds like a character from the Goon Show – possibly an old school friend of Hercules Grytpype-Thynne). But crucial words/phrases like “hate”, “poison”, “sick”, and generic references to all of “the commenters” were missing.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Some of Gramp3’s people are from Islay, and I hear that their local specialty beverage is pretty good. Kwafi is only available in some parts of the NE USA. How did it get all the way over there?
@ dee:
Tried again, showed as ‘pending’ for a few minutes and then nothing, so apparently deleted. Pasted below. Maybe it was too long. 🙂
I find Mr. Dever’s remarks both disturbing and deeply unscriptural. Mr. Dever should remind himself that Jesus’ instruction was “Feed my sheep”, not “Blame my sheep” or “Punish my sheep”. Has it occurred to Mr. Dever that people might be ‘uninvolved’ due to serious needs in their life for which they need a kind shepherd’s assistance? Or maybe because they have been hurt by authoritarian leaders who ‘lord it over the flock’ in violation of Peter 5:20? Perhaps they feel deeply uncomfortable with being asked to sign a legal contract in order to become a church member. Or they could have heard of how the renewed practice of church discipline has been used to abuse church members. No, to Mr. Dever uninvolved members are all, automatically, in sin. Require, require, require, his suggestions say…even though his requirements are mostly extra-biblical, and his own 9Marks organization notes that “dogmatic prescriptions in places where Scripture is silent” are a characteristic of abusive churches and leaders. Most troubling is that in Mr. Dever’s analysis, the pastor himself is assumed to be blameless, even though James 3:1 lays the greater accountability for the church squarely at his feet.
So as a corrective to Mr. Dever’s remarks, here are my 12 suggestions to the pastor and staff of a church where members are ‘uninvolved’, “kind of a 12-step recovery plan for pastors to regain (the meaning of) membership in your church.”
1. Engage in a time of fasting and prayer to seek God’s face as to why even people who have an affiliation with your church don’t want to be involved with it. That speaks pretty poorly of your leadership. Acknowledge this, and deal with it humbly and scripturally.
2. As part of that examination, consider whether you and each church leader have faithfully complied with the requirements of I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 and I Peter 5:20 in your dealings with the flock. Have you been gentle? Are you hospitable toward your members, hosting them in your own home, or do you hold them at a distance? Have you been quarrelsome? Acted in anger? Showed a lack of self-control? Focused on money? Not practiced what you preach? Lorded it over the flock? Repent, reconcile, and repeat as long as necessary. It ought to take a while. If it doesn’t, go back to #1.
3. Commit to personally visiting each ‘uninvolved’ member to determine their needs and minister to them. The goal of this should be demonstrate the love of Jesus and the heart of a shepherd to them without thought of return, not to “get them back in church.”
4. Humbly ask each of these ‘uninvolved’ members if they have been offended in some way by you, your staff, or the church, or if they have been neglected as a sheep of the flock. Respond with sincere repentance and reconciliation. Produce clear and demonstrable ‘fruits of repentance’, according to Matthew 3:8. Adjust church procedures and programs to respond to their needs as necessary.
5. Preach the true gospel: Christ crucified. Preach nothing else during your time of prayer and self-examination. Newsflash to Mr. Dever: “Make it clear that people who don’t give themselves in loving commitment to each other have no reason to think that they have given themselves in loving commitment to God” IS. NOT. THE. GOSPEL.
6. Drop the unscriptural idea that membership has anything to do with a legal contract. The fact that you call it a ‘covenant’ doesn’t fool anyone, it just makes you look deceptive. There is absolutely no Bblical precedence for signing a legal document in order to join a church. Signing unnecessary legal documents of any kind is foolish, and members are wise to avoid doing so. Even to unsavvy churchgoers, these don’t pass the smell test. To the professional and educated members you court (who know a thing or two about what it means to sign their name), it’s obvious that your contracts anticipate that the church will act in such a way as to be in danger of legal action. Who wants to be at a church that anticipates that? If you really think God will bless this unscriptural practice, anticipate that your church will continue to have a lot of uninvolved members.
7. Honor the royal priesthood of the believer (I Peter 2:5-9) and the freedom individual believers have in Christ. “Somehow the congregation needs to be taught that it must act to admit someone into membership, and that apart from death it must act to release someone from church membership”. Church membership until death? Where is that in the Bible? Honor the role of the Holy Spirit in each believer, including his ability to lead them to different churches at different times in their life and personal ministry for any number of reasons, none of which they are obligated to share with the church and/or its leaders. Mr. Dever’s statement exalts his own rule above the rule of the Holy Spirit in the life of an individual believer.
8. Realize that there is no church without the sheep. Dever’s words drip with the paradigm that the church is of, by and for the pastor. He has lots of rights to make all kinds of demands, and the sheep have only responsibilities with which to comply, and blame and punishment if they don’t. And he’s surprised that members are ‘uninvolved’? Pastors come and go. It’s the flock that counts. That’s why Jesus said to feed it.
9. Involve the membership in church governance and accountability of the leadership. It’s great to realize that there should be privileges associated with membership, as Mr. Dever says, to “limit some activities, events and areas of service to just members”. Traditionally in Baptist churches, that has been the privilege of the members to vote on the leadership and the policies and expenditures of the church. Don’t expect the membership to be engaged just because you let them go to a special small group (woohoo!) if you refuse to make the policies and governance of the church accessible to them.
10. Stop talking so much about discipline. Why is it surprising that the sheep would stay away from a place where there is a lot of threatening, belligerent talk? And they can look around and see that there is no protection against unjust chastisement from those threatening leaders? Yes, we know that church discipline is in the Bible. But there are far MORE verses outlining the requirements for pastoral conduct, and you don’t have nearly so much to say about those. We also read the internet, and we know how pastors (including those in your 9Marks network) are using church discipline abusively, to stifle dissent and get rid of church members who disagree with them. What are you doing to protect the sheep instead of protect the pastors, Mr. Dever?
11. Instead, commit to being a church so indwelled by the Holy Spirit that someone in habitual sin would fall under heavy conviction and reproof from God himself. If you feel such a need for discipline, Mr. Dever, then perhaps your church has the gospel preached in word only, but not “in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction”, as in I Thessalonians 1:5. Maybe the Holy Spirit, who convicts “of sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8) doesn’t have free reign in your congregation, And that’s YOUR responsibility. If someone in habitual sin is able to be in a church without falling under heavy conviction that leads them to either repent or to leave of their own accord, it says much more about the lack in the leadership than about some lack in the sheep to be addressed by ever-increasing membership requirements.
12. Commit to being a church so indwelled by the Holy Spirit that people can’t stay away, because they don’t want to miss out on what God is doing. Nobody. missed. church. in Acts. Be a church like that, and you won’t have to worry about ‘tolerated non-involvement’.
@ rike:
rike,
Amen and amen. Very well articulated – thank you!
@ rike:
Wow. And Amen!
Thought this book is apropros to the discussion that some might benefit from: http://www.tillhecomes.org/new-finding-church/
Wayne Jacobsen is a good guy and has lots of worthwhile thoughts and perspective to consider, especially since he’s been through/seen most of what folks around here have.
@ Gram3:
No I am not. Please stop trying to “interpret” what I wrote to justify your unwarranted,imo, remarks as to Beasley’s intentions and motives.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Name calling and appalling Scottish accents! Whatever next?
@ rike:
I would respectfully observe that there is far more to the True Gospel than the Crucifixion: there is the Resurrection (which is actually more important from an Eastern perspective), and of course the Incarnation, the Epiphany, the Transfiguration, the Eucharist, the Seven Signs of John’s Gospel, the ministry of the Synoptics, the miracle of the virgin birth as explored in depth in Luke p, the ministry of John the Baptist, et cetera. I think part of the reason why people like Dever fall into heresy is the tendency of Western Christians to focus on the passion and death of our Lord, more than his life or His resurrection, and also the ministry of His apostles. I think it’s most important that churches use a lectionary, even the flawed Revised Common Lectionary, to force the pastor to preach on the entirety of the Gospel vs just narrowly focusing on a few select passages. I believe 9Marks favors Calvary Chapel style cover to cover expositional preaching, which is problematic in that you don’t get the interplay between the multiple lessons read in the traditional lectionaries, and on most Sundays you don’t even hear the Gospel.
Lastly, one might note that there Gospel of Peter, which the early church rejected as Gnostic or Docetic, focuses entirely on the death of Jesus and not on his ministry or resurrection , at least in the surviving fragment of it. At that, it provides an incredibly detailed account of the crucifixion, but a surprising lack of spiritual nourishment, for me at least. Although it does have some definite funkiness, like the cross floating around on its own and talking (!). I am not entirely unconvinced after reading it and some of the other Gnostic texts that LSD, like concrete, was actually discovered by the Romans and then lost to history. :p
Tammy Jones wrote:
Tammy, You might want to consider that giving your hard earned money to these guys would be like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Not a good idea.
My guess would be that saving it for your kids future would be a better bet.
@ Gavin White:
Hmm… sounded OK to me, so I’m not sure what went wrong. The best suggestion I can think of would be that you read it again in a better Scottish accent.
I hope this is helpful.
@ Gavin White:
OK, Gavin. We’ll let the record speak for itself. It’s about different standards for the privileged and the non-privileged.
Gram3 wrote:
I am with you on this one. Beasley showed up, used typical tactics of intimidation (I am foolish and ignorant), showed no concern for SGM victims, and did a mind reading of UCCD’s treatment on Todd Wilhelm, saying he was punched for his “lack of love” which is downright ridiculous. He has not returned to answer questions or dialog which means his comment was a hit and run.
My opinion of his comment: ho hum, fanboy rhetoric devoid of any substantive backup. On this blog, we link and link and link. Men like Beasley do not link and instead make fatuous claims. They do everything that they wrongly accuse us of doing.
William G. wrote:
William, this is OT to the thread, but I have to tell you that you are the first person (other than myslef) who has experienced this kind of thing, & attributed it to heresy in the Powers That Be. UMC that I am, I actually choked on communion in an IFB church, & recognized that I was experiencing this phenomonen.
OK, back to our Regularly Scheduled Thread.
William G. wrote:
Oh, for a time machine.
I mean, seriously, where is H G Wells when you need him??
dee wrote:
Authoritarian math says double standards are twice as good as single standards. Beasley obviously favors the authoritarian position, or at least worships his heroes who are authoritarian.
OK, Gavin, over to you.
Tammy Jones wrote:
Oh, honey. Get yourselves out while the getting is good. Enforced “tithing” is a sign of great spiritual unhealth, & likely a warning of worse stuff to come.
You have my prayers, to be sure, but please, please, don’t hang around for the worse. Please.
dee wrote:
Panentheism= God is in all things. (As opposed to pantheism, which = God IS all things).
[This is definitely the ;-)”for Dummies” version, because that’s all I know to say.]
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
My first reaction was “Harry Potter!”
Would the CHBC covenant be binding on those who entered into the contract as minors?
That might explain Dever and his elders’ pronouncement that baptism [and thus CHBC membership] should be postponed until adulthood is reached:
http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/we-equip/children/baptism-of-children/
“The kind of maturity that we feel it is wise to expect is the maturity which would allow that son or daughter to deal directly with the church as a whole, and not, fundamentally, to be under their parents’ authority. As they assume adult responsibilities (sometime in late high school with driving, employment, non-Christian friends, voting, legality of marriage), then part of this, we would think, would be to declare publicly their allegiance to Christ by baptism.”
Jerome wrote:
I am shaking my head. If anything represents American cultural standards substituting for the faith, this does. Mary was @14 years of age at Jesus’ birth. In our culture she couldn’t drive. So, I guess she is not eligible for a Mark Dever style baptism.
This is not in the Bible. He is making it up.
@ William G.
__
William, Ahem! Why are you bringing the controversial division of your proverbial ‘wafer madness’ to Wartburg Watch? Respectfully, what purpose does it serve it’s (TWW) identified core mission?
—> please, respectfully, get it through your widdle head dat no faith is required ‘Here’. words like Heretic, Excommunicate, mean little here other that words that have been used to ‘abuse’ others.
R U bringing ‘abuse’ to Wartburg Watch?
🙁
—
@ William G.:
I’m not in disagreement with you, William. My goal was to set up a very obvious contrast with Dever’s statement, so it was necessarily simplistic.
Wanted to make sure Todd Wilhelm attended another 9Marks church. . . . . . Cackling hysterically. . .
@ Manley C. Beasley:
Are you Manley Beasley’s son? I knew your father, and it makes me disappointed in your remarks here. They don’t reflect his heart toward the sheep, or his acknowledgement that revival needed to begin in the heart of the pastor.
@ elizabetta carrera:
9Marks approved™ church. According to one man, a member who contacted me to help me make sense of this, the church *studies* the possible church and then makes a judgement on whether it is fit church. Then they graciously *allow* the former member to go there. This should help you to continue to cackle.
Please, please Mr. Mark, can I attend this church?
dee wrote:
I do like the phrase “hit and run” as well as Nick’s “bungee bomber”. I think Mr Beasley, like most bungee bombers, is a real person– unlike Poes, Trolls, and other such Internet creatures. Speaking of trolls, I just HAVE to quote this one from the Driscoll Transition thread on Throckmorton yesterday.
“He resigns and yet it does not satisfy the yearning of your sin infested souls…No doubt some of you would not be satisfied were he to go out and hang himself. You are all sick and pathetic.
May God have mercy upon each and every one of you.”
Notice the omniscience as it knows the yearning and infestation of blogger’s and commenter’s souls. Notice the sweeping condemnation of “all” and “each and every one of you” (which likely includes me as a reader, as well).
I’ve noticed some trolls take advantage of the vagueness of our English pronoun “you”. A comment (not linked to any individual) will begin “You (sweeping accusations).” No one can tell if it’s referring to the author of the OP, a certain commenter, some combination, or all of the above!
Jerome wrote:
So, again it comes down to the issue of authority, which seems to be the grid through which everything must pass.
The wacky Gothard concept of spiritual covering appears again in a slightly different form.
What about the harm to a young person who is denied communion and baptism though they have declared they are disciples? Why are they constrained by this extra-biblical, and I would argue, non-biblical rule?
Gram3 wrote:
Local SBC mega is doing something about the opposite. Nobody walks down the aisle and shakes the preacher’s hand anymore. There is no “sinners prayer” or statement of faith or anything like that. Little kids are sent a letter when they are in the second grade asking them if they want to be baptized and join the church. If so, the kid goes to two class sessions on two sunday afternoons, along with parent(s) and fills out the workbook. Then they take the workbook back in to the the children’s minister (children’s director if such is female) and a date for the baptism is arranged. The kid has to say “yes sir/ma’am” to the appropriate questions and there you go. That’s it. There is no later confirmation class as a teen since there is no confirmation, of course. It is kind of like the old idea of smallpox vaccination, except with that if there was no “take” the vaccination would be repeated until there was. This is a one shot deal, unless you got baptized in the wrong kind of church at which point you did not actually get baptized so they will be glad to do it for you, free of charge.
But only, I guess, if everybody concerned believes in eternal security. So, got the doctrine, got the procedure, and at the same time lost all rights to criticize anybody else about their procedures, I am thinking.
rike wrote:
Good stuff. I just wanted to emphasize the importance of Christ in His fullness; I feel its a lack of appreciation for the loving message of Christ, his promise of resurrection to those who believe in him, and his own glorious triumph over death, that leads to the legalistic, punitive, and in my opinion, heretical, nature, of 9Marks churches. The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. I salute you for your efforts, and I wanted to just build on your statement basically.
Speaking of heresy:
Sopwith wrote:
While it is true that in ecclesial mudslinging, rivals will accuse each other, usually falsely, of heresy, heresy is real and there is a real tangible link between heresy and church abuse.
If one studies the history of the church, one will notice a consistent pattern whereby those groups who are now considered heretical by orthodox Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians (that is to say, the vast majority), in their heydey employed violence to attempt to impose their heretical false dogma on the faithful.
The most extreme cases of this in ancient times were the Arians, Monothelites and the Iconoclasts. In both cases, the heretics first won the support of the Byzantine Emperor, starting with Constantinus, the successor of COnstantine in the East, and then used Imperial power to violently persecute those Christians who refused to accept the Orthodox doctrine. Non-Arian bishops were exiled or martyred; many Egyptian Christians were killed in an unsuccessful attempt to arrest St Athanasius. Athanasius himself spent most of his life in exile. Maximus the Confessor had his tongue cut out, and died shortly thereafter, for refusing to recant his belief in monothelitism. In the iconoclast heresy, icons were seized and destroyed, and those who attempted to protect them, such as the monks at the Studios monastery in Constantinople, subjected to horrible persecution. Ultimately, all of these heresies failed, although the heretics themselves were usually treated leniently. It should be noted that when Emperor Theodosius burned the heretic Priscillian at the stake in 386, the first time anyone was executed for teaching a Christian heresy, he did so against the fervent protests of the most eminent bishops, including St. Ambrose of Milan, who had earlier endured horrible hardships during the period of Arian rule. However, in that age, the execution of heretics was the exception rather than the rule; and thus Arianism continued as a major religion, becoming the faith of the Goths and the Vandals. The Goths after conquering Italy ultimately converted to the catholic faith, but in Ravenna one can see traces of the period of their rule, where two separate ancient baptistries exist, one for the Arians and one for the Orthodox. The Arian baptistry is notable in that it depicts Jesus as a young man without a beard, with his genitalia somewhat visible, whereas in the Orthodox baptistry our Lord is depicted in the traditional manner, with the beard et cetera.
Now, most of us would agree that the Roman church itself fell into heresy in the middle ages, with the false doctrines of the sale of indulgences, and abusive practices such as the promotion of chantries, and other evils. The Roman church during this period used considerable violence to attempt its dominence, including a military campaign against the Byzantine Empire, which remained, dare I say it, Orthodox, in the form of the Fourth Crusade, and of course the dreaded Inquisition. The very nadir of this evil was the terrible events of the Piedmont Easter, when 16,000 Waldensian men, women and children were murdered on their way to Switzerland, where they hoped to find a safe haven in Geneva after the Reformation began. Most of the Waldensians made it, but that group of 16,000 was killed in a manner too terrible to describe, although information about it is online. The Waldensians were among the earliest Protestant churches.
Nowadays, we see heresy again using force to attempt to impose itself on the faithful. 9Marks is, in my opinion, a heretical sect, heretical because it teaches iconoclasm and a Nestorian view of Christ; and it abuses its members with legal threats and so on as outlined here. Another example would be the Episcopal Church, USA, which has spent forty million dollars in lawsuits against conservative parishes that have attempted to leave; the Episcopal church has in most cases successfully seized their church buildings, and forced the conservatives, who had worshiped there for generations, out of their family parish. Setting aside the issue of homosexuality, which I don’t want to delve into (I love gay people, but I do hold traditional views on Christian marriage and sexuality, but in my mind groups like the Westboro Baptist Church are pure evil), the Episcopal Church has allowed individual pastors and bishops to engage in numerous heresies, including embracing Gnostic scriptures, denying the crucifixion or resurrection of Jesus, or his status as God incarnate (essentially adopting a Unitarian or Arian theology).
Some Southern Baptist parishes are heretical, and much of the content on this site involves abuse that occurs in SBC parishes, including in this case one parish that is also the leader of the inter-denominational 9Marks sect. I suspect in most of the SBC parishes discussed here, the pastors teach a Nestorian view of Christ, and there are no icons, or depictions of our Lord in stained glass windows, and such things are viewed as idolatry, in violation of the canons of the Second Council of Nicea. Islam was originally classified as a Christian heresy when the Church first encountered it, on the basis of the Islamic faith in Christ, which is very similiar to Arian beliefs. Islam is also the most iconoclastic religion in existence, as witnessed by the terrible violence done to Christians, Yazidis, Mandaeans, and other religious minorities in the Middle East. Entire cultures, such as that of the Syriac Christians and the Kurdish Yazidi people, who do use images in worship, are at risk of destruction by iconoclastic Muslims, who one can classify as heretics according to seventh century Christian authorities.
Thus, while it is certainly true that in any theological debate that gets sufficiently heated, the opposing parties do call each other heretics, setting that aside, those groups which most Christians around the world consider to be heretical are the same groups which engage in the most extreme abuse of their members. Consider the Mormons; they are coerced into tithing, giving two years of their life in service to the church, in expanding it, basically, and the Mormon church is one of the wealthiest and most powerful organizations in the world. Due to its integrated nature and centralized control, I believe the Mormon church has access to more available funding than the Vatican; the Catholics as a whole certainly have more money, but it is under the control of individual dioceses. The Vatican’s finances a few years ago were highly unstable, and there was some risk of bankruptcy until an American ex-banker who became a Cardinal was brought in to fix the mess.
So thus, in my mind, heresy generally equals church abuse. Those churches that abuse their members with violence or shunning or other evil acts are heretical.
Now, lets talk just briefly about church discipline in the early church, which Mark Dever doubtless thinks he’s recreating. Many of the canons of the early church specify excommunication, either indefinitely, or for set periods of time, for various offenses. For example, a murderer was to be excommunicated until the point of death, at which time he was to receive communion on his death bed. Those who committed adultery were excommunicated for ten years. Some people, designated as penitents, had to attend church, but were not allowed to take communion, but instead had to stand aside as a separate group, weeping. This would naturally be humiliating.
However, it should be stressed that the early church did not practice shunning, or the kind of Stalinist public denouncement that you see in 9Marks churches. The recipients of church discipline were almost always *willing recipients*, who had voluntarily confessed their sin to the priest or bishop, and were voluntarily serving the penance he imposed. The Celtic monasteries instituted the practice of private “tariff penances” in the sixth century, and this went on to become the standard throughout the entire church; humiliating public penances disappeared until the Radical Reformation of the late 16th century, when groups like the Anabaptists, and successor groups such as some Puritans, the Mennonites and Amish, et cetera, restored the practice of public penance, and with it, shunning. These same groups were regarded as heretics by the majority of Christians. So once again, we have an example of abusive, involuntary church discipline being imposed by heretics.
It is however unfortunately true that within theologically orthodox churches, abuse does occur. Tragically, the abuse of parishioners has never itself been condemned as heresy, although it ought to be; if ever the Church reunites to the point where we can hold a real ecumenical council, with the Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, et cetera, sitting together, to work things out, I think the abuse of parishioners should be declared a heresy. Indeed, the abuse of parishioners might be the only thing that should be declared heretical at a new ecumenical council, for we have enough existing definitions of heresy to cover every other conceivable abuse; if you can think of a way to distort or mutilate the Gospel of Christ and at the same time be mean to people, chances are someone has done it already.
Even the earliest heretics, the Gnostics, had an element of cruelty; they regarded themselves as superior “Spiritual” beings, compared to the unenlightened “Material” Christians who rejected their teachings and were thus damned. I think anyone who takes pleasure in the thought that he personally will be saved and that others will burn in Hell, is in grave danger of bringing condemnation onto himself. I think an attitude of “Ha ha, I told you so!” is the last thing one would want to have at the dreadful Day of Judgement. Thus, in closing, I should state for the record that when I refer to someone or some entity as heretical, I am doing so on the basis of an ecumenical council, and not with the intent of suggesting that they are in any way damned; I pray that they aren’t. It is my hope that everyone who sincerely believes in Jesus Christ will be saved. However, the early church did clearly specify the practices we must engage in to positively respond to the Gospel of our Lord, in the form of Baptism and Communion, and I fear for the souls of very good Christians who do not avail themselves of those mysteries, for example, the Salvation Army. I love the Salvation Army, and in my youth when I sold mistletoe outside of a grocery store at Christmas, I gave 10% of my profits to the Salvation Army. However, they do not practice the sacraments specified in the Gospel and confirmed by the teachings of the early church, and thus I pray for their salvation, because they do so much to help other people; I can’t imagine our Lord condemning them due to what amounts to a theological error on the part of their founder, but at the same time, I can’t recommend to anyone that they join that particular church. What is more, I should state that I do not have, unlike I suppose many here, assurance of my own salvation; I am a terrible, dreadful sinner and I pray that the Lord will have mercy on me, but I cannot presume, in the manner of some Calvinists, to be among the Elect in an eschatological sense, although I am a member of the church in so far as being baptized, chrismated, and communicated. It should be noted that even Paul feared that he might fall away; I love John Wesley very much and consider his experience at Aldersgate to be a genuine manifestatino of God’s love, and I myself have been blessed by similiar circumstances, and I do believe that God will try to save me if possible, but I, the least of pilgrims and the worst of sinners, do not presume to have obtained that salvation for myself. I do however object to the arrogant presumption of election that one sees coming from 9Marks; I fear that they are stirring those members who they do not expel via their arbitrary and capricious system of church discipline into a fervor, where they will despise other Christians and believe that they alone are to be accounted among the righteous, and this is a grave danger to them. The lack of humility one sees in 9Marks, in its publications, the attitude of its leaders, et cetera, is staggering, and does not seem compatible with the Christian faith; it smacks of the arrogance of Arius.
Lastly, regarding the “wafer watch”, I don’t quite get what you mean by that, Sopwith. At my Orthodox church we use leavened bread both for the Eucharist and for the Antidoron, that is to say, the blessed bread that is distributed to everyone who attends, even the unbaptized visitors who aren’t even Christian, and the bread we use is absolutely delicious. Unless ill, it is the custom in the Orthodox church to fast the night before taking the Eucharist; when we take it, it doesn’t really taste like bread or wine at all, but the experience is completely spiritual. Then, at the end of the service, when the warm loaves of antidoron are distributed and one can finely sink ones teeth into them, the experience is pure bliss. Either way, there are no wafers to be found. In like manner, in my youth, when I was a Methodist (I should add I still would be a Methodist if it weren’t for a series of abusive pastors in the parishes in my district; I became Orthodox because that’s basically the closest thing to the Methodist church in which I grew up), we always used leavened bread, until one pastor came along and decided in Lent we should use unleavened bread, which was a strange and unpleasant experience for me. That said, I have since that time had experiences of holiness with unleavened wafers, and I consider this to be an ecclesiastical non-issue.
William G. wrote:
Not only did Moravians settle in NC, as I have previously talked about, but so did Waldensenians. The town of Valdese, NC was originally a Waldensian settlement.
@ Nancy:
That seems more consistent with a paedobaptist view of baptism but without confirmation or its equivalent, as you noted. To me, it seems to force the issue artificially and creates social pressure to be baptized, and that is not a baptist view of either conversion or baptism as I understand it.
William G. wrote:
Maybe Sopwith was referring to the Roman Catholic practice of the adoration of the host. That’s what it sounds like to me. I’m not familiar with Orthodox practice, so I don’t know if there is something like that in Orthodoxy.
__
“Chewing Up TWW Bandwidth, Perhaps?”
@ William G.
hmmm…
William, respectfully, your specific ‘exercising’ of your ‘faith’ is important to you, we all (IMHO) get that.
yet,
dipped vs. dunked,
wafer vs. leavened vs. un-leavened,
ringing a red bell, vs profusely pounding a pastoral pulpit,
(example(s)
…have no direct correlation with what TWW is all about.
Get it?
(bump)
However, your zeal, talant, and determination are considerable; therefore, you might respectfully ‘consider’ taking your proverbial needle, haystack and cart, to a more appropriate blog or website where they ‘can’, by a certain extent, be vetted, valued or even evaluated with the proper distinction due.
***
Mark Dever’s primary problem (IMHO) isn’t heresy nor the use of excommunication, but willfully aiding harboring, and supporting of an individual escaping the results due to the commission of a ‘crime’, and subagent ‘flight from justice’.
The rabid use of JonnyC’s writings to inflict harm and push abusive tactics are certainly considerably important and disconcerting as well.
Somethin’ certainly smells in CHBC.
(sadface)
The greatest among you shall be your servant?
hmmm…
Don’t forget to flush, N’ put da seat down…
(grin)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
🙂
—
Nancy wrote:
Indeed, I’ve read about it. Sadly there aren’t many Waldensians outside of Italy, but Valdese is a remarkable place, in that it brought together the two oldest Protestant churches, both of which I believe have apostolic succession. What sparked both of them I think was the medieval Roman practice of not giving the Blood of Christ to any but the celebrant; this, plus the lack of vernacular preaching, created a sense of alienation. The Moravians are particularly interesting; the Czechs were Orthodox, but we’re conquered and forced to convert to Latin Rite Catholicism. The efforts of Jan Hus, the Utraquists and the Unitas Fratrum, from which the Moravians are descended, represent an attempt to recover what had been lost spiritually. Unfortunately there are very few Moravians and other descendants of the Czech reformation still with us, only a few hundred thousand. John Wesley was heavily inspired by the Moravians, but stayed in Anglicanism because in the 18th century the Moravians had some theological instability owing to their eccentric but love able protector Count Zinzendorf. It was in a Moravian chapel in Aldersgate where Wesley had his remarkable encounter with the divine.
Gram3 wrote:
We don’t do Eucharistic Adoration, except in the Divine Liturgy itself at the elevation of the chalice and paten. Like Roman churches, Our altars do feature tabernacles however, in which the Eucharist is reserved for the sick, and for use in the Presanctified Liturgy in Lent and Holy Week. Some Orthodox theologians object to Eucharistic adoration; it doesn’t bother me however unless it occurs in place of receiving communion, for our Lord did say “Take, eat” and not “Take, look at.” However, a reverence to the tabernacle when it contains the body and blood of our Lord reserved for use with the sick and at presanctified liturgies is appropriate, since Christ is certainly present therein, at least spiritually, if not physically (I believe in His physical presence but I do not insist upon the Scholastic theory of trans-substantiation as the only explanation for how this occurs, and of course I tolerate other beliefs, although I do believe that people who take communion together should share a basic consensus as to what it is).
@ Sopwith:
Sopwith, I think you misunderstand me,
The reason why I’m on Wartburg Watch is because I am opposed to the abuse that occurs in our churches. I myself have been the victim of psychological abuse from two Methodist pastors and one Orthodox priest; my mother was physically assaulted in a non sexual way by another Methodist pastor when her father died; the pastor violently grabbed her to try to calm her down as she was in tears and in profound distress, but this just made her more distressed and bruised her arms. In retrospect the police should have been called, but with the other relatives there and everyone in a state of profound grief, the abuse was overlooked. If it had not been for those incidents I would still be a Methodist; the pastors in question still run the nearby Methodist parishes, with one exception.
I joined the Orthodox Church because of this abuse, because theologically it seemed closest to Methodism, a bit closer than Anglicanism, and also out of solidarity for the continual martyrdom and suffering of Orthodox in the East. I have had problems with one Orthodox clergyman, who, like me, was a convert, and there is abuse in the Orthodox Church and work needs to be done to fix it, however, on the whole I think the Orthodox Church is less abusive than the megachurches which seem to increasingly dominate. I intend to share with WW reports of problems in Eastern churches when they occur, and at the same time offer an Eastern witness to the problem of abuse. There is a treasure trove of relevant material on psychological abuse, spiritual delusion, et cetera, in the Orthodox tradition which I think can help us to understand why abuse happens, and also help people recover from it. You don’t have to be Orthodox to avail yourself of Orthodox spirituality, which is why increasingly one finds Byzantine icons in Evangelical churches.
I should say also I love and am fascinated by all,Christian churches. I went to Kindergarten in a Southern Baptist school in Arizona, where I was treated with great love. I went to elementary school at an LCMS church school, where I was catechize on classical Lutheran principles. At the same time, I went to a Methodist church on Sundays (Lutheran chapel on Wednesdays); my godfather was a Lutheran priest and my great uncle is a retired Methodist missionary who was tortured in the Angola Crises by the evil Salazar dictatorship. I love all these churches, and I love religious freedom. I view Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Methodism as basically being very close to the Eastern Orthodox faith, separated purely by a difference in how the sacraments are reckoned and in how soteriology is understood, but I think this is a bridge that can and should be crossed.
Like many posters on this site, I do object strongly to certain forms of extreme Calvinism. However, I have a great love for the Congregational churches of the early American colonies, and certain related European Calvinist denominations, such as the Hungarian Reformed Church. What is more, I believe in freedom of religion; the only possible restrictions on it could be measures to prevent churches from charging for services, in order to prevent the abuse we see in Scientology. However we do need to help people who get trapped in cults like 9Marks, because there is a great risk of psychological damage as a result of their abuse.
@ William G.:
No offense, but my Lutheran self wishes that the Assyrian attitude was far more prevalent. Fwiw, i belong to a synod that has pretty much the same policy regarding open communion, and am not at all convinced that the wrangling over details of who is right matter all that much to God, let alone hinder or help what takes place when people actually commune. Also fwiw, i am very much in the traditional Lutheran camp regarding the Real Presence, sacramental union, etc. Bug i can’t see how there can *ever* be a definitive understanding of this sacramentthis side ofheaven – and probably not even then.
@ dee: i have this sneaking suspicion that we are all “heretics” in someone else’s books, one way or another. Only half-joking, btw.
I also have an idea that there are more priest out there who think like that than the Vatican would like – i.e, the most conservative in the hierarchy, not the more open-minded types. Christ is Christ, and head of his church, no matter how *we* might try to divide him, and it.
Just my opinion, and not meant as a definitive statement on anthing or anybody.
numo wrote:
Just so were clear, I myself agree with the Assyrian position, with the caveat that prospective communicants be given guidance on avoiding communion while unworthy. And to be clear, the Assyrians will communicate any baptized Christian who agrees with them that et bread and wine are truly the body and blood of our Lord. I think this works, although I would be inclined to add the requirement of oracular confession and a Eucharistic fast beforehand as safety precautions, to protect communicants from the dire consequences Paul warns us of in 1 Corinthians 27-34. I would also encourage those present to not communicate if in doubt. The Syriac Orthodox Church serves the Eucharist at the end of the liturgy in a manner that makes it easy to decide if one should partake; the priest communicates the faithful on the right side of the church, while those not communicating, the majority, exit to the left. It takes about 10 minutes for the communicants to receive. The beauty of the system is there is no pressure to take communion; I very much dislike how in some churches one cannot avoid the chalice without embarrassment. The exception to this of course is on Easter Sunday, when according to a very ancient tradition reflected in the Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom, the entire congregation is communed, even (in bygone days) those penitents who were excommunicated for the rest of the year.
It is not the position of my church however. I believe that the Assyrians and Orthodox will themselves re-enter into communion in this century, since Mar Dinkha IV in the late 1970s expurgated the remnants of Nestorian Christology. One of my best friends is an Assyrian Priest; he used to work for the Antiochian Orthodox in Alaska but got sick of the cold weather, and being ethnically Assyrian, decided to return to the church of his birth. I consider the Assyrians to possess the orthodox faith at this time, although many would disagree with me.
Where accusations of heresy do get ugly is in the lasting schisms, like that which separates the Assyrians from the other churches. To avoid causing offense, it is for this reason I only label someone as a heretic whose theology has been condemned by all of the churches that hold apostolic succession, implicitly or explicitly. This list includes the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Assyrians, the Oriental Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Lutherans (the Church of Sweden and several others have bishops, who have preserved apostolic succession) and the Old Catholics. Where all of those traditions agree that heresy exists, I will agree with them, since these churches collectively represent the fragments of the Apostolic Church, divided by schisms over the centuries. Privately, I also regard what my own church considers heretical as such, but on an interdenominational website such as this it would be unhelpful to bring up such bones of contention as the Filioque.
@ William G.:
William, i don’t for one second doubt your sincerity. I do believe, however, that Sopy and others are – quite understandably – put on edge by your frequent use of the words hersy, heretics and heretical.
As for TEC, I don’t for one second believe that all its hierarchy are around the bend, or its members. I think you’re overreacting a bit, in light of your comments about the churches that have split off. There are multiple sides to that story, and, sadly, far too much ill will.
There are some good bishops left in the Episcopal Church who continue to preach the Gospel and maintain the beautiful traditions of orthodox Anglicanism, but most have left for the ACNA or the continuing Anglican movement. However, individual parishes that have tried to leave have lost their buildings and been treated savagely. Read of the very sad case of St. Luke’s In the Mountains for an example of Episcopal church abuse. Meanwhile, elsewhere in Southern California an Episcopal priest has called for the creeds to be removed from the liturgy, and quoted the Gnostic gospel of Mary, condemned by the early church as heretical, in defense of his views.
It is my opinion that what the early church condemned as heresy, going back to Paul’s instruction that if any should preach a different gospel than the one taught by himself and his fellow apostles, even if an angel from heaven, they should be anathema maranatha, which means, delivered up to God. That is to say, the church, according to Paul, can not do anything for those people, commonly referred to as heretics, who preach a different gospel, until they repent. Peter and especially John also,warn us of the dangers of false teachers, as does Christ himself. A heretic is simply a false teacher, preaching a different Gospel. Their motives may be sincere, but the effect of their actions tends to be destructive, except in one respect: the process of disputing with false teachers, that is to say, heretics, helped the early church to define orthodox Christianity, and by that, I mean the faith CS Lewis describes in Mere Christianity, the faith of Martin Luther and his near contemporaries St. Basil the Blessed of Orthodoxy and St. Charles Borromeo of Catholicism, with greater precision. For example, in disputing with the Arians as to why Jesus was not, as they suggested, a mere man, but God incarnate, the early church refined the doctrine of the Trinity, and also finalized the 27 book New Testament canon (or started to; St Athanasius, who was the main opponent of Arius, was the first to list all 27 books, and only the 27 books, we now use, as the inspired New Testament). However, this benefit is outweighed by the ahem that false teachers, or heretics, as the early church called them, do.
Mark Dever can be identified as a false teacher because of his iconoclasm, and his insistence on a monergistic salvation. Monergism implies monothelitism, and monothelitism implies Nestorianism, and these were all condemned, but only after the proponents of them, the false teachers, used considerable violence to attempt to impose them on the entire church, for example, cutting out the tongue of St, Maximus the Confessor, who was a generous monk who never did violence to anyone in his life; his only crime was to verbally challenge their false teaching (heresy) and refuse to recant. So the Byzantine Emperor had his tongue excised, which led to his death. However, in the end, his side won. To my knowledge, there was no violent persecution of Monothelites after that incident.
So in summary, a heretic is a false teacher, and a heresy is another Gospel, which we are warned of. The heresies I object to are extremely elementary and until very recently, all mainstream denominations with the exception of some Baptists and Calvinists, rejected them. We are not talking about gay marriage, women priests, or any other contemporary bones of contention, but rather, the absolute basics of the Christian faith, specifically what books are in the NT, how Christ is related to the Father and the Spirit, the resurrection of our Lord in the flesh, the use, but not worship, of images in churches, such as stained glass windows, the identity of Paul and his authority as an Apostle, and so on.
In some cases things can be less black and white, and in such cases, I think our Lord’s guidance that “ye shall know them by their works” is appropriate. To the extent that Mark Dever, Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, and any of the other members of what one might call the Wartburg Watch Rogues Gallery, are theologically orthodox, and thus far, I can’t say that, in my opinion as a laymawith an enthusiasm for patristics, that any of them are, they are still doing great harm. What we see is an insular group of megachurch pastors who run their churches like a business, developing a sort of cultus around specific preachers, forming a literal pantheon of figures who aggressively market each other’s books, and hold these books up as primary sources of theological guidance, while paying lip service to the gospel, and trashing other Christian churches, whether mainline Protestant denominations, Roman Catholics, or Eastern Christians, at every opportunity. At the same time, like the Montanist heretics of whom Tertullian was a member, they impose,exceedingly harsh discipline on the souls entrusted to them, causing considerable psychological harm.
I believe that, based on our Lords guidance that our yes should be yes, and our no should be no, when we see destructive practices such as the spreading of heresy occurring, we should refer to it as such, and work to inform the Christian faithful, that they may not be deceived. Dever’s theology appears to fall under the anathemas of the Council of Ephesus, and the Third Council of Constantinople, and thus, Dever can be identified as a heretic, a false teacher spreading a false gospel. This, in my opinion, explains the abusive way he treats his members, and the hypocrisy with which he conducts his ministry, This does not mean I consider him damned or desire his damnation; God forbid. I am surely a worse sinner than he is, However, I do feel he must reform his ministry; and until he does, we have a duty to denounce him for what he is, in a polite but firm manner. Such efforts have already begun to bear fruit in the case of Mark Driscoll.
__
What can dispel this present darkness of so called religious neo-cal feudalism? [1]
hmmm…
What can be expected of prelates who turned their croziers into ironclad membership contracts, their flocks into serfs, and their pastoral dwellings into venerable fortified castles?
“Corruptio optimi pessima.” [2]
(sadface)
Sopy
__
[1] Ans. “Nothing but the blood of Jesus”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aGJwAENQuk
[2] Tr. the corruption of the best is the worst of all
🙁
—
@ William G.:
I think it is more than possible to deal w/these people and topics without using the words heresy, hertic, heretical, heterodox, etc. You might not realize how much emotional impact those words have, and how damning they sound.
It is very, very hard for me to see these words without being ver aware of the tremendous human costs so often suffered by those who have been labeled as such. I am sure you are aware of much of the history, but that isn’t the point I’m trying to make.
numo wrote:
Apparently there are all these groups and people calling themselves christian (Wikipedia)
1.2 billion catholics
800 million protestants
225-300 million eastern orthodox
86 million oriental orthodox
85 million anglicans
41 million restorationism and non-trinitarianism
0.6 million oriental orthodox
None of these agree with each other, and the majority of these belong to groups that accuse the various others of heresy, heterodox dogma and possibly even damnation. The whole thing is ridiculous and an embarrassment.
I am with you on the issue that there are better ways to deal with this problem of disagreement.
@ William G.:
Well, Sweden can do as it chhoses, but that doesn’t negate the fact that few American Lutherans believe in apostolic succession. Offhand, i don’t know of a synod here that takes that position, though there might be some small ones that do.
Still, that is not my main point on the use of the “h” words. I am aware that people who profess the same beliefs as i do were killed for it – and also that it’s more likely thannot that my German ancestors did the same to anabaptists.
The line in the sand isn’t about doctrinal orthodoxy, imo, it is about love and compassion and putting oneself in another’s shoes. We are all made in God’s image, and i don’t see doctrinal considerations overriding that, regardless of the language that some churches affect in referring to others.
@ Tammy Jones:
Tammy,
I’m so sorry. This new change sounds very stressful. I suggest you prayerfully consider asking God to lead you and your family to another church. This letter from your church sounds like human ‘control’. It does not sound Christ like. I will keep you in my prayers. – Ali
I am going to try and respond to some questions that were asked after I posted my comment earlier. this week. I have been slammed and am just now getting to it. I will post a separate comment to each question.
Bridget:
Nothing on our church website mentions 9 Marks. We are not affiliated with 9 Marks. I said that our church had an affinity with 9 Marks because of its stated emphases. Our church practice, however, differs from the practices that one might find advocated among 9 Marks literature or at some churches who also have an affinity for 9 Marks.
Bridget:
Forgot to add – we do not have any affinity for Acts 29.
Law Prof:
I am one of the Elders at our church selected by the congregation to be so. To my knowledge, the Elders don’t hold any reprehensible ideas.
Members of the congregation (and non-members as well) often dialogue with and ask questions of individuals elders, and a member can request a meeting with the elders at any time.
We do not have a politically charged or hostile spirit in our congregation, so other than what I mentioned above, there is no “challenging” going on.
Deb:
Thanks for the warning!
There is NO WAY that our church would ever adopt a practice of not allowing members to leave without permission.
Lydia:
Our church is listed in a “church search” section of the 9 marks website.
That website says the listing is not an endorsement of any church and that churches are “minimally screened.”
To be on the list, the church affirms the 9 Marks Mission Statement, and the Together for the Gospel Affirmations and Denials.
Gram 3:
We do not refer to ourselves as a 9 Marks church, and we do not send any money to 9 Marks.
Nick:
Thanks for the great comments. Your comments are always so thoughtful.
A lot of people in the 9 Marks crowd over de-emphasize the Church universal. Their ecclesiology is almost exclusively on the local church.
Another commenter noted how this is true of most protestants.
I suppose it is a product of history.
Our church has a greater appreciation for the Universal Church than some others. My pastor and I have too much of the 60s and 70s, Jesus People in our blood, I suppose!
Most Protestants are members of denominations that confess the Nicene Creed and have either an episcopal or Presbyterian polity. Congregationalist polity is a rarity, but not strictly speaking an ecclesiological error or heresy. If you look at the very early church, you see autonomous congregations that were in communion with each other on the basis of shared doctrine. This basic model was retained as the church expanded, but instead of creating individual churches in each newly converted town, parishes were created served by priests representing the local diocesan bishop. In turn, diocesan bishops were supervised by the Metropolitans in the capital of each Province, and the Metropolitans by Patriarchs, or in the East, outside of Roman jurisdiction, by Catholicoi, the historical title of the governors of the Armenian, Georgian, Assyrian and Indian churches. Thus, you can see how congregational polity morphed into episcopal polity with a layered hierarchy.
The only widespread model I feel is ahistorical is the Presbyterian model, because it rejects the New Testament institution of the Episkopoi, or Superintendent, altogether; otherwise, it vaguely resembles the polity of the early Roman and Alexandrian churches according to Calvin, but some Coptic and Catholic researchers challenge his assumptions, and there is no evidence of the Presbyters of Antioch electing the bishop.
The Moses model used by the Calvary Chapel is semi-historical, but not since Christ, also, any pastor who adopts it is essentially declaring himself a prophet. It also ignores the function performed by Aaron and the Levitical Priesthood; Moses was the prophet but his government was primarily civil; ecclesiastical affairs were handled by Aaron in a manner that, following his death, looked like a hereditary episcopate. For a time, the Patriarchates of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldean church were hereditary, and the last hereditary Assyrian patriarch was assassinated in 1975 after breaking his vow of celibacy to contract a marriage. The way the hereditary system in those churches historically worked was the Patriarch would have a brother, who would have two or more sons, one of whom would be Patriarch and the other, father of the next Patriarch. Not a good model.
Congregationalist churches do not necessarily suggest anti-universalism; only the Baptists really stress about the absolute importance of the local church, and I suspect this may be derived from anti-Catholicism; since the Roman Church calls itself Catholic and since everything the Romans do is bad, and since the real meaning of Catholic is Universal, and since Jewish synagogues operate as autonomous local congregations, then the doctrine of a universal church is heresy and the local church must reign supreme. There is something like this stated on the website of Westboro Baptist Church. However I think and pray that most Baptists reject this nonsense and instead, like other congregational denominations such as the CCCC and the UCC, pray for the health of both the universal Church and the local congregations that comprise it.
@ William G.:
Westboro is a cult; I wouldn’t make assumptions about churches and denominatiins that have the word “baptist” in the based on what Westboro says!
@ numo:
It’s not the only assumption he makes.
numo wrote:
Westboro represents the extreme end of local church vs universal church thinking. In their view it’s a heresy for any individual local church to have any relationship, such as intercommunion, with any other, because this jeopardizes the autocephaly of the local church. I have to say this much for them; they’re consistent as heck in their theology, even though it’s completely at odds with the faith of the ancient church. I think it is necessary to zero I on Westboro as we guide the greater Baptist world away from the fundamentalist extremism that WBC epitomizes; in their zeal to avoid being like Westboro, which was historically just another fundamentalist independent baptist church, with at one time Phelps enjoying a veneer of respectability, before he started picketing funerals, Baptists will tend to move away from Landmarkism and other examples of poisonous ecclesiology, and draw closer to the rest of Christendom.
By the way, I’ve been reading a rather good book on the Mandaeans, the ultimate Baptists as it were, who worship John the Baptist and practice a Gnostic religion. They all are baptized every Sunday in a river of living water, and speak Mandaic, an Aramaic dialect similiar to the Babylonian Aramaic in which the Babylonian Talmud was composed, with a script like Syriac Estrangala, with vowels. (In Syriac, Aleph, or A, can be a consonant, and without that Estrangela would be a real pain to read; God. Alaha or Aloho, is spelled ALH).
I have this sardonic urge to find some Mandaeans and teach them the hymn Wade In the River, which is my favorite Gospel hymn; the local Methodist and Anglican churches like to sing it on Epiphany.
William G. wrote:
I don’t have any information if it is only the baptists who do this, but other than that I think your opinions as to why and how this happened probably have a lot of merit. Understand that old style SBC was a lot different from old style IFB and whatever is going on now is a mixture of things. Nevertheless, when I was SBC there was no emphasis on or discussion of the universal church, and there were varying degrees of anti-ecumenism. Let me say one more time that some of the early attitudes toward the Billy Graham crusades was that he was co-operating with (dirty words there) churches of other denominations. It has become popular to say that the only resistance was racism, but that is not the whole story, and the idea that baptists should not co-operate with methodists, presbyterians or others suspected of non-bilbical ideas and practices (heresies-though that word was not used) was an issue early on. And the idea that there would be any intermingling of any kind between baptists and catholics was unthinkable. For example, the catholic church down the road from us had a fish fry every Friday night as a fund raiser back when they had food restrictions on Friday, but my father was adamant that we would not buy any catholic fish for any reason. Never mind they had really good fish. Let me add–my dad was the one who came from the family with the catholic background. On mom’s side there had been and were some baptist preachers, and they were not that much anti-catholic. I am thinking some of the anti-this or that is personal, not strictly doctrinal.
So, yes, I think you are on the right track there because I have seen that. I also think things are complicated, including this issue.
@ William G.: The book sounds interesting, but were you thinking of “Wade in the Water”? (The spiritual – “Wade in the water… / God’s gonna trouble the water.”)
As for Westboro being a “church,” I put it in there with so-called Christian Identity and the Aryan Nations. Westboro uses some words and phrases from the NT, but as for the rest, well…
Anonymous wrote:
It does not surprise me a bit your Nashville SBC Reformed church is listed, affiliated, affirms T$G and 9 Marks. I would expect it to.
numo wrote:
You’re right, Wade in the Water. Now if I wanted to be a hardline Hyperdox like the guys on Orthodoxinfo, I would be forced to deny that any Baptist congregation was “a church” or that local churches existed at all; in that ecclesiology, there is only the Church Catholic and the particular churches such as the Church of Greece, the Moscow Patriarch, etc, that are in sacramental communion with it. Or the ROCA and the True Orthodox Church of Greece if one regards the new calendar as a heresy.
However, I think any entity that refers to itself as a church has a right to be called such, even if it is not a part of The Church. Is The Church only the Orthodox? Possibly, but I hope not; I am not happy with the thought that due to the acts of an intemperate cardinal in 1054 who acted like he had one heck of a hangover, the Roman church and those Protestants who left it with good cause but for political or other reasons did not join the Orthodox, are entirely devoid of grace. However some Orthodox believe this, which is one lamentable ecclesiological problem we have. Ecumenism on the other hand has caused some grief; the WCC is heavily under the influence of progressive theologians, and disturbingly appears to have torpedoed an attempted reconciliation between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox which threatened its legitimacy as the main arbiter of ecumenical reconciliation.
Now, is the Westboro Baptist Church Baptist, and a church? Is it part of the church? The answers are somewhat, yes, by its definition of the church, and probably not. The WBC expounds an extremist form of Landmark and Fundamentalist Baptist theology; the WBC is to the SBC as the SSPX and other such groups are to the Roman Catholic Church. They can call themselves a church, but they are indeed a dangerous, heretical cult. By rejecting the notion of the universal church, they themselves deny their membership in it. I fear for the salvation of the members of that church.
It should be noted that the Orthodox are not fundamentalists; fundamentalism originated in Calvinism as a strict adherence to a particular interpretation of the Bible which is at odds with the historical beliefs of the Church, and is also rabidly anti-Catholic. The Orthodox Church is very similar to the Roman Catholic Church, at least on the surface, in terms of our liturgy, our sacramental theology, our shared history, our monastic traditions, et cetera. In addition, all Orthodox churches have been influenced by Catholicism to some extent; for example, the scheme of liturgical colors in use in the Byzantine Church was inspired by the growing diversity of liturgical colors in use in the Roman church; originally both churches used white vestments and dark vestments, the latter in Lent, Holy Week and at funerals. In the Roman church the dark vestments were black, and in the Greek church, dark red. The black vestments the Orthodox now use on weekdays in Lent and Holy Week began with the funeral of a Czar and were implemented because the Czars successor had attended funerals of his Catholic relatives, and liked the vestments. However, we normally use white for funerals now to symbolize the resurrection. I do love black vestments; they scare some people, but there is a great elegance to them, and they symbolize in a dignified way the healing process of repentance. My favorite liturgical service is the Presanctified Liturgy in Lent; when the church is draped in black, dimly lit in the late afternoon, and the choir sings Let My Prayer Arise while the priest prepares the presanctified Eucharist quietly in the altar; it is an unbelievably intense spirituality.
If there is a panacea for all forms of church abuse, it’s probably that service. I think if you can believe that the body and blood of Christ consecrated on Sunday are still the body and blood, and pray the penitential prayers and the prayer of St Ephraim the Syrian (look it up) while listening to the haunting music, you will be aided greatly in the struggle against those passions that cause church abuse, and if you have been a victim of abuse in the church, you will be aided in your quest to recover. There are ancient Western forms of the liturgy; my hope is that in the 21st century all major Protestant denominations join the Catholic and Orthodox churches in having a Presanctified liturgy. In the Roman Rite, a presanctified mass is served on Good Friday, which used to look a lot like the Orthodox service until Pius XII revised it in 1955.
@ William G.:
I think you are missing the point i was attempting to make. You might want to look up some of the interviews given by family members who have left Westboro. They call it a cult, and its ideas and actions are those of both a cult and a hate group. It isn’t hard to find documentation.
Lydia:
You need to be more accurate and not get in such a hurry to try and prove a point.
Our church’s only affiliation is with the Southern Baptist Convention (and the state convention and local association).
If you see that our church has decided to affiliate with some other group, please let me know because it would be news to me.
I was a founder of our church, and have been a member for 21 years.
We are not affilitated with the other groups you mention.
You also claim that we are a “Reformed Baptist Church.”
We are not.
You have concluded that because of predetermined mindset – anyone who is recommended by this group or that group or who likes this person or that person is Reformed!
That is a very simplistic way to look at people.
It reminds me of young, highly charged political people who make assumptions and categorize people based on some test they think is determinative.
People and churches are actually more complex than that.
Again, our church’s doctrinal statement says that we affirm the Baptist Faith and Message. That is not a reformed document to my knowledge or all SBC churches would be reformed.
You will not find the so-called TULIP points anywhere in our DNA.
We have had people in our church ask us to become a Reformed Baptist Church. And we have declined.
Our elders do not all subscribe to all points of what would be called “Reformed theology” and our members certainly do not.
Our preaching is not particularly Reformed.
You may not like that our church for this or that reason, but to pigeon hole us in a knee jerk fashion, is not accurate and sloppy.
We are biblically faithful. We are definitely not liberal in our theology, but some consider us liberal in other things.
I would really hope that you could visit our church some day because we are not too far from you. It might disabuse you of the notions you have constructed and repeat here in error with zealous certainty.
numo wrote:
WBC is definitely a cult and I suspect it’s on a par with Scientology in terms of the abuse of members and former members. However I suspect it’s membership is shrinking fast given that it’s basically Phelps family and a few cranks, and the man who built it passed away. The strange thing is the rumor of his excommunication; maybe he realized his error and tried to convince the congregation to tone it down a bit, and they tore him to pieces. However it gives one hope that perhaps at the dread day of judgment Phelps may be reconciled to our Lord, which is what we should desire.
For laughs, check out the YouTube video Westboro Chipmunks, by LutheranSatire.
Interesting,
Put in my “resignation letter’ about three years ago with minimal fuss. My next church was certainly no 9 marks approved operation. It is as mainline as they come, with a theology that Dever & co would find ‘toxic’.
This was after being very open with my misgivings’ with one of the elders about doctrinal & cultural issues in the church. I guess it helps NOT to have been on the fast track for ‘leadership’ at the church anyway….
@ Eagle:
@ Ade:
Interesting point of view. I wonder if they have become more dogmatic in the last few years since you left? Also, we are aware of another situation that happened fairly recently in which the person was not in leadership. I think it may have be time related.
I have never commented on this site but read regularly. I am commenting to simply say that a member at CHBC resigned their membership recently at a members meeting (at which I was present) with the intent of joining McLean Bible stated in their resignation letter and the resignation was accepted unanimously without comment (as the vast majority are), so the statement that CHBC would not accept a resignation (we do not have a transfer category) with intent to join McLean Bible is simply not true.
@ Preston Bennett:
Could you please tell me to which comment you are referring?
@ Preston Bennett:
Also, do you publish a list of approved churches? Is it publicly available? I am sure McLean Bible Church is grateful you have them on your *approved* list. I’ll be sure to let concerned readers know that if it comes up.
Could you tell me what happens when someone suddenly wants to leave because they deeply disagree with your actions, like Todd Wilhelm? What if they wish to take their time in joining another church but, for absolutely, darn tooting sure, do not want to support your church any longer? Do you think that you should *discipline*them for standing up for what they believe to be true and right when it is not in contradiction to the Bible?
Or is the very disagreement with your church proof they are unbiblical/outside the kingdom since real Christians would never disagree with your church’s decision to support and sell CJ Mahaney’s books? Again I refer to Todd Wilhelm’s situation.