Jonathan Leeman/Mark Dever: The Keys Are the Key to Understanding Their Words

“Giving a man a level of respect & permitting, without fuss, a lesser reciprocity is like shackling yourself & handing him the keys: He becomes the boss of you.” ― Wale Ayeni link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=31269&picture=holding-the-keys

Holding the Keys

 

Words have meanings and some words have lots of meanings depending on context. The same goes for ideas which are a collection of words with multiple meanings for each word. We get into trouble when we assume that a person expressing a word or idea means the same thing as we do. Words like gospel, biblical, kingdom, and authority are examples of loaded terms with multiple meanings.
 

Pretending you aren't what you are though obfuscation.

Jason K. Allen a Calvinist and president of Midwestern Seminary, shows us how to play games with a controversial word, Calvinist. He was asked if he is a Calvinist by a man in church. 

…an elderly gentleman introduced himself to me by stating, “I am so glad you are here to preach for us today. I have looked forward to meeting you. Before you preach, though, I have one question for you. Are you a Calvinist?”

That question is not an uncommon one, but it’s a question that might be more difficult to answer than first thought. To this gentleman, I reflexively replied, “To be honest, sir, I have no idea what you mean by that question.” He smiled and responded, “I have no have idea what I meant by the question either.”

We both chuckled, then I retorted, “I’ll be happy to discuss this as much as you’d like after the service, but know that I believe in preaching the gospel to all people and that anyone who repents of their sins and embraces Christ as Lord and Savior can be saved.” Reassured, he smiled and said “that is all I wanted to hear.”

The misuse of the word *gospel.*

Today, Jonathan Merritt wrote: The Bible term most misused by Christians today: An interview with Scot McKnight  which further illustrates my point that words having all sorts of meaning. And this can be dangerous when it involves theological terms.

A few years ago, New Testament scholar Scot McKnight had grown irritated with the overuse and misapplication of the word “Gospel” by many Christians. He gave a lecture on the matter entitled, “Did Jesus Preach the Gospel” in which he said, “When all words mean the same thing, no words mean anything. When the “Gospel,” which is the favorite word for people to use today, means everything, it loses all meaning.” 

Where I agree with Jonathan Leeman on multi-site churches.

On Monday, I discussed Mark Dever's views on church membership. For many, his definition of membership seems bizarre. Yet churches are rushing to affiliate with his model. Today we focus on the views of his right hand man, Jonathan Leeman, who you can be sure speaks for Dever. Leeman wrote Twenty-Two Problems of Multi-Site Churches.

Upon seeing the title, I realized that he and I might have some similar concerns about these entities. For me, the problems of multi-site churches are focused primarily on a talking head, celebrity pastor who is not engaged in truly knowing the members of his church and is more interested in telling other pastors how to get lots of people just like him.

I prefer a church in which a pastor knows the names of many in his church and actually enjoys spending time with those members. However, most star-struck Americans prefer a pastor who is a celebrity: one who writes books and shows up on talk shows discussing sex. It makes them feel important that they follow an *important* celebrity.

Leeman and I agree on his Point 4.

What effectively unites the churches (campuses) of a multi-site church are a budget, a pastor’s charisma, and brand identity. Nowhere does the Bible speak of building church unity in budgets, charisma, and brand.

I also think he made a good point here.

15. The multi-site church model depends upon extending the reach of “my” church rather than partnering with and aiding other congregations. That is, it’s built on a competitive model of franchise extension, rather than a partnering model of mutual aid that we see in the New Testament. All this can foment “turfyness” and competition between churches. At the very least, every additional campus is a missed opportunity for helping another ministry.

And here.

22. Multi-site churches are the current trend in evangelicalism. The great question is, will they be able to make a generational transition? Will they be able to hold together when the main preaching pastor—who is usually in himself the center of gravity for the whole enterprise—goes off the scene? And how much institutional and spiritual fall-out will occur when he does? 

I disagree with him on some unimportant points.

He makes a few other points with which I have some quibbles, but they are not terribly important.

7. Multi-site churches which use video preaching unwittingly communicate that singing is more significant for Christian growth and closer to the heart of worship than hearing God’s preached Word. After all, how many multi-site churches stream their music over video from a central location? A church wouldn’t dare import the music, it’s thought. People need to engage with a live band. People need their music authentic, personal, enfleshed. But preaching? Apparently, it can be imported from afar.

It's all about authority (keys) for Leeman and Dever

So far nothing seems too earth shattering. Well, let's see what the real issue is for Leeman.

2. If a church is constituted by the preaching of the Word and the distribution of the ordinances under the binding authority of the keys, every “campus” where those activities transpire is actually a church.

 11.  A multi-site church separates authority from the people with whom you gather. Authority and relationships are pulled apart. So a multi-site church involves exercising oversight and discipline over people with whom you never gather.

12.  A multi-site church makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a congregation to fulfill its obligation to exercise the keys over the whole “church.”

14.  Not only does a multi-site pastor possess all the administrative power that a bishop possesses over churches in his region, he possess even more power than a bishop because he’s doing all the preaching in all those churches.

18. Multi-site churches make church discipline at best more difficult and at worst impossible, as an excommunicated member could easily just switch "campuses" without anyone noticing.

(Ed Note: Read this one carefully, noting the word *vote* and *discipline* and who gets to do it.  For Leeman this is a negative.) 

Multi-site “churches” that employ preaching pastors at every site or campus are in fact a type of presbytery: a group of churches united under one elder board (and for those multi-siters who call themselves “congregational,” it might be worth recalling that presbyterians vote on their pastors and, in some cases, discipline, too). Not all the points above apply to this species of the multi-site animal. I would say that points 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 21 apply, though shades of a few others may apply as well. My misgivings with presbyterianism would require another list.

Did you understand the main reason that Leeman doesn't like multi-site churches? It's really quite simple and goes hand in hand with Monday's post. Leeman and Dever want to control members because they hold the *keys!™*

Do you know what 9Marks believe about *keys?* You should because it will deeply affect your experience at a 9Marks church. I am going to repeat part of a post that I wrote last year called If You Must Demand Authority, You Don't Have It. In this post, I explored the strange 9Marks teaching on the *keys.* 

Understanding the Mark Dever/Jonathan Leeman concept of the keys to the kingdom which are held by pastors and leaders alone.


9Marks: The local church has the keys to authority

It is imperative to understand that 9Marks believe that they hold the "keys to authority" via the local church. What does this mean? Let's look at it in their words from a post called Church and Church Independence

The church, meaning a local church, holds the keys to excommunication, remove someone from membership, receive people into membership, pick pastors and adopt a statement of faith.

The theological champions at the Westminster Assembly spent several days debating who in the post-apostolic age holds the keys that Jesus originally gave to Peter (Matt. 16:19), since they understood that the keys represent, at the very least, the power of excommunication. And the power of excommunication is the highest authority in a church, just as the power of the sword is the highest authority in a nation. All power in a nation derives from the authority to end a life, and, in the same way, all power in the church derives from the authority to remove someone from membership, including the authority to receive members, pick pastors, or adopt a statement of faith. Whoever has the power of excommunication has the power to do those other things, or at least to decide who does.

Staring down at Matthew 18:15-20, I would argue with the dissenters that Jesus places the keys squarely in the hands of the local church—wherever two or three are formally gathered in his name.

Then we learn that another key to the kingdom is teaching and oversight (another loaded term) which is found in the elders. Then he discusses some vague key belonging to the congregation.

Later in the New Testament, we learn that elders should be set apart for teaching and oversight, which suggests they ordinarily lead the church in using those keys. I would even say the church needs the elders to responsibly wield the keys. But finally the keys belong to the entire congregation. No text in the New Testament explicitly links the oversight of the elders with the keys of the kingdom in the manner that Matthew 18 so clearly links the keys with the whole assembly. Elder authority is real, but it is a different kind of authority than congregational authority.

These keys represent the authority to build the church on earth on behalf of Jesus. 

 I have argued elsewhere that the keys represent the authority to build the church on earth on Jesus’ behalf by declaring what and who belong to the kingdom of heaven—what is a right confession of the gospel, and who is a right confessor. Certainly, preaching is highly related to the exercise of the keys, and could even be said to form an implicit part of their exercise.

The church gets to decide who is a true confessor of the faith and who is a "citizen of the kingdom of heaven."

But, strictly speaking, I would argue that the exercise of the keys is the pronouncing of a judgment. It is a legal or judicial binding or loosing. It is a church’s decision about what constitutes a right confession and who is a true confessor.

In other words, the keys are put into practice whenever

a church decides upon a confession of faith that will bind all church members,
a church admits a member,
a church excludes a member. 

The holder of the keys—the church—is being called upon to assess a person’s life and profession of faith and then to make a heavenly sanctioned and public pronouncement affirming or denying the person’s citizenship in the kingdom and inclusion in the church.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the means by which the church controls the membership. If they say you are not in, you cannot be baptized or take the Lord's Supper.

In the same way, the independent authority of the local church makes the rule of Christ’s kingdom visible on planet earth as it exercises the keys, which it does through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The ordinances are what make the receiving and dismissing of members by the authority of the keys visible. Call them Christian passports.

Only the local church can dispense the Lord's Supper. 

Christians should belong to local churches. Christians do not have the authority to declare themselves Jesus’ representatives. The church has this authority, which it ordinarily exercises by dispensing the Lord’s Supper to its members. (Which is not to say that church cannot provide the Lord’s Supper to visiting members of other churches for the sake of acknowledging the wider body of Christ.) Plus, maintaining the credibility of one’s profession of faith requires a believer to remain under the oversight of a church.

9Marks in a post called Regulative Jazz says that the local church gets to decide what the gospel is and who is a gospel citizen.

The gathered local church is authorized in Matthew 16, 18, and 28 by Christ’s keys of the kingdom to make an international declaration about a what and a who: what is the gospel, and who is a gospel citizen?


In that post, you will see that I quote Leeman who claims to recognize that the authority given to the church can be used for good or bad. I truly believe that Leeman thinks CHBC/9Marks are trying to use authority for *good.* But we all know the very real story of Todd Wilhelm in which their authority was used to punish a decent man who was righteously standing up for his conscience. 

Todd's story illustrates the inherent danger in a church where its leaders believe they hold some special authority given to them by God. The sad part of this mishap is that Leeman, Dever and Folmar do not recognize their serious errors and continue to think they are being biblical™ in the misapplication of ill-defined church discipline which led to the mistreatment of a man whom they once deemed a possible leader. Folks, they do not see their errors, and that is alarming!

I vigorously oppose the 9Marks' teaching on the supposed keys to the kingdom. These men (I don't think women have keys in their system, but I could be wrong) have taken on a role which is way above their pay grade. I happen to know Who has this role and am grateful that He holds the veto and He will correct their wrong decisions. 

The gathered local church is authorized in Matthew 16, 18, and 28 by Christ’s keys of the kingdom to make an international declaration about a what and a who: what is the gospel, and who is a gospel citizen?

Upon understanding how 9Marks applied the *keys* (or was it the screws?) to Todd Wilhelm, I have come to believe that theirs system is a manmade one that has been misapplied and will continue to be used to apply unrighteous pressure to decent people who are following the Lord. if they did it once, they will do it again unless they apologize and change their direction.

So, my warning to our readers is this — never assume what anyone means by any word. Instead, ask questions and don't back down like the gentleman who asked the pastor if he was a Calvinist. Demand an answer. If you don't get one — get out.

Glen Campbell

Is that a transition or what?

Some of you know that Campbell was diagnosed with Alzheimer's  a few years ago. Unfortunately, it has progressed to the point that he is being cared in a specialized facility. Campbell was well aware of what was happening to him. Last year, prior to needing full time care, he wrote and recorded a song called "I'm Not Going To Miss You". Unlike some of the pastors and churches that we have discussed, Campbell's words convey exactly what he wants them to say. He arranged for this song to be released after his condition worsened. Listen carefully. He is trying to comfort those around him who will be caring for him. 

Lydia's Corner:  We have now read through the Bible twice. Starting next week, will we begin the reading again. If you keep up with the readings at the bottom of the post, you will get through the Bible in about 1 1/2 years. No — this is not a ploy to trap you as readers. 🙂

Comments

Jonathan Leeman/Mark Dever: The Keys Are the Key to Understanding Their Words — 198 Comments

  1. Defining the terms in a discussion are essential, especially when talking about important matters pertaining to our faith and beliefs. Otherwise we just become Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass: words mean what we want them to mean, whether anyone else agrees with that meaning or not.

  2. So, we are back to the church before the Reformation? They decide who goes to heaven and who does not?
    I wonder how close we are to selling indulgences again?

  3. dee wrote:

    Dee humbly stands at the entrance of Judge Tim!

    Ha! I have my bailiff say “Remain seated and come to order” instead of the traditional “All rise …”. There’s a story behind that.

  4. Ha! Apparently my church is Baptist – Presbyterian, then, who knew?
    We have two “gatherings” for our church. One preaching pastor in the city, and one preaching pastor across the river, but same elder board, made up of pastors and members from both sides, that often visit each site, back and forth.

    I love my church but I am definitely learning new things all the time to assess.

    I’ve only been to two churches really, my whole life (beyond occasional visits to friends churches). I do wonder if I should check some others out and see how things are done elsewhere sometime.

    I don’t see issues of control at this point where I am, but see where it could potentially happen. Definitely something to watch.

  5. The incident with the question of Calvinism is not the only one. I have been told that the Calvinism question is to be deflected just the way it happened there. Never answer a question straightforwardly. Say you are happy to discuss it later (nevermind that if the later ever comes it will not be happy.) Next question.

    Look for equivocation on words, words put into the text and circular arguments from these guys. Start with power, put power into the text, get power out of the text, thereby proving Power. You will find this *whenever* the Gospel Glitterati talk about power or authority. They are all about their power, and they gain power by tickling the ears of others who desire power over others. Gospelicious Meth.

  6. Leeman says the church should exercise the keys. It is hard to know where to start with that big plate of eisegetical spaghetti with huge presupposed meatballs on top.

    Is that a prison metaphor he is using? Makes me really want to be in a church that preaches the Gospel Exercise of Keys and Authority.

  7. “In the same way, the independent authority of the local church makes the rule of Christ’s kingdom visible on planet earth as it exercises the keys, which it does through baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The ordinances are what make the receiving and dismissing of members by the authority of the keys visible. Call them Christian passports.”

    So I have no passport now since the church I attended for 30 years closed? Does that make me an foreigner? A foreigner and a stranger maybe?

    For all those without passports:

    “Hebrews 11:13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth.”

    Judas Maccabeus
    “Only visiting this planet.” (Credit Larry Norman)

  8. Gram3 wrote:

    You will find this *whenever* the Gospel Glitterati talk about power or authority. They are all about their power, and they gain power by tickling the ears of others who desire power over others. Gospelicious Meth.

    Keys of the Kingdom?
    Jesus the beautiful Rabbi the son of Mary had a damning rant for them regardless of the spaces and times they crop up in:

    …But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in…

  9. Dee, you were right, I did love this post!

    It disturbs me how much power and authority this guy (and many others) believes is invested in the leaders of local churches. Reading his post and others like it that he has written, it almost makes you ask, “Well, what role does Jesus himself play in the church then?”

    The most disturbing thing to me is that they truly believe that they as leaders can make the call on if you are in Christ or not. So, basically, if someone sits before the leaders and shares their testimony of how they came to saving faith, and it is not good enough for 9 marks, they can then declare that this person is not in the faith. Speechless.

  10. @ Muff Potter:

    Exactly, Muff. The Scribes and Pharisees held the keys for themselves to keep others out or determine who could come in, but Jesus is the Door to the Kingdom which has been flung wide open for all who will enter through him. The Gospel, which includes Peter’s declaration, is the key to the Door, and Jesus entrusted Gospel proclamation to his apostles.

    These Power Poseurs simply don’t understand, or won’t understand, the metaphors in the Bible. Ultimately, everything will be made to be about their own power or those who follow them rather than the power of the Holy Spirit.

  11. One sermon I heard convinced me the keys of kingdom are 1. The Jews are in and 2. The Gentiles are in. Amazing how churches want to hold the “keys” and let people in and out as if infallible.

  12. “19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

    This post is chilling for me. Over 40 years ago, I was a young teenager studying Greek in high school. One evening I sat at the kitchen island on a high blond wooden stool, looking down at the mottled green and gold countertop, a moment that is frozen in my mind as if it happened yesterday.

    My Greek new testament was open. “I can’t make it mean any thing else,” I cried. I tried to rearrange the perfect and the pluperfect tenses, this way and that. Nothing seemed to help. “I don’t know what to say.” I was in that moment unable to help my father unexcommunicate some good friends of ours and long term missionaries. I stumbled out of the kitchen in failure.

    Who gave those elders the keys? Who gave them the power? The one place, the gathered saints, the leading of the spirit, a crazy – making world. I will never forget. Leeman needs to find that one place, not 9Marks but the Darby Brethren.

  13. @ Win:

    Sorry, I don’t understand. Many translations, including NASB, HCSB, and NetBible say that the binding on earth would have already been bound in heaven and likewise the loosing. To me, that means that the power of binding and loosing is in the hands of either the Lord of the church or the Holy Spirit who indwells the church.

    In context, it seems to me that this was Jesus predicting what happened at Pentecost, when Peter preached the gospel to the Pentecost pilgrims, when the Spirit came upon the believers, and when Jew and Gentiles from many nations came into the church via the Door of Jesus the Christ. And that was accomplished without any help or stamp of approval from the apostles or the existing congregation or any human being. It was a work of the Spirit’s power, not the power of men.

  14. Deacons Sue Pastor Who Had Affairs, Keeping AIDS Secret

    Juan McFarland refuses to leave church

  15. So it supposedly meant that God had already excommunicated this family and the leading of the Spirit communicated this to the assembly who acted on it and shunned them. I was just a kid, not a theologian.

  16. @ Win:

    Of course, it wasn’t the pluperfect nor indeed the future perfect that was the problem. It was the stolen second-person pronoun. Well, and the keys that were stolen with it, obviously…

  17. The Keys Are the Key to Understanding Their Words

    Key as in the Key to a Secret Code decrypting Hidden (Occult) Knowledge (Gnosis)?

  18. Understanding the Mark Dever/Jonathan Leeman concept of the keys to the kingdom which are held by pastors and leaders alone.

    What do Dever and Leeman think of Pope Francis in Rome whose office claims the same keys passed down from St Peter?

  19. Win wrote:

    So it supposedly meant that God had already excommunicated this family and the leading of the Spirit communicated this to the assembly who acted on it and shunned them. I was just a kid, not a theologian.

    I’m decoupling the keys of the Kingdom from any human organization’s power to excommunicate someone. The keys of the Kingdom is not the same thing as excommunication. That is a holdover from Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

    Whatever the church did to your friends had nothing to do with the binding and loosing and keys of the Kingdom Jesus was talking about though some men then may have said that it did.

  20. Gram3,

    I am not saying it did. I am just giving an example of church doctrine being abusive. Period. I don’t care to discuss doctrine. It is just used as an excuse to hurt people.

  21. @ Win:

    Yes, doctrine can be very abusive. I’m sorry about the abuse that you and your friends experienced. Many of us here know that pain personally.

  22. RE: Mark Driscoll. A few months ago I suggested that he would take his time off and then resign leaving the mess to everyone else . . . no one seemed to think that would happen. I also don’t put it passed him to try to start over somewhere else . . . since he seems to think that he is not disqualified. Unbelievable.

  23. @ Bridget:
    You were right. I think he will move to Orange County where the church seems to be maintaining a mansion according to Warren Throckmorton. Since he resigned voluntarily, he is rumored to get a major payout-salary for a year and perhaps other benefits.

    I am so mad I could spit.

  24. @ Bridget:
    You are a most insightful commenter. If you would ever like to write a post for TWW, let us know. I bet you would be a great blogger.

  25. Bridget wrote:

    he seems to think that he is not disqualified

    I think the phrase is “mistakes were made” – and, as MD explained in a sermon, Jesus made mistakes too. So having MD being a pastor in a different church is just like having Jesus himself.

  26. __

    “Y”

      All da lit’l religious fiefdomes big small, one and all…run around jangling keys., lotz n’ lotz a keyz. Da least in deze kingdoms, shall be your serf. 

    (bump)

    What a contrast to the real “kingdom”…

    da greatest among you, shall be your servant.

    Could have fooled me.

    (sadface)

    Sop……..Y

  27. Bridget wrote:

    I also don’t put it passed him [Driscoll] to try to start over somewhere else

    That is what I think will happen. He will start a new church somewhere else, or keep working in some context where he peddles religion, maybe starts up a TV show or something like that.

    The saddest thing is that should he do that, he will probably attract new members and some of the older fans will probably follow him in whatever he does. If people would stop giving these guys money, they would dry up and go away and go sell used cars for a living.

    (Not that there’s anything wrong with selling used cars, I am saying they would have to work for a living, not sit in cushy office chairs all day, reading musty old volumes on theology, demanding ten percent from people’s income).

  28. __

    “Trick or Treat”?

    kirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk !

    “Mark Driscoll, top megachurch pastor, resigns” CNN sayz…

    (bump)

    ‘fast fall from grace’,but still not on hiz proverbial pumkin face?

    What?

    marzhil ta proverbial ‘pastorial boothil’ in ten easy lessons?

    tap, Tap…

    huh?

    …sure is amazing what a year of ‘truth discovery’ can do.

  29. Gram3 wrote:

    Look for equivocation on words, words put into the text and circular arguments from these guys. Start with power, put power into the text, get power out of the text, thereby proving Power. You will find this *whenever* the Gospel Glitterati talk about power or authority. They are all about their power, and they gain power by tickling the ears of others who desire power over others.

    “The only goal of Power is POWER.
    And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering upon the Powerless.”
    — Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984

  30. One of the problems I see is the question of which local church? Does the local Catholic church get to decide what the Gospel is and who is saved? They would say not I am sure, probably saying that the RCC does not have the Gospel so they are not the church but it ends up being rather circular. The local Baptist Church gets to decide about the Gospel because they teach the Gospel which they know is the Gospel because they said it is and they can say it is because they are the true local church because they teach the Gospel…. etc. Besides which, how you go from Peter's confession and Jesus' response to the local church having keys is a bit baffling to me.

  31. These Neo Puritans are not so different from the original Puritans Roger Williams knew in the 17th century. All this talk of keys and pastoral authority and, even though it isn't spoken in these terms, the true church. Where is God in all of this, when the celebrity pastor is absolutely correct in all matters, and you can't leave a church because it is the one true church. And that some of the Neo Puritans call themselves baptists? Baptist ancestors languished in prison in Massachusetts Bay Colony for not paying taxes to pay a Puritan pastor's salary.

    http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/persecutionoutline.htm

  32. All I know is that excommunications at my LCMS congregation have to take place by congregational vote, and that all I would have to do to switch my membership to another Lutheran congregation is just transfer it with a letter. No congregational vows needed, because my baptism was how I was made a member of the church. I don’t need to rejoin when I start worshiping in a different building.

    Has he brought up the idea of “marrying” your church by signing membership vows yet? Rather than “cohabiting” by just attending without joining.

    This link may interest you:

    http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/definition.html

    “Megachurches tend to grow to their great size within a very short period of time, usually in less than ten years, and under the tenure of a single senior pastor. Nearly all megachurch pastors are male, and are viewed as having considerable personal charisma. The senior minister often has an authoritative style of preaching and administration and is nearly always the singular dominant leader of the church. … Few megachurches have been exceptionally large for longer than the tenure of their current minister.”

    In other words, megachurches are almost always authoritarian cults of personality that crash and burn as soon as the charismatic personality is gone. Which is a problem, multi-campus or not. Which is why I avoid them and their products like the plague. Which leaves me very little to do in mainstream evangelicalism, because it’s basically all megachurch products.

    Multi-site churches which use video preaching unwittingly communicate that singing is more significant for Christian growth and closer to the heart of worship than hearing God’s preached Word.

    …and yet, if you think about where most Christians actually learn their theology, let’s just say it ain’t from the sermon. His old-style Reformed anti-music bias is showing. I agree that the mere act of singing isn’t automatically a tool for growth, but has it occurred to him that you can communicate God’s Word through the music? And that many (I would venture to say most) people would learn it a lot quicker that way, and certainly faster and better than if they were forced to sit through an hour-long sermon every week? Neo-Calvinists do seem to esp. love extra long sermons.

    In brief, I could maybe get up to 10 sermons in my whole life I remember for content reasons (and that’s being extremely generous – some of those I count because I remember a single passing remark for some reason). The number of hymns, however, are basically too many to count. And care to guess whether the hymns or the sermons have helped me more in dark places? So why the insistence that music is not a form of preaching/teaching?

  33. dee wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    What do Dever and Leeman think of Pope Francis in Rome whose office claims the same keys passed down from St Peter?
    Ace Hardware copies.

    These never unlock anything when I get them home. I wonder why I waste my time getting them made. I think all of these guys are deluded, and think more of themselves than they ought.

    MD will soon become a TV cable show, a TV version of a “Shock Jock”.

    Judas Maccabeus

    Now officially without “Christian passport “

  34. Now this is interesting. Either:
    1) Leeman et al believe that the church (definition TBD) holds the keys to heaven and determines the eternal destiny of people. They are essentially Roman Catholic, but have rejected the authority of Rome and placed themselves as Pope, College, and denomination.
    2) Leeman doesn’t actually believe the above and is using the word differently from its historical meaning – equivocation fallacy.

    Now to play the “which is worse” guessing game.

  35. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    I think Leeman is equivocating on church. He is talking about the visible (organized) church having the keys to the invisible (Kingdom) church. That’s why I think his ecclesiology is not Baptistic as it has developed.

    You can make his model of authority fit coherently within Anglican ecclesiology and Presby/Reformed ecclesiology, but not Baptist. Obviously 9Marks has great affinity with and affection for Mahaney and SGM, and they teach/taught that there are Apostles with apostolic authority. This is the model I think resonates with 9Marks, though they meld that with congregational authority yielding a fish/fowl ecclesiology, IMO.]

    Rome does not equivocate on church. The keys were given Peter and then to his successors. Simple and neat.

    It’s not difficult to do a search on “key” and. “door” and “bind” and “loose” but that demonstrates that Jesus holds the key of David and that Jesus holds the keys both of the Kingdom and also of hell and hades. It’s easy to find that Jesus is the door of the sheep who opens to let the sheep graze. These are concepts that would be familiar to the disciples and to every Jewish man who had heard the scroll of Isaiah read. There is nothing about human authority in the text.

    Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for shutting up the door and binding their phylacteries on their heads and forearms and tying up burdens on others they are not willing to bear themselves. Jesus is the one who looses people from the binding of sin, Satan, as well as the supposed authority of the Scribes and Pharisees and their man-made laws.

    Leeman’s case for getting from Peter to the elders or congregation of a local church is more than a little strained, since this textual data seems to escape him. But they have to get Power for men out of the text somehow, so eisegesis and prooftexting are good methods to do that.

  36. This fixation on the “keys” reminds me of a talk I had with Mormon missionaries which revolved around the question of who had the “priesthood keys.” It is also reminiscent of the Roman Catholic conviction that the Bishop of Rome alone has the power to bind and loose, even though Peter was Bishop of Antioch before traveling to Rome, and his protege Mark the Evangelist Bishop of Alexandria. At Nicea, these three churches held a special dignity as Petrine sees; a later council created the Pentarchy by adding Constantinople and the restored Jerusalem to the list. However, none of the ecumenical councils suggested that any particular bishop had any unique claim to the Petrine authority, but that rather, all bishops had inherited this power from Peter.

    Now, since Mark Dever is not a bishop, does not have apostolic succession, and does not offer the sacrament of confession/reconciliation, why does he think he has these keys? What use are they, furthermore? The concept of church discipline outside of the strict legally binding privacy of the confessional is frankly ludicrous.

  37. I think the Leeman article is quite poor in its handling of the “proof texts” in Matthew 16 and 18 in order to justify the scope of discipline in a 9Marks church. If I can refer to Calvin here: Calvin relates Matthew 16 to the preaching of the Gospel which, if presented faithfully and in the power of the Holy Spirit, will lead men to repentance or confirm them in their sin. He categorically refutes the notion that any person has any power to declare of themselves who is and is not “saved”. It is by faith that you are saved and that is the gift of God. He then places church discipline in the context of Matthew 18. He says that ” as the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the church, so does discipline serve as its sinews, through which the members of the body hold together, each in its own place”. He talks of discipline as correction and excommunication. He makes a number of distinctions. There are concealed and open sins. There are light and grave sins. The purpose of discipline is to make a distinction between the life of the church as the body of Christ and the life of the world. It seeks to promote the spiritual health of the church. It seeks to restore those who have fallen. He argues quite forcefully that moderation and mildness are to be foremost in the application of discipline so that the person is not overwhelmed with sorrow. He says “Let us not claim for ourselves more license in judgment, unless we wish to limit God’s power and confine his mercy by law. For God, whenever it pleases him, changes the worst men into the best, engraftment the alien, and adopts the stranger into the church. And the Lord does this to frustrate men’s opinion and restrain their rashness – which, unless it is checked, ventures to assume for itself a greater right of judgment than it deserves.”(Institutes vol 4, ch 12).
    By stretching the jurisdiction of “the keys” to include any and every little wheeze they can think of, and by limiting its exercise to the professionals, Leeman is following in the footsteps of the Anabaptists who tried to “ban”(excommunicate) Menno Simons for being too moderate – he thought applying it bed and board in marriage was taking it too far! (The Radical Reformation, 19.2 d),
    People like Mr Leeman really shouldn’t call themselves Calvinists and I sometimes wonder if they know anything about Calvin at all.

  38. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    What do Dever and Leeman think of Pope Francis in Rome whose office claims the same keys passed down from St Peter?

    What they think, as no doubt we all realize, is that the keys were indeed passed down to “the church”, but that Rome does not have a lock on “the church.”

    This idea of what “the keys” means, of course, is not the only understanding of that comment from Jesus, as we are also probably all aware. You cannot have God for your father unless you have “the church” for your mother is not universally believed in all segments of protestantism. That is what makes this such an aberration for evangelicals.

  39. K.D. wrote:

    So, we are back to the church before the Reformation? They decide who goes to heaven and who does not?
    I wonder how close we are to selling indulgences again?

    Some of them are already doing that – compare the tithing silliness as documented by Tom Rich at http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/ .

    As long as some churches peddle Robert Morris’ dangerous nonsense (“Tithe – or all of your money is under a curse. Only if you tithe 10% of your before-tax income, the remaining 90% will be blessed, otherwise everything will be cursed by God”), this compares not very favourably to the selling of indulgences. And of course, “pastors” loke Ed Young, Jr., ask their “sheep”, why they bother to come to church at all, if they don’t tithe. So they make salvation and life as a christian contingent on giving them money.

  40. So if people believe this idea of “you need our approval” or else you….you what? I don’t know, but if you want your life to go well you must have our approval. So believe what we tell you and give us your money, and above all do not think.

    Trouble is, life does not go all that well for anybody. In the world you will have tribulation is something I think I read somewhere. So what do these people do when they realize they have given away both their freedom and their money (and compromised their very ability to think) and have too little to show for it? When they finally are forced to see that it is a bad bargain, what then? Is this partly where we get so many “none” folks?

  41. Gram3 wrote:
    It’s not difficult to do a search on “key” and. “door” and “bind” and “loose” but that demonstrates that Jesus holds the key of David and that Jesus holds the keys both of the Kingdom and also of hell and hades. It’s easy to find that Jesus is the door of the sheep who opens to let the sheep graze. These are concepts that would be familiar to the disciples and to every Jewish man who had heard the scroll of Isaiah read. There is nothing about human authority in the text.

    Thank you for this post! Very encouraging.

  42. “Jason Kallan a Calvinist and president of Midwestern Seminary, shows us how to play games with a controversial word, Calvinist. He was asked if he is a Calvinist by a man in church. ”

    Jason “Allen”.

    I have heard that one a lot from many Mohler/YRR quarters in my neck of the wooods. (The latest one is “he is not one of those ‘bad’ Calvinists who split churches so we don’t need to talk about Calvinism. We are all somewhat Calvinists even if we don’t know it”)

    The point is to paint the person asking as an ignorant rube who has no clue. Of course those of us who have been in this ring for many years know there is no real discussion. We non Cals never know what we are talking about no matter who we quote or how much we have read up. It is like pinning jello to a wall to try and discuss Calvinism with them.

    He who defines, wins. That is pretty much how it works with them.

  43. Mike wrote:

    These are concepts that would be familiar to the disciples and to every Jewish man who had heard the scroll of Isaiah read.

    This gets into something that is lacking in christian understanding, some of the jewish roots of some christian thinking. How can we possibly understand what Jesus was saying if we do not understand what his hearers would have understood him to mean when he said It?

    Tonight in the awful terrible and backward south (sarcasm) Father S (local christian pastor) and Rabbi M (local jewish rabbi) are meeting at Finnegan’s Pub (an actual downtown pub) for the next session of their open-to-the-public discussions about similarities and differences. Tonight’s topic is suffering and martyrdom, on which there is significant difference. I can’t go but I look forward to reading the highlights when they get it printed out.

  44. Why do Directors and Elders have the business of locating a replacement pastor for Mars Hill? Why not have a Pastor Search Committee made up of the “run-of-the-mill” church members?

  45. Gram, You have hit the nail on the head in this thread. Every thing they teach– no matter how benign sounding— is about “power” for them.

    Even Dever’s insistence on Congregationalism is about his power. It is not the Congregationalism of typical Baptistic beliefs. It is the Congregationalism that came out of early Puritan doctrines over time. It was more about being “autonomous” from any state church structure. It is really a ruse with all the trappings of voting, etc but what would that matter when the bottomline is you must hold to his definition of the “keys” if you are a member. Lots of cognitive dissonance in that world.

  46. Florence in KY wrote:

    Why do Directors and Elders have the business of locating a replacement pastor for Mars Hill? Why not have a Pastor Search Committee made up of the “run-of-the-mill” church members?

    So they can replace him with Marky Mark Driscoll, of course.
    Good Little Party Members.

  47. Lydia wrote:

    Gram, You have hit the nail on the head in this thread. Every thing they teach– no matter how benign sounding— is about “power” for them.

    “There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
    — Lord Voldemort

  48. Lydia wrote:

    t is the Congregationalism that came out of early Puritan doctrines over time. It was more about being “autonomous” from any state church structure.

    I did not know this. Could you expand on this more? It looks like I need to do some reading.

  49. Lydia wrote:

    He who defines, wins. That is pretty much how it works with them.

    “Some will question whether what we do is illegal. Before that happens, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
    — L Ron Hubbard

  50. Florence in KY wrote:

    Why not have a Pastor Search Committee made up of the “run-of-the-mill” church members?

    Because, I know you won’t believe this, the bylaws state that the only members of Mars Hill church are Mark Driscoll and a couple of other pastors. This was discussed extensively on Warren Throckmorton’s blog but i am having trouble finding the link. I will keep looking for it.

  51. TW wrote:

    Sopwith wrote:

    Comic Relief:
    “Think what your gonna be missing, you won’t have Driscoll ta kick around any more…”

    Good one Soppy, but Driscoll will be back – tanned, rested and ready!

    Remember Jimmy Swaggart?
    And Ted Haggard?
    Resigned(TM) to plant a new church and start climbing to the top all over again with a NEW independent church.
    It’s Comeback Time!

  52. @ Lydia:
    Thank you so much for picking up on my misspelling of Jason K Allen’s name.(Jason Kallan sic) I have corrected it and have updated the link.

  53. Hester wrote:

    “Megachurches tend to grow to their great size within a very short period of time, usually in less than ten years, and under the tenure of a single senior pastor. Nearly all megachurch pastors are male, and are viewed as having considerable personal charisma. The senior minister often has an authoritative style of preaching and administration and is nearly always the singular dominant leader of the church. … Few megachurches have been exceptionally large for longer than the tenure of their current minister.”

    Remember Crystal Cathedral? Went under in an inheritance feud while its celebrity founding pastor was still alive, though retired?

    Entire property sold at the resulting fire sale to the Diocese of Orange and now a REAL cathedral.

    The only exceptions are when Junior inherits the Throne and there are no other heirs. (See Bob Jones I/II/III/whatever, Hagee & Schaapf, and Calvary Chapel Visalia.)

    In other words, megachurches are almost always authoritarian cults of personality that crash and burn as soon as the charismatic personality is gone. Which is a problem, multi-campus or not. Which is why I avoid them and their products like the plague. Which leaves me very little to do in mainstream evangelicalism, because it’s basically all megachurch products.

    Multi-site churches which use video preaching unwittingly communicate that singing is more significant for Christian growth and closer to the heart of worship than hearing God’s preached Word.

    Given the above, my image for “video preaching” remains Big Brother on the Telescreens all over Airstrip One and Oceania. LONG! LIVE! BIG! BROTHER!

  54. Jeremy wrote:

    Besides which, how you go from Peter’s confession and Jesus’ response to the local church having keys is a bit baffling to me.

    It is confusing.

  55. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Some will question whether what we do is illegal. Before that happens, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
    – L Ron Hubbard

    Darn good quote.

  56. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Remember Crystal Cathedral

    I saw some pictures of early remodeling. That place is going to be awesome to behold. Glad you guys got it. What was being preached there in the past did not live up to even the building itself.

  57. dee wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    t is the Congregationalism that came out of early Puritan doctrines over time. It was more about being “autonomous” from any state church structure.

    I did not know this. Could you expand on this more? It looks like I need to do some reading.

    You pick up on it reading a lot about the Puritans, that period of history and some of their writings. It is strange how words change and evolve and have different meanings. It is strange that they saw themselves as autonomous from the “state religion” in their culture yet denied that very thing to their own church members.

    Think John Cotton and his constitution for a particular visible church complete with governance influencing John Owen, chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. And we all know what Cromwell brought which was not that different than a Monarchy in the end when it came to religion.

    The word had a totally different meaning back then than today because back then state church mentality was all in all. Congregationalism was the “anti Monarchy Defender of the Faith mentality”. It was more political than ecclesiastical as we can see in reading history and it’s practice.

    I first became interested in its meaning when reading about John Adams years ago and learning his dad was a Congregationalist deacon and they come from the Puritan line. It was not easy to piece together without understanding the historical context. I mean if Roger Williams was pastor of his own “autonomous” church how could he be banished from it and the colony? It was basically the same church/state mentality dressed in bland clothes.

    It never really meant a democratic church polity although it seems it evolved to mean just that in the 20th Century. Dever refers to their polity as “congregationalism”. Anyone here who believes that means democratic church governance, please stand on your head! :o)

  58. @ HUG:

    Given the above, my image for “video preaching” remains Big Brother on the Telescreens all over Airstrip One and Oceania. LONG! LIVE! BIG! BROTHER!

    And/or the 1984 Apple commercial.

  59. Nancy wrote:

    This gets into something that is lacking in christian understanding, some of the jewish roots of some christian thinking. How can we possibly understand what Jesus was saying if we do not understand what his hearers would have understood him to mean when he said It?

    Exactly.

    Nancy wrote:

    Tonight in the awful terrible and backward south (sarcasm) Father S (local christian pastor) and Rabbi M (local jewish rabbi) are meeting at Finnegan’s Pub (an actual downtown pub) for the next session of their open-to-the-public discussions about similarities and differences.

    Sounds fascinating! I wish there were more of these sort of irenic discussions.

  60. __

    “Foul Mouth’d Barnyard Bully Pastorally Pulpit Free, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    “…Driscoll will be back – tanned, rested and ready!” 

    – TW 

    ***

    So What!

    STAY TUNED?

    🙂

    …It is not ‘our’ rod dat strikes hiz proverbial back, but hiz own.

    huh?

    (bump)

      He has apparently pronounced his own ‘judgement’, not wanting a God he ‘think’s’ he can beat up. 

    What?

    (…now, he’s gonna look pretty stupid walking around with dat proverbial millstone about hiz neck. Baseball cap and dark glasses not withstanding…)

    —> our God is not mock’d.

    But he (Driscoll) can sure ta, ta, ta, try…

    ‘…da wheels on da bus go round and round…’

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy

    🙂

  61. dee wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “Some will question whether what we do is illegal. Before that happens, make sure WE are the ones who define what is legal and what is not.”
    – L Ron Hubbard

    Darn good quote.

    And remember who it’s from. The Founder, Flag, and Bridge of Scientology, when he was in full cult dictator mode.

  62. Nancy wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Remember Crystal Cathedral

    I saw some pictures of early remodeling. That place is going to be awesome to behold. Glad you guys got it. What was being preached there in the past did not live up to even the building itself.

    I remember acomment on the news item of the Diocese acquiring it:

    Some Church Lady type, Weeping and Gnashing her Teeth that “The Gospel will no longer be proclaimed in Crystal Cathedral”, now that it’s been taken over by “the false teachings of a Godless CULT”.

  63. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    The only exceptions are when Junior inherits the Throne and there are no other heirs.

    We also have R.C. Sproul, Jr. to anticipate. YRR love for Sr. is already being transferred to Jr., or at least his problematic past is being whitewashed. I can’t wait for Gospel Wife Discipline.

  64. dee wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    t is the Congregationalism that came out of early Puritan doctrines over time. It was more about being “autonomous” from any state church structure.
    I did not know this. Could you expand on this more? It looks like I need to do some reading.

    If you look up “Congregationalism” in the Dictionary of Christianity in America you will get a fairly comprehensive summary of its history and development.

  65. K.D. wrote:

    So, we are back to the church before the Reformation? They decide who goes to heaven and who does not?
    I wonder how close we are to selling indulgences again?

    I kinda think that its all ready started. I mean, wouldn’t that explain CJ Mahaney?

  66. Through a glass darkly wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    he seems to think that he is not disqualified

    I think the phrase is “mistakes were made” – and, as MD explained in a sermon, Jesus made mistakes too. So having MD being a pastor in a different church is just like having Jesus himself.

    Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh!!! Please pass the barf bag.

  67. Lydia wrote:

    Even Dever’s insistence on Congregationalism is about his power. It is not the Congregationalism of typical Baptistic beliefs. It is the Congregationalism that came out of early Puritan doctrines over time.

    This is an important point, and I’m going to elaborate a bit. If I get it wrong, please correct it from your knowledge of Baptist history.

    Congregational in the Puritan sense means that the congregation as a whole is not subject to external authorities, either ecclesial or state. It does not necessarily entail priesthood of the individual believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit which is more of an Anabaptist idea. They deny that the Anabaptists influenced the English Baptists during their mutual exile in Holland, except that they corrupted the General Baptists.

    It gets a little interesting in America. Many Baptist churches were planted by Shubal Stearns, who was a Congregationalist who became convinced of believer’s baptism, and Daniel Marshall. And these churches reflected a Calvinistic doctrine in their documents. But the actual pewpeons, many of whom were not literate, were influenced by the Great Awakening(s) and also the Anabaptists who were already here from Europe. This gets airbrushed out of the development of Baptist thought by the Founders faction who would like to return to the golden era of the Particular Baptists.

    So we have another example of equivocation to go with “church.”

  68. Nancy wrote:

    Tonight in the awful terrible and backward south (sarcasm) Father S (local christian pastor) and Rabbi M (local jewish rabbi) are meeting at Finnegan’s Pub (an actual downtown pub) for the next session of their open-to-the-public discussions about similarities and differences.

    🙁 I wanna go!!!

  69. Lydia wrote:

    Even Dever’s insistence on Congregationalism is about his power. It is not the Congregationalism of typical Baptistic beliefs. It is the Congregationalism that came out of early Puritan doctrines over time.

    This is an important point, and I’m going to elaborate a bit. If I get it wrong, please correct it from your knowledge of Baptist history.

    Congregational in the Puritan sense means that the congregation as a whole is not subject to external authorities, either ecclesial or state. It does not necessarily entail priesthood of the individual believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit which is more of an Anabaptist idea. They deny that the Anabaptists influenced the English Baptists during their mutual exile in Holland, except that they corrupted the General Baptists. 😉

    It gets a little interesting in America. Many Baptist churches were planted by Shubal Stearns, who was a Congregationalist who became convinced of believer’s baptism, and Daniel Marshall. And these churches reflected a Calvinistic doctrine in their documents. But the actual pewpeons, many of whom were not literate, were influenced by the Great Awakening(s) and also the Anabaptists who were already here from Europe. Some of the Particular Baptists here doubled down on their Calvinism and became the Primitive Baptists.

    This gets airbrushed out of the development of Baptist thought by the Founders faction who would like to return to the golden era of the Particular Baptists.
    So we have another example of equivocation to go with “church.”

  70. @ Gram3:
    That is well put. And I agree, 9Marks in general is very, very far from historical Baptist principles.

  71. Gavin White wrote:

    People like Mr Leeman really shouldn’t call themselves Calvinists and I sometimes wonder if they know anything about Calvin at all.

    I agree. I know many Calvinists that come from, you know, actual Calvinist traditions (i.e. not baptist), and they are for the most part gracious believers who are often appalled by Neo Puritanism.

  72. Nancy wrote:

    You cannot have God for your father unless you have “the church” for your mother is not universally believed in all segments of protestantism. That is what makes this such an aberration for evangelicals.

    Except that quote has never meant by church “local autonomous congregation”, but rather the church universal throughout time and space. So even those who might agree with the sentiment can’t really square it with Leeman’s historically aberrant position.

  73. I love the Glen Campbell video. I remember having a crush on Campbell when I was about 5 years old – he was so cute in my eyes. And I”m pretty sure I remember a single that was on the inside of a cereal box – – we had to cut out the record to play on our record player – – remember those?

    I love the sentiment behind the timing of this new release and the profound lyrics. There are a lot of lessons for us to learn in that – about being slow to talk, quick to listen, making your words count, having compassion, etc.

    I lost my beloved grandma to Alzheimers. What a sad disease.

  74. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Gavin White wrote:
    People like Mr Leeman really shouldn’t call themselves Calvinists and I sometimes wonder if they know anything about Calvin at all.
    I agree. I know many Calvinists that come from, you know, actual Calvinist traditions (i.e. not baptist), and they are for the most part gracious believers who are often appalled by Neo Puritanism.

    My late Grandfather was Calvinist. He would be shocked at today’s Neo-Cals. He would probably be on a blog’s comment site with us going after the Neos.

  75. Nancy wrote:

    Tonight’s topic is suffering and martyrdom, on which there is significant difference. I can’t go but I look forward to reading the highlights when they get it printed out.

    Nancy, if you can, provide us with a link of the proceedings? I for one would be grateful. Jewish thought is often at odds with the Christian belief system and it’s good that these things can be discussed in an open and civil forum. That way folks can make their own informed decision on what’s what and what they choose to believe or disbelieve.

  76. Nancy wrote:

    Who used it to mean the church universal?

    The church fathers, esp. the three Gregories.

  77. Muff Potter wrote:

    provide us with a link of the proceedings

    This is not online. It is just a couple local guys and some folks who want to go listen. Father S will probably talk about it at his church, and he is good for handing out printed matter. But if I learn something that seems to be of general interest I will mention it.

  78. You all help me here. I just found something among my papers. I am cleaning out my whole life, including a couple of file cabinets and I discovered this, but I don’t know where I got it. It has some stuff in it you all might be interested in, but until I know who did the extensive comments in the margins I hesitate to say anything. It is a copy of a letter with attachments (nine pages in all and dated April 28, 2005) from Jerry Rankin to Tom Hatley and John Floyd about the IMB issues of baptism and prayer language. Some of the comments in the margins are, well, informative of how people were thinking in these areas. I don’t know who wrote the marginal comments.

    One interesting thing of recent comment. A free will baptist church had been strong supporters of the co-operative program for years, but when one of their own was considered for appointment as a missionary the board was not going to appoint him unless the guy got baptized (again) by somebody who believed in eternal security of the believer. Apparently if you don’t believe specifically certain things about baptism at the time you are baptized, and if the church doing the baptizing did not believe certain things at the time, then you have not actually been baptized. Meaning, I suppose, that calvinisticoid baptists are the only people on the planet who have actually been baptized.

    I guess you don’t have a “passport” otherwise????

    If anybody knows anything about this document or where I might have gotten it, please let me know before I say something I should not. Thanks, guys.

  79. ” It does not necessarily entail priesthood of the individual believer who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit which is more of an Anabaptist idea.

    When it comes to the Priesthood of believer, not only are definitions important but evidently so is the plural when it comes to Mohler and the BFM rewrite in 2000. The longer I am around the YRR movement at ground zero, the more I insist they define all terminology because ultimately, we are not talking the same language.

    http://assets.baptiststandard.com/archived/2000/7_17/pages/bfm_meaning.html

    They tend to define it more in a Nicolaitan sense of ‘conqueror of the people’.

  80. Nancy wrote:

    It has some stuff in it you all might be interested in, but until I know who did the extensive comments in the margins I hesitate to say anything. It is a copy of a letter with attachments (nine pages in all and dated April 28, 2005) from Jerry Rankin to Tom Hatley and John Floyd about the IMB issues of baptism and prayer language. Some of the comments in the margins are, well, informative of how people were thinking in these areas. I don’t know who wrote the marginal comments.

    Nancy, Wade would probably know as he was involved in some of that stuff back then.

  81. My take on it is that anyone who preaches this “Keys to the Kingdom” theory and the indisputable authority of the local church and its self-proclaimed leaders is quite possibly not in fact a “citizen of the kingdom of heaven.”

  82. I agree with you, Law Prof. Remember, it’s not just Leeman and Dever who are teaching this about the keys. It’s an Old Calvinist thing.

  83. Gram3 wrote:

    This is an important point, and I’m going to elaborate a bit. If I get it wrong, please correct it from your knowledge of Baptist history.

    Gram, My understanding of “Baptist history” growing up came more from the Ana Baptist line of thinking: Priesthood of believer, soul competency, no king but Jesus, etc. It was drilled into our heads in Training Union in the SBC back then. The pastor was just another member of the Body in our world and we were in and out of each others houses all the time. Thinking of them as celebs or holding any authority would be been considered heresy.

    It was not until much later I came to understand it was much more complicated than that and there is even controversy among scholars concerning the trajectory of the line of particulars/separatists, etc.

    Personally, I think, based on reading a ton of history especially from Reformation on there has been a subtle move away from the deterministic god paradigm as the idea of individual civil rights grew. (I found an obscure book that actually speaks to this by Leonard Verduin called “Anatomy of a Hybrid” which is about church/state thinking throughout history.)

    You see another big move away from Calvinism/determinism after the Civil War in theological writings. Harriet Beecher Stowe even wrote a fictional novel questioning Calvinism in the “Ministers Wooing”. She was raised Calvinist and her poor father went through a very stressful ecclesiastical trial at Lane Seminary over some disagreements on doctrine.

    The shift is very nuanced. Puritan descendants tended to become Universalists or Presbyterians. One interesting aspect of this subtle shift is the move away from infant baptism. Infant baptism makes total sense when it comes to imputed guilt but not a lot of sense when it comes to God’s random selection of the chosen before the world was even created. The concept of vipers in diapers has been around for millennia and sadly, remains. Ditching it when one believes in imputed guilt and baptism has always confused me.

  84. @ Law Prof:

    I agree with this. It is, in fact, a red flag to take very seriously since it elevates mere men over Jesus Christ as the “gate”.

  85. Nancy wrote:

    A free will baptist church had been strong supporters of the co-operative program for years, but when one of their own was considered for appointment as a missionary the board was not going to appoint him unless the guy got baptized (again) by somebody who believed in eternal security of the believer. Apparently if you don’t believe specifically certain things about baptism at the time you are baptized, and if the church doing the baptizing did not believe certain things at the time, then you have not actually been baptized. Meaning, I suppose, that calvinisticoid baptists are the only people on the planet who have actually been baptized.

    As the great-granddaughter of a Free Will Baptist minister, this makes me furious.
    Not entirely off topic: Grandpa Frank was a pastor in Michigan, when Michigan was the West. There was a flu epideemic, and he delivered food & medicine to the sick–regardless of religion (or lack therepf). After weeks of this, he died of pneumonia. And these [expletives deleted] would DARE to deny him as a fellow believer???? Bah. Humbug.

  86. Law Prof wrote:

    My take on it is that anyone who preaches this “Keys to the Kingdom” theory and the indisputable authority of the local church and its self-proclaimed leaders is quite possibly not in fact a “citizen of the kingdom of heaven.”

    I’m with you on that.

  87. Julie Anne wrote:

    I”m pretty sure I remember a single that was on the inside of a cereal box – – we had to cut out the record to play on our record player – – remember those?

    Yes I do! That’s how I got a 45 of The Archies singing Sugar Sugar.

  88. Thanks, Tim, for validating how old I am 🙂 Now, my all-time fave cereal record was Bobby Sherman’s, “Julie, Julie, Julie, do you love me.” And I may have sung back to him, “Bobby, Bobby, Bobby, yes I do.”

  89. Tim wrote:

    Julie Anne wrote:
    I”m pretty sure I remember a single that was on the inside of a cereal box – – we had to cut out the record to play on our record player – – remember those?
    Yes I do! That’s how I got a 45 of The Archies singing Sugar Sugar.

    I’m old enough to remember that that song was originally written for the Monkees (who rejected it) by Don Kirshner (who having been rebuffed by the Monkees used his golden touch to do a marketing tie-in with the TV comics and make more millions from another hit).

  90. Lydia wrote:

    @ Law Prof:
    I agree with this. It is, in fact, a red flag to take very seriously since it elevates mere men over Jesus Christ as the “gate”.

    My wife was once organizing a city wide Christian event in a major metro. She had a meeting with a group of pastors to see if they’d help out (a huge mistake that she’ll never repeat) and one of the pastors stared her down and proclaimed “I AM the gate!”

  91. Nancy wrote:

    Apparently if you don’t believe specifically certain things about baptism at the time you are baptized, and if the church doing the baptizing did not believe certain things at the time, then you have not actually been baptized.

    I defy anyone to find chapter and verse for that! I learnt most of what baptism meant after I was baptised, this didn’t necessitate repeating it. What happened to ‘one baptism’ – providing you are a genuine believer? The pastor used to say we needed to ‘realise our [Christian] assets’, in both senses of realise meaning learning what they are and then actually getting the ‘stuff’ itself.

    Anyway, what I was going to say is whenever some new jargon comes on the scene, ‘keys’ being one expression, an amber warning light goes on that this is more than likely to be a novelty not expressly taught in the NT. Discipleship, shepherd, plenty of examples. Probably based on a legitimate idea, and then added to until a great false superstructure built on top of it buries the initial truth out of sight. And because you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater that bit harder to refute and set people free from, because they rightly see some truth in it.

  92. dee wrote:

    Jeremy wrote:
    Besides which, how you go from Peter’s confession and Jesus’ response to the local church having keys is a bit baffling to me.
    It is confusing.

    Interestingly enough I once read an Eastern Orthodox polemic which went along the lines of Jesus saying to Peter a few verses later “get thee behind me, Satan!” had the effect of taking away this authority of Peter, causing Peter to be just another apostle. However, the ending of John seems to refute this and the polemic I do not think reflects official Orthodox doctrine in any way.

  93. @ Dr. Fundystan:

    Except that quote has never meant by church “local autonomous congregation”, but rather the church universal throughout time and space.

    A lot of these guys seem to have lost sight of the church universal in their zeal to talk about the local church. I once covered one guy last summer who actually said “the church is not some big, invisible, foggy thing that, somehow or other, I may be related to,” then defined the church as a “visible entity.” Not sure if he intended to define Christians who have died before us as not part of the church anymore, but that’s what his definition did. I explored it here.

    http://scarletlettersblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/why-the-church-needs-the-family-and-the-family-needs-the-church-tbb/

  94. Law Prof wrote:

    Don Kirshner

    That guy was a master promoter. I also remember a Saturday Night Live skit where they had cast members playing Don Kirshner and Don Cornelius (another music promoter) but as mafia dons in the biz of being music moguls. Funny stuff.

  95. Julie Anne wrote:

    Now, my all-time fave cereal record was Bobby Sherman’s, “Julie, Julie, Julie, do you love me.”

    Which reminds me of Here Come the Brides. Too much fun TV back then!

  96. William G. wrote:

    I once read an Eastern Orthodox polemic which went along the lines of Jesus saying to Peter a few verses later “get thee behind me, Satan!” had the effect of taking away this authority of Peter, causing Peter to be just another apostle. However, the ending of John seems to refute this and the polemic I do not think reflects official Orthodox doctrine in any way.

    I wonder if that was an Orthodox version of “No Popery!”

    Because if Peter had the “authority of the keys” taken away and was just another apostle, his successors in Rome could not claim primacy over the entire Church, East as well as West.

  97. Law Prof wrote:

    My wife was once organizing a city wide Christian event in a major metro. She had a meeting with a group of pastors to see if they’d help out (a huge mistake that she’ll never repeat) and one of the pastors stared her down and proclaimed “I AM the gate!”

    i.e. “I AM the Way! I AM the Truth! I AM the Life! NOBODY comes to Christ except through MY say-so!”

  98. Gram3 wrote:

    We also have R.C. Sproul, Jr. to anticipate. YRR love for Sr. is already being transferred to Jr., or at least his problematic past is being whitewashed. I can’t wait for Gospel Wife Discipline.

    Just like Nork love for Kim Jong-Il was transferred to Kim Jong-Un.

    “Gospel Wife Discipline” as in “PAPA SPANK! SPANK! SPANK!”?

  99. Our former pastor posted this quote by Jonathan Leeman after we had left the church. ” Stop calling yourself a Christian if you’re making a habit of living independently from the local church.” Nice guy Leeman!!

  100. Tim wrote:

    Law Prof wrote:
    Don Kirshner
    That guy was a master promoter. I also remember a Saturday Night Live skit where they had cast members playing Don Kirshner and Don Cornelius (another music promoter) but as mafia dons in the biz of being music moguls. Funny stuff.

    From what I’ve heard about that era, perhaps not such a huge difference between the average mafioso and the average music mogul.

  101. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    I once read an Eastern Orthodox polemic which went along the lines of Jesus saying to Peter a few verses later “get thee behind me, Satan!” had the effect of taking away this authority of Peter, causing Peter to be just another apostle. However, the ending of John seems to refute this and the polemic I do not think reflects official Orthodox doctrine in any way.
    I wonder if that was an Orthodox version of “No Popery!”
    Because if Peter had the “authority of the keys” taken away and was just another apostle, his successors in Rome could not claim primacy over the entire Church, East as well as West.

    It most certainly was, but it was also a theological opinion of the individual author, which may have been Romanides, I can’t recall. Officially the Orthodox Church affords the Petrine sees the highest honor; Constantinople, the see of Andrew the first called, is temporarily no. 1, but if Rome re-enters communion with us then the Pope would be Primus Inter Pares. Before Constantinople was completed and before Jerusalem was restored (after the Bar Khokba revolt it had been largely left in ruins, and Caesarea was the main city in Judea), the pecking order was Rome, followed by Alexandria, followed by Antioch, and the bishops of these three cities were called Patriarchs or Popes (except in Antioch; the Patriarch of Antioch was never called Pope). After Constantinople became the capital, and a restored Jerusalem the center of pilgrimage, the honor roll changed, to Rome followed by Constantinople, followed by Alexandra, then Antioch, then Jerusalem. There were other major apostolic sees as well; Edessa and Babylon in the East, Etchmiadzin for the Armenians, Milan and Lyons, and of course Caesarea, Athens and Ephesus.

    All of these Bishops historically had a degree of autonomy, with the Patriarchates being completely autocephalous. Occasionally one Patriarch would attempt to depose another; this resulted in either a short schism or an Ecumenical Council. A procedural error made by St. Cyril in his efforts to remove Nestorius caused a permanent schism which is only now healing, that of the Assyrian Church of the East, while a misunderstanding at Chalcedon separated the Copts, Syriacs, Ethiopians and Armenians from everyone else; this schism is also healing thankfully. The Christological controversies of the fourth century were awful and I don’t like to even think about them; there were true heretics but much of it was just misunderstanding of highly complex theological jargon, exacerbated by Leo I, who was the first Roman pontiff to attempt to claim universal jurisdiction. Though Leo is reckoned a saint, I myself can’t find much to like about the man.

    However, there were lots of good popes before the Great Schism. St Gregory the Dialogist saved tens of thousands from starvation and murder when Rome was sacked, provided leadership in the absence of a functional civil government, and still had time to document the Presanctified Liturgy used by the Orthodox in Lent and Holy Week, and the Roman Catholics on Good Friday. The Presanctified Liturgy is my personal favorite due to the beauty and solemnity of its hymns and prayers; it’s unique in that it uses Eucharistic bread consecrated at an earlier service, so there is no Anaphora, or Eucharistic Prayer. The Orthodox tend to call it the Liturgy of St Gregory in the honor of the great Pope, but scholars now believe he merely documented it; the practice appears to have originated with the Syriac Orthodox bishop Severus.

    At any rate, the Orthodox teach that the power to forgive and retain sins is delegated to individual priests at their ordinations, and the power to ordain is conferred on a bishop, who must be ordained by at least three other bishops. These bishops do not necessarily have to be of a higher rank, and more often than not the whole synod of a particular church, rather than its patriarch or metropolitan, will approve ordinations of new bishops. So that’s our theory regarding the “keys” and who has them. Do other Christians have the keys also? It depends in who you ask; hard liners in the Old Calendar movement would adamantly say no, whereas the Ecumenical Patriarch, who rules the Greek Orthodox Church in America, among other provinces, would probably say yes, at least in the case of the Roman Pope.

    However, I think everyone in the Orthodox Church would unanimously, or near unanimously say, that Dever does not have them, if for no other reason than he teaches iconoclasm and Nestorianism. However, the fact that 9Marks has infamously denounced Eastern Orthodox and Catholics as being “sexually promiscuous, image worshipping drunks,” as documented on Wartburg Watch previously does little to promote a healthy ecumenical dialogue. 😛

  102. Another thing I find odd is how churches under IX Marks influence view baptism. A pastor has told me that my baptism is probably invalid since it was by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff person while on a mission trip and not under a local church’s authority, despite being in a Trinitarian fashion by a believer and so forth. I think being baptized in the presence of 50 or so other student missionaries from different churches was a beautiful picture of the church universal but some disagree it seems. I think that idea stems from the kind of theology discussed in this article.

  103. Jeremy wrote:

    how churches under IX Marks influence view baptism. A pastor has told me that my baptism is probably invalid since it was by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff person while on a mission trip and not under a local church’s authority,

    Well, I guess that pastor is a 9Landmarkser. 😉

  104. Jeremy wrote:

    A pastor has told me that my baptism is probably invalid since it was by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff person while on a mission trip and not under a local church’s authority,

    Neither was John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus! ROFL!!!

  105. From the OP Jonathan Leeman says, “Staring down at Matthew 18:15-20, I would argue with the dissenters that Jesus places the keys squarely in the hands of the local church—wherever two or three are formally gathered in his name.”

    This is where Leeman is caught red-handed with eisegesis and equivocation of a sort. There is nothing in the text of Matthew 18 about being *formally* gathered. It is not an institution or formal organization that Jesus is talking about.

    He is talking about being with his sheep whenever they are gathered together. Of course, that puts Jesus or the Holy Spirit in the middle and not one of these Self-important Mediators of Truth.

    Jonathan just pulled that out of the text right where he put it. And by doing that, Jonathan changed the nature of “gather together” from an informal gathering into a formal one over which a human male must preside. Very clever.

  106. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    TW wrote:
    Sopwith wrote:
    Comic Relief:
    “Think what your gonna be missing, you won’t have Driscoll ta kick around any more…”
    Good one Soppy, but Driscoll will be back – tanned, rested and ready!
    Remember Jimmy Swaggart?
    And Ted Haggard?
    Resigned(TM) to plant a new church and start climbing to the top all over again with a NEW independent church.
    It’s Comeback Time!

    I’ll add Kip McKean from the International Churches of Christ. He resigned and then started another movement, the International Christian Churches.

  107. Gram3 wrote:

    From the OP Jonathan Leeman says, “Staring down at Matthew 18:15-20, I would argue with the dissenters that Jesus places the keys squarely in the hands of the local church—wherever two or three are formally gathered in his name.”
    This is where Leeman is caught red-handed with eisegesis and equivocation of a sort. There is nothing in the text of Matthew 18 about being *formally* gathered. It is not an institution or formal organization that Jesus is talking about.
    He is talking about being with his sheep whenever they are gathered together. Of course, that puts Jesus or the Holy Spirit in the middle and not one of these Self-important Mediators of Truth.
    Jonathan just pulled that out of the text right where he put it. And by doing that, Jonathan changed the nature of “gather together” from an informal gathering into a formal one over which a human male must preside. Very clever.

    Note that the Pauline epistles suggest a formal gathering, led by males, as does the Didache, which some scholars believe predates the canonical Gospels. There is also a definite formality in how Jesus conducted the Last Supper. Then we have the late 1st century martyr Ignatius saying “where the Bishop is, there is the universal church, and Christ”, and then 50 years later in his Apology, Justin Martyr describes a very formal Eucharist, separate from the Agape or love feast.

    Then we have a progression of liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Divine Liturgies of Ss. Mark, James and the Twelve Apostles, which take us from the second century into the Fourth, and which are progressively more formal and elaborate. Then there is the Euchologion of Serapion, which is like a fourth century version of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, with a complete set of liturgical services to be led by a Bishop, compiled by St. Serapion, who served under St. Athanasius in the Egyptian church during the Arian persecutions that followed the death of St. Constantine I.

    So there is a clear historical record of formal worship services led by a male priesthood. However, many historians believe that the growth of the Christian faith was driven by women, who in Christianity were prevented from being subjected to various forms of sexual abuse including forced abortion or discarding of their babies, and given much improved rights compared to the way they were treated by Greco-Roman Pagans, who for the most part regarded them as property. Both Judaism and Christianity protect women to a much higher degree than the contemporary religions from that era. Some forms of Gnostic Christianity were extremely misogynistic however; consider the Manichaeans with their Gospel of Thomas, which dares to attribute to our Lord that “any female who makes herself male will inherit the Kingdom of God.” Contrast this with the chivalry of the early Church p, which honored the Virgin Mary above all other human beings on account of her faithfulness and closeness to the incarnate Word.

    Now, that said, setting aside the question of apostolic succession and proper ordination, which we will not all agree on, Jonathan Leeman is basically correct regarding what constitutes the church during the Eucharist, at least. However, other prayer services have never required a male leader; at my local Orthodox parish, which lacks a full time priest, most services are lead by the female cantor.

    dee wrote:

    Jeremy wrote:
    A pastor has told me that my baptism is probably invalid since it was by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff person while on a mission trip and not under a local church’s authority,
    Neither was John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus! ROFL!!!

    Strictly speaking, the Book of Acts tells us that the Baptism of John is not the same as, nor as efficacious as, the spirit-filled baptism of the early Church. The Baptism of Jesus however inaugurated and transformed the Johannine baptism. The Mandaeans are a persecuted Iraqi minority religion of Gnostic origin that reveres John the Baptist and performs weekly baptisms on Sunday; they regard Jesus as a false prophet and their holy books are rather emphatic on that point. The Mandaeans may be descendants of those disciples of St. John who chose to reject Jesus and his teachings. Yet their baptism is essentially that of John, and they claim to preserve his rite in all it’s detail.

    Now, the 9Marks pastor is completely wrong however from a Patristic standpoint. If you look at the ancient writings, the ancient position since the end of the first century appears to be that any Baptism is valid provided the Trinitarian formula is used, and even laymen can baptize someone validly if that person is in danger of death. I myself once baptized a friend who was in this situation; fortunately he lived. The ancient writers, and the Orthodox churches, insisted on triple immersion, that is to say, complete immersion of the entire person in water. (Doing this with infants is tricky and an incompetent priest managed to drown a baby in Moldova in 2007; this remains an isolated incident). The Roman Catholics simply insist the baptism be in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. This represents a relaxation of the ancient rules, but the Roman Catholic standard is the one also followed by most Protestant churches, aside from the Baptists and evangelicals with Baptist tendencies.

    In the New Testament, we see both baptisms in Jesus Name and with the Trinitarian formula, but baptisms in the name of Jesus alone aren’t accepted by most churches as valid. The scholarly consensus is that this was an early use that was superseded as the New Testament was still being written by different authors, which is why we see both forms.

    Now of course, 9 Marks can believe whatever they want to about baptism, but their view in this case goes against that of basically everyone else since the Great Commission. Does that make it ‘wrong’? From the perspective of most Christians, yes, but thankfully we live in a country where they have the right to believe whatever they wish, no matter how absurd. Also, this being theology, we have no objective way to prove them wrong in a scientific sense; we have only the Bible, the testimony of the Church and her theologians over the centuries, and our own personal subjective religious experiences to go on. However, I daresay that most denominations would agree that if Jeremy was baptized using the Trinitarian formula, he has nothing to worry about.

  108. William G. wrote:

    Note that the Pauline epistles suggest a formal gathering, led by males, as does the Didache, which some scholars believe predates the canonical Gospels. There is also a definite formality in how Jesus conducted the Last Supper. Then we have the late 1st century martyr Ignatius saying “where the Bishop is, there is the universal church, and Christ”, and then 50 years later in his Apology, Justin Martyr describes a very formal Eucharist, separate from the Agape or love feast.

    Jonathan Leeman is a Protestant as am I. That means that non-canonical texts are not authoritative. The Didache is a record of what happened or what was customary.

    The Pauline epistles may *suggest* a formal gathering to you, led by a male(s), but you need to show your work and not just say it is so. If we hold the Bible as our authoritative and inspired text, then as Protestants we need to handle it carefully and not be led along by the eisegesis of mere men, as I believe I straightforwardly demonstrated using his own words and comparing them to the actual text of Matthew. The idea of a *formal* gathering is intentionally placed there by Jonathan Leeman in order to “prove” his prior conviction. That is classical proof-texting and eisegesis.

    I don’t recognize human traditions as authoritative, although you are free to do so if you are so inclined. Jonathan Leeman is not free to say that he places himself under the authority of scripture–sola scriptura–while engaging in obvious and self-serving abuse of the actual text.

    Either the words of the Holy Spirit are authoritative or Jonathan’s words are authoritative. He has made it clear where he thinks the real authority is.

    I don’t know where you find formality in the actual text of Scripture where it describes the Last Supper. Of course, if you assume it was a Eucharistic service then it might appear so to you. The Passover meal is and was a family celebration, not a priestly service.

  109. Gram3 wrote:

    I don’t know where you find formality in the actual text of Scripture where it describes the Last Supper. Of course, if you assume it was a Eucharistic service then it might appear so to you. The Passover meal is and was a family celebration, not a priestly service.

    Scripture ‘suggests’ many things, but it by no means says we are ‘bound’ by ritual to any of its suggestions. And by the way, the ‘Last Supper’ was a Passover Seder, and Jesus himself was as Jewish as gefiltefish. It really is sad that the post Constantine fathers both East and West have succeeded all too well in eradicating the Jewish roots of Christianity.

  110. The Passover Meal is indeed a family affair, but it is not informal; Jewish siddurim contain a formal liturgy of prayers, stories and catechtical acts that the participants in a Passover, in Orthodox Judaism, and indeed in non-Talmudic Karaite Judaism, follow. What the Fathers argue our Lord did was to transition the Passover into the prototype of the Eucharist. This does not mean He was wearing a chasuble and burning incense in a thurible before a marble altar, of course. What happened in the Cenacle that evening was most certainly a humble affair, but also certainly formal, in the sense of following the Seder liturgy, which our Lord deviated from at key points to accomplish the Institution of Holy Communion.

    Ultimately it must be recognized that the New Testament does not enumerate what books comprise it. Thus, at a minimum, sola scriptura Protestants must be aware that in adhering to the 27 book New Testament canon, they are adhering to a tradition that can be traced to St. Athanasius in the fourth century. It wasn’t until the sixth century that the Athanasian canon became broadly accepted, and even today, the Ethiopians add some additional books to it. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas were considered canonical by a huge chunk of early Christians, and the Apocalypse of John was rejected by many. Also the Epistle of Jude references the Book of Enoch, which only the Ethiopians regard as canonical.

    Note that this is not an attack on sola scriptura. I have no problems with Christians who seek to use the Bible as the basis for their sprituality, and elevate it above other material. However, if you are going to use this approach, you risk inconsistency unless you understand how it was your Bible came to be: who determined the contents of it, who translated it, et cetera, and what historical factors advised the decisions they made.

    It is also equally imperative to educate oneself as to the historical facts surrounding the bible and how it was understood by the early church. 2 Peter 1:20 tells us that no prophecy is an exposition of itself; in reading the New Testament there are several places where we have to make a judgment call regarding interpretation. The Last Supper is one such place, because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, all of whom describe it, Paul with the greatest detail, do not explicitly state it’s formality. Indeed, even it’s status as a Passover meal is uncertain; some have argued from a timing perspective it had to have occurred on Holy Wednesday. However, if it was a Seder, and many think it was, then we know by looking at Siddurim that the Jews have always celebrated the Passover meal with the greatest formality. The Karaites for example historically kept a separate set of dishes and cutlery purely for use on Passover, to emphasize Passover was different from every other day. Passover, like Jewish Synagogue worship, and the sacrificial cult in the Temple, was and is formal and liturgical, and indeed, many conservative liturgical scholars believe that the Christian liturgy was derived from these sources.

    However, the formality of the Last Supper doesn’t derail your objection to Leeman. The church fathers in their writings and actions indicate that they uniformly believed the local Bishop had the power to bind and loose, the so called keys, and these Bishops derived their authority from apostolic succession and, in some cases, election by their peers (for example,the Bishop of Alexandria would ordain his presbyters; when he died, they would elect his replacement from their ranks, and thus apostolic succession was preserved). Now, one can propose that the early church got it wrong. The Mormons do; their view is that after the last of the Apostles died, the priesthood keys were lost until Joseph Smith found them. However, our Lord promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church. Thus it seems to me evident that the consensus patrum, to use a Reformation concept, should point us in the direction of Truth, that is to say, our Lord.

    I should lastly state that I personally reconcile my belief in the New Testament’s divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit acting not just upon the authors of it, but upon the entire group of heroic men and women, many of whom died for their faith, who preserved the scriptures during the Roman persecution, and who then ultimately sorted out which texts were the authentic writings of the Apostles and which ones were spurious, heretical or simply unworthy of inclusion. The process by which these decisions were made, by various scholars and bishops. Had to have been guided by the Spirit, and is fascinating to study. The editors of what became the New Testament desired only authentic writings by the Apostles. The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas were ultimately excluded because their origin was from the mid second century, although they remained universally praised as devotional literature. In like manner, 1 Clement, which appears in many early canons, was chopped because Clement, although known to Paul, was not one of the original Apostles, but rather the third Bishop of Rome; what he had to say was important, but it was not scripture. Jude nearly got chopped because it quotes Enoch, Hebrews was nearly omitted because to this day no one actually knows who wrote it; it was traditionally attributed to Paul, but stylistic differences caused many church fathers to question it’s attribution and even it’s authenticity. The Apocalypse of John was nearly omitted due to its unusual character, and none of the Eastern churches reads it liturgically, although they all regard it as canonical. The Didache is an example of a useful text that was cut out by everyone except the Ethiopians, while still being regarded as worthy of study. Those were the tough calls; on the other hand it was relatively easy for the Fathers to omit Gnostic material such as the Gospel of Philip and the Tripartite Tractate.

  111. @ Muff Potter:
    The Orthodox would likely say it is still there, but if so, certainly not in a way that would be viewed as recognizably Jewish by anyone in the Jewish community today. Some Catholics make similar claims, but in both cases, i think the claims are a creative bit of re-interpretation on the part of the claimants.

    Again, just my opinion.

  112. Muff Potter wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    I don’t know where you find formality in the actual text of Scripture where it describes the Last Supper. Of course, if you assume it was a Eucharistic service then it might appear so to you. The Passover meal is and was a family celebration, not a priestly service.
    Scripture ‘suggests’ many things, but it by no means says we are ‘bound’ by ritual to any of its suggestions. And by the way, the ‘Last Supper’ was a Passover Seder, and Jesus himself was as Jewish as gefiltefish. It really is sad that the post Constantine fathers both East and West have succeeded all too well in eradicating the Jewish roots of Christianity.

    The Syriac, Assyrian and Ethiopian churches preserve a strongly Jewish character. The Syriac language is a dialect of Aramaic, which Jesus spoke, and in which the Talmud and even parts of the Old and New Testament were written. Thus, when you hear the Lords Prayer or the Beatitudes in a Syriac or Assyrian church, you are hearing sounds similar to those actually spoken by Christ. The Peshitta is one of the oldest and most useful translations of the entire Bible, old and new, predating the Vulgate and the Masoretic Text. Many Syriac, Assyrian and Antiochian Christians, particularly those in Palestine, are of Hebrew ancestry. The Assyrians in their Eucharist read a Torah and Haftarah, before reading an Epistle and a Gospel. As for the Ethiopians, they observe large portions of the Mosaic law, including the dietary restrictions and circumcision. They claim that they were Jewish before becoming Christian, the result of the Queen of Sheba converting following her exchange with Solomon. This is witnessed by the large population of Ethiopian Jews, known as the Beta Israel, most of whom have been airlifted to Israel to avoid genocide in the former Derg regime.

    At the same time Judaism has certainly been influenced by Christianity; Reform and Conservatice Judaism with its use of pulpits and organs, and indeed the institution of the Pulpit Rabbi, whose main preaching function is more similar to that of a Protestant minister, than to the traditional role of a Rabbi as a teacher and judge of the law.

  113. Jonathan Leeman quoted in the OP:

    I have argued elsewhere that the keys represent the authority to build the church on earth on Jesus’ behalf by declaring what and who belong to the kingdom of heaven—what is a right confession of the gospel, and who is a right confessor.

    How blessed Jesus must be that Jonathan and other self-anointed ones are good enough to build the church on earth on Jesus’ behalf. Whatever would he do without them? And Jonathan Leeman and his co-exercisers are going to build Jesus’ church by declaring what and who belong to the kingdom of heaven. Wow! So they have said it, so it is done! Guess that whole thing about the Spirit moving where he wills has been made non-operational.

    Trouble is, Jesus told Peter and the others that *Jesus* who is the Living Cornerstone would build his church out of living stones–stones that were dead but which the Holy Spirit made alive. Also, inconveniently for Jonathan’s doctrine, Jesus has created a new priesthood consisting of everyone who is in Christ, whether they are male or (gasp!) female, regardless of the spew from CBMW.

    The Holy Spirit inspired Peter to write in 1 Peter 2:4-5:

    And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

    Neither Jonathan Leeman nor any other human can make anyone spiritually alive by *exercising the keys” whatever in the world that means. Neither Jonathan Leeman or 9Marks or any of the Gospel Glitterati can put men and women into bondage to their human imaginations when those men *and* women have been freed by Christ and made priests by *him*.

    Seriously, those keys must be trim and toned Crossfit keys with all that strenuous exercise. Or possibly exhausted like the people who have to live under this kind of legalism.

  114. @ Muff Potter:

    Agreed that Jesus has been transmogrified into Jeffrey Hunter with dreamy blue eyes. When I think of Jesus, I think of the guys with Dirty Jobs who are strong and rugged and tough but also gentle and loving. He must have been physically strong to be a tekton, whether that was a stonemason or a carpenter. No power tools, trucks, cranes, or hydraulic lifts. Now, just imagine any of the current Manly Men in that world without cracking up…

  115. Jeremy wrote:

    Another thing I find odd is how churches under IX Marks influence view baptism.

    I guess they don’t know church history. Ex opere operato.

  116. @ numo:

    I meant to say that I agree that it is sad that we have lost sight of Jesus’ Jewishness and so have lost a lot of the meaning of what the Bible texts record. The NT takes on a lot more dimension when one considers the tensions that arose in the time of Jesus and afterward in the churches due to the creative destruction of prior worldviews, both Jewish and Gentile, and the reconstitution of those worldviews in Christ.

  117. Muff Potter wrote:

    Scripture ‘suggests’ many things

    I suggest that what a particular suggestee supposes that Scripture suggests may actually be what is presupposed by the suggestee. The power of suggestion and confirmation bias and all that kind of stuff.

  118. Gram3 wrote:

    From the OP Jonathan Leeman says, “Staring down at Matthew 18:15-20, I would argue with the dissenters that Jesus places the keys squarely in the hands of the local church—wherever two or three are formally gathered in his name.”
    This is where Leeman is caught red-handed with eisegesis and equivocation of a sort. There is nothing in the text of Matthew 18 about being *formally* gathered. It is not an institution or formal organization that Jesus is talking about.

    This is where our lack of understanding Hebrew thinking really becomes a problem. That particular passage harkens back to Duet 19 concerning witnesses and dealing with conflict and comes after Jesus speaking on the topic of “who is the greatest”, “temptations and trespasses”, etc. The Jews he was talking to would have gotten it.

    I think the translation “church” really throws people off the important fact the post resurrection “church” had not even been started yet. So what is Jesus talking about when the Greek word Ekklesia is used here? to whom is he talking and what is the occassion? (uh hum….Pentecost happened AFTER this…hello Mr. Leeman)

    All these are questions that will help focus us on the historical meaning (and how it might apply today) instead of allowing charlatans like Leeman to do it for us.

    According to Leeman, I am to believe that Jesus Christ put mediators between He and I in the guise of local church leaders who are specially chosen humans to tell me if I am the real thing or not. That kind of negates the “Good News” if you ask me.

    And these specially appointed mediators (uh…) have a checklist of items for me such as my involvement in the church, proper submission to their perceived authority and most likely my tithing prowess.

    Right. Does Leeman really believe that sort of thing even sounds like the same Jesus Christ as presented in scripture? (Nevermind really knowing Him….) Let us just take scripture as the guide for a moment since that is what Leeman uses as his club) Is he speaking of the same Jesus Christ who a bit later ALSO spoke Matthew 20: 25-27….. as a warning?

    Perhaps Leeman defines the “spiritual” authority he and his ilk insist upon over others as being a “servant” or a “slave”. I have heard that one before as meanings are twisted over and over to fit the agenda. Again, we must insist on definitions of all terminology.

    What Leeman is really advocating is the pagan structure of authority (Chain of being..a sort of caste system) in the Body of Christ. He really has set himself up as a “mediator” between Jesus Christ and others with his interpretation of the “keys” passage.

    Personally, I would put him, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney, etc. firmly in the Nicolaitan camp.

  119. @ Lydia:
    I think that Mr Leeman should be aware of the Deuteronomy connotation in the Lord’s words given that most commentators over the centuries have referred to it, including D A Carson in his joint Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. What I didn’t know was that the same commentators link the verses on “binding” and “gathering” to the discipline procedure which puts everything in a much more sensible light. Quite amazing what you can learn here. (And I’m being serious)

  120. @ Lydia:
    Regarding your last sentence, I found this about the founder of the Nicolaitans and wondered if perhaps MD might have been an adherent as well!

    “[Nicolas] had an attractive wife, and had refrained from intercourse as though in imitation of those whom he saw to be devoted to God. He endured this for a while but in the end could not bear to control his incontinence…. But because he was ashamed of his defeat and suspected that he had been found out, he ventured to say, “Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life.”[16]

    —Epiphanius, Panarion, 25, 1”

  121. Lydia wrote:

    What Leeman is really advocating is the pagan structure of authority (Chain of being..a sort of caste system) in the Body of Christ. He really has set himself up as a “mediator” between Jesus Christ and others with his interpretation of the “keys” passage.

    Personally, I would put him, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney, etc. firmly in the Nicolaitan camp.

    You’ve put your finger on the way that these folks depart from Christianity’s core, a shamed and crucified King. At the core of every religion other than Christianity, including secular “religions”, is a formal or informal hierarchy, a system of metrics to assess one’s absolute or relative position in the religious or secular system, and loopholes of various kinds to escape from the legalistic requirements.

    Rather than a shamed and Crucified King who is raised up an glorified and who resurrects and glorifies all who are in him, these fallen human systems promote ongoing shame among those lower in the hierarchy which keeps them in their place and pride among those who are higher on the ladder or on top of the hierarchy because they are set apart and above. There are social signals of status and merits to offset offenses rather than mutual servanthood and forgiveness flowing from repentance.

    This is the trap for every human, IMO, and we need to recognize and resist it, both in ourselves when we lapse into it and in others when they want to impose it on us or others. I think that these men have fallen into that trap, and instead of helping each other out of the trap, they mutually affirm one another and extoll the goodness of being in the trap. Others are drawn into the trap because they trust their leaders and have swapped the power of the Spirit dwelling in them for the power of the leaders and for false worth within the system rather than the worth granted them because they are in Christ.

    Can you sharpen or correct this? I would appreciate it.

  122. Gavin White wrote:

    What I didn’t know was that the same commentators link the verses on “binding” and “gathering” to the discipline procedure which puts everything in a much more sensible light. Quite amazing what you can learn here.

    Could you expand on this, please? It sounds interesting, but I’m missing something. Thanks, and I agree on learning a lot here.

  123. Jeremy wrote:

    Another thing I find odd is how churches under IX Marks influence view baptism. A pastor has told me that my baptism is probably invalid since it was by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff person while on a mission trip and not under a local church’s authority, despite being in a Trinitarian fashion by a believer and so forth. I think being baptized in the presence of 50 or so other student missionaries from different churches was a beautiful picture of the church universal but some disagree it seems. I think that idea stems from the kind of theology discussed in this article.

    Jeremy, you’re either dealing with a full-blown evil person there or a decent person who believes an evil thing. Not sure there’s a practical difference were you to come under his authority.

  124. Lydia wrote:

    I think the translation “church” really throws people off the important fact the post resurrection “church” had not even been started yet. So what is Jesus talking about when the Greek word Ekklesia is used here? to whom is he talking and what is the occassion? (uh hum….Pentecost happened AFTER this…hello Mr. Leeman)

    I think I probably disagree with you here, Lydia. The gospels were written decades after Jesus ascended, and I believe they contain language and stories which are relevant to the church at the time they were written.As far as we know, Jesus wasn’t even speaking Greek. So the gospel writers chose to use the word church for a reason – probably (to my mind) making a certain teaching of jesus relevant to the fledgling church.

  125. Gram3 wrote:

    I think that these men have fallen into that trap, and instead of helping each other out of the trap, they mutually affirm one another and extoll the goodness of being in the trap.

    “In short, though knowing full well the sentence which God pronounces against actions such as theirs, as things which deserve death, they not only practise them, but even encourage and applaud others who do them.” Rom 1:32

    Gram3 wrote:

    Others are drawn into the trap because they trust their leaders and have swapped the power of the Spirit dwelling in them for the power of the leaders and for false worth within the system rather than the worth granted them because they are in Christ.

    “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” Rom 1:25

  126. Jeremy wrote:

    A pastor has told me that my baptism is probably invalid since it was by a Campus Crusade for Christ staff person while on a mission trip and not under a local church’s authority

    I wonder what he thinks of Philip baptizing the Ethiopian in the nearest creek in Acts 8?

  127. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    The gospels were written decades after Jesus ascended, and I believe they contain language and stories which are relevant to the church at the time they were written.As far as we know, Jesus wasn’t even speaking Greek. So the gospel writers chose to use the word church for a reason – probably (to my mind) making a certain teaching of jesus relevant to the fledgling church.

    “I hear you saying” that the gospel writer(s) were putting words (meaning) in Jesus’ mouth as it suited their purposes (agenda) for whatever they were trying to accomplish at the time.

    I take it I have said the same thing you said but with a very different take on the issue?

    You seem to be leaving room that perhaps that is an OK thing to do; I am saying that maybe that is not an OK thing to do. Did anybody ask Jesus if he was good with putting words/meaning in his mouth?

  128. sigh wrote:

    Jason Allen used to work .Mohler at SBTS. It all flows from the same source.

    Is anything more important to these men than perpetuating their dynasties by cronyism and nepotism? Really, does the church need all of the mini-me clones of these men? This does not look anything like the Kingdom of God described in the Bible. It looks to me a lot more like the world system. The pride and arrogance and blindness is astonishing, and it seems like Trustee means that the powerful can trust the Trustees to look out for their interests.

  129.   __

    “What keyz?”

    hmmm…

     Religious tyrants always jangle keys, makes dem feel important, I supposes.

    huh?

    What church did Martin Luther have when calling into question some of their (RCC) then undertakings and missteps?

    leave them (9 Marks) to their delusions?

    $ure.

    Just stand out front and laugh at them.

    …they no more have ‘keys’ than the man in the moon has cheese!

    What?

    The only keys they posssess are da ones day cyped from da Father’s pocket.

    Time ta take da T-Bird away, huh?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F24LC0QsYTQ

    U bet!

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy

    🙂

  130. zooey111 wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    Hebrews was nearly omitted because to this day no one actually knows who wrote it;
    Priscilla.

    Actually it was Apollos, though that undoubtedly means that Priscilla would have been influential.

    I know this because the Lord has revealed it to me. If I can persuade enough people of that, then it will become tradition and may be venerated as infallible truth in about 600 years’ time.

  131. Tim wrote:

    I wonder what he thinks of Philip baptizing the Ethiopian in the nearest creek in Acts 8?

    I brought that up and the reply was something along the lines of Acts covered an exceptional time and we should not draw our theology from the events there. Which, eh, I see what he means but I don’t find that very compelling given how baptism is discussed elsewhere in the NT. I think Galatians 3:27 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 both don’t work under the local church baptism deal. We’re baptized into Christ, and into His body not a local congregation. Both of those passages seem to talk about baptism in a very universal church sense.

  132. Gavin White wrote:

    I think that Mr Leeman should be aware of the Deuteronomy connotation in the Lord’s words given that most commentators over the centuries have referred to it, including D A Carson in his joint Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. What I didn’t know was that the same commentators link the verses on “binding” and “gathering” to the discipline procedure which puts everything in a much more sensible light. Quite amazing what you can learn here. (And I’m being serious)

    ??? I don’t even think in terms of “discipline” but very basic truth and justice.

  133. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I know this because the Lord has revealed it to me. If I can persuade enough people of that, then it will become tradition and may be venerated as infallible truth in about 600 years’ time.

    chuckle

  134. Gavin White wrote:

    Regarding your last sentence, I found this about the founder of the Nicolaitans and wondered if perhaps MD might have been an adherent as well!
    “[Nicolas] had an attractive wife, and had refrained from intercourse as though in imitation of those whom he saw to be devoted to God. He endured this for a while but in the end could not bear to control his incontinence…. But because he was ashamed of his defeat and suspected that he had been found out, he ventured to say, “Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life.”[16]
    —Epiphanius, Panarion, 25, 1″

    Oh my. Is this the same Epiphanius that Piper and Grudem quoted to give evidence that Junia was a man? But they failed to note that Ephiphanius also claimed Priscia was a man, too!

  135. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    think I probably disagree with you here, Lydia. The gospels were written decades after Jesus ascended, and I believe they contain language and stories which are relevant to the church at the time they were written.As far as we know, Jesus wasn’t even speaking Greek. So the gospel writers chose to use the word church for a reason – probably (to my mind) making a certain teaching of jesus relevant to the fledgling church.

    Fair enough. I kind of see your point because I have the same issues with how Genesis is often interpreted.

  136. @ Gram3:

    Oh, I think you nailed it. The foundational problem is authority thinking…who is the greatest in the kingdom kind of thing but call me by the oxymoron, “servant leader”.

  137. @ Gavin White:

    Gavin, I also meant to say that some scholars believe the word “nicolaitans” describes the types who are “conquerors of the people”. Like Diotrephes, I suppose.

  138. Nancy wrote:

    I hear you saying” that the gospel writer(s) were putting words (meaning) in Jesus’ mouth as it suited their purposes (agenda) for whatever they were trying to accomplish at the time.

    Nancy,

    My take on Matthew 18, even if written much later, is the author knew He was talking to mostly Jews. That is why I asked, who is He talking to, what is the occassion, etc, and to focus on reading it in that historical context. I guess I should ask Dr Fundystan that if Jesus meant the synagogue would that be interpreted as ekklesia? I totally get where he is coming from about the Greek except that didn’t Jesus quote the Septuagint often?

    I do understand Dr. Fundy’s point from another pov because it is one of my pet peeves about Genesis which was written much later either during or after the Babylonian exile and I believe is a narrative of Isreal’s bondage and rescue in a sort of allegorical form.

  139. @ Gram3:

    Midwestern had some serious problems and could have used an experienced gray head with nothing to lose to get it stablized. I was stunned Allen was chosen. He has no experience at that level and is known in these parts as another one of Mohlers many minions.

  140. Gavin White wrote:

    Regarding your last sentence, I found this about the founder of the Nicolaitans and wondered if perhaps MD might have been an adherent as well!

    Sure sounds like MD the horndog.

    But what’s actually known about the “Nicolaitans” mentioned in Revelation? Was it the longstanding bane of historians, something that needed no explanation at the time it was written down because “Everybody Knows That”?

    And the strangest memory I have about the Nicolaitans was some loud and obsessive preacher I saw & heard once in my college days. Guy looked like a bearded wild man, and had a mannerism of preaching LOUD while compulsively looking at a notepad he held. His sermon started out from the fact that Greek had two words for priest (“presbyteroi” and “ekklesiastica”) and from this through a long convolution of preaching somehow Proved From Scripture that the “Nicolaitans” in Revelation were REALLY the Roman Catholic Church.

    The kicker was this preacher resembled an extremely-overbearing guy in local SF and D&D fandom who was actually named “Nicolai” — close physical resemblance, same cut and length of beard, similar voice, delivery, and mannerisms (except with a notepad instead of a pocket calculator).

  141. Jeremy wrote:

    We’re baptized into Christ, and into His body not a local congregation.

    Your take on the passages works better than the ones they gave you, Jeremy.

  142. Lydia wrote:

    I totally get where he is coming from about the Greek except that didn’t Jesus quote the Septuagint often?

    We know that the earliest manuscripts we have are in Greek, and I think the assumption is that if the originals were available they too would be in Greek. We have the gospel(s) “according to” and make some assumptions as to who wrote what, but there is debate. We have nothing in writing prior to that, and there are inconsistencies in the gospels which some explain as the gospels (or anything else) not having been written by eyewitnesses except maybe John?? some say. So, based on assumption, we say that decades later whoever wrote whatever wrote it in Greek and we know that the copies we have show that the majority of the times Jesus is shown to quote scripture the gospel writers quoted from the septuagint.

    Personally, the fact that there are inconsistencies in the way that the stories are told, and even in some alleged facts (like the genealogies of Jesus) I have some hesitation in being too specific about a lot of things including who spoke what language to whom and when. In my former line of work, too many assumptions could lead you right to a missed diagnosis, so maybe I need things to be too specific and nailed down because of that. Or not.

    The only way that I can deal with it is to look at the big picture and hold outliers in ideas suspect. I do think that if we needed more accuracy than we have surely that would have been provided for us, but since we do not have it I hold suppositions to be suspect and do a lot of thinking “we just don’t know” with the level of evidence that we have.”

  143. Gavin White wrote:

    But because he was ashamed of his defeat and suspected that he had been found out, he ventured to say, “Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life.”[16]

    Is this what reformed theologians meant by ‘sola libido’?

  144. Tim wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    I think when they say Servant Leader they mean Leader of Servant(s).
    Gram, the phrase “servant leader” has become anathema to me. Blech.

    Because it sounds so servanty and not very bossy, I think there must be a sizable entry for Servant Leader in their Manual of Obfuscation. Saying what you really mean using standard definitions is out of fashion, it appears, in certain theological circles.

  145. Tim wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    I think when they say Servant Leader they mean Leader of Servant(s).
    Gram, the phrase “servant leader” has become anathema to me. Blech.

    Off topic, but not really.

    I was listening to pastor on the radio who was encouraging Christians to get involved at a church instead of being a lone ranger (my terminology). After making his case, he said something to the effect: “Who’ll come see you in the hospital if you’re not in fellowship at a church? He meant that the pastor will come visit you if you are involved in a church.

    The trend seems to be that pastors are too busy preparing their sermons, attending conferences, etc. to visit the sick. Just my observation.

  146. Deb wrote:

    The trend seems to be that pastors are too busy preparing their sermons, attending conferences, etc. to visit the sick. Just my observation.

    It is definitely my experience in the past few years, anyway. In the YRR sphere, preaching front and center is the valued part of pastoring. Well, that and guarding and exercising the KEYS!

  147. Tim wrote:

    Gram, the phrase “servant leader” has become anathema to me. Blech

    I grew up in that realm and it’s almost oxymoronic. Sorta like “Most Humble Servant – follow me!”. Jesus made himself of *no* reputation.

  148. Deb wrote:

    Off topic, but not really.

    I thought that anything you choose to talk about is (since you’re Deb, after all) by definition ON topic. 😉

  149. Nancy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    I totally get where he is coming from about the Greek except that didn’t Jesus quote the Septuagint often?
    We know that the earliest manuscripts we have are in Greek, and I think the assumption is that if the originals were available they too would be in Greek. We have the gospel(s) “according to” and make some assumptions as to who wrote what, but there is debate. We have nothing in writing prior to that, and there are inconsistencies in the gospels which some explain as the gospels (or anything else) not having been written by eyewitnesses except maybe John?? some say. So, based on assumption, we say that decades later whoever wrote whatever wrote it in Greek and we know that the copies we have show that the majority of the times Jesus is shown to quote scripture the gospel writers quoted from the septuagint.
    Personally, the fact that there are inconsistencies in the way that the stories are told, and even in some alleged facts (like the genealogies of Jesus) I have some hesitation in being too specific about a lot of things including who spoke what language to whom and when. In my former line of work, too many assumptions could lead you right to a missed diagnosis, so maybe I need things to be too specific and nailed down because of that. Or not.
    The only way that I can deal with it is to look at the big picture and hold outliers in ideas suspect. I do think that if we needed more accuracy than we have surely that would have been provided for us, but since we do not have it I hold suppositions to be suspect and do a lot of thinking “we just don’t know” with the level of evidence that we have.”

    As we were taught in seminary and I doubt they still teach this, there are no copies of the N.T. signed by any of the original authors, so there is no telling what, if anything, was changed…..but you probably won’t hear that at any SBC seminary…

  150. Deb wrote:

    The trend seems to be that pastors are too busy preparing their sermons, attending conferences, etc. to visit the sick.

    When I was a kid (late-50’s), I became very ill, and our pastor came and visited me at home. He was a wonderful man, with a wonderfully pleasant voice, and he was able to make me laugh. As he was leaving, he said that I would be in his prayers. What a comfort that was to young me!

    Of course, our congregation did not consist of 15,000 people.

    For that matter, I had regular housecalls from our Family Doctor during my illness. Yes, we had a Family Doctor! A lot has changed since then, and not for the better. Why? This has not ever been explained to my satisfaction…

  151. Tim wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    Off topic, but not really.
    I thought that anything you choose to talk about is (since you’re Deb, after all) by definition ON topic.

    You’ll get no argument from me, Judge Tim.

  152. K.D. wrote:

    As we were taught in seminary and I doubt they still teach this, there are no copies of the N.T. signed by any of the original authors, so there is no telling what, if anything, was changed…..but you probably won’t hear that at any SBC seminary…

    I hate to be a broken record, but. The readings of the autographs can be reconstructed with lower textual criticism.

    So you can figure out what the originals said, even though we do not have physical copies of them… you can determine the readings they contained by studying the many thousands of copies of manuscripts that exist. Some of the New Testament mss date very early from the originals.

    Honestly, if people are going to doubt the Christian faith, picking on the Bible is the least effective route to do that.

    In my drift away from the Christian faith, the accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible – its history and transmission and so on – has not proven to be a problem for me.

  153. @ Daisy:
    No orininal manusvript can actually be “reconstructed” in the way you suggest. It just literally cannot happen, and anyone claiming to have somehow gotten to the vety first version of anything is, unfortunately, not telling the truth.

  154. Hester wrote:

    music

    Hester wrote:

    . . . and yet, if you think about where most Christians actually learn their theology, let’s just say it ain’t from the sermon. His old-style Reformed anti-music bias is showing. I agree that the mere act of singing isn’t automatically a tool for growth, but has it occurred to him that you can communicate God’s Word through the music? And that many (I would venture to say most) people would learn it a lot quicker that way, and certainly faster and better than if they were forced to sit through an hour-long sermon every week? Neo-Calvinists do seem to esp. love extra long sermons.

    If I wanted a treatise on a Sunday morning I would stay home and read one.

    But preaching? Apparently, it can be imported from afar.

    Well, duh!? Of course it can. How else did Driscoll become so popular? And I guess Leeman has never read a Jonathan Edwards or Charles Finney sermon in his life either.

    Preaching is portable. Corporate worship streamed or in a can – not so much. Why else is worship usually live in a multi-campus environment? Because it works better that way. Music generally speaks to our hearts more than words. Of course I would think he would give a more appreciative nod to the control aspect of piping in the sermon given by the sermon giver. That way they can be more assured the message is “correct”.

    For what it is worth, I can remember only 1 sermon in my 40 or more years of being in churches, seminars, and what not. 1 sermon – and that one, while memorable and entertaining, was hardly

    “significant for Christian growth”

    as Leeman is quoted as saying above. Don’t get me wrong, I have heard a fair bit of great preaching, but usually it is just another “meal” if you will. Sermons are not generally known for being worshipful either.

    I shouldn’t be too harsh on preaching though. Good preaching can lead bring conviction (in a good sense) leading one to “offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God–this is our true and proper worship.” Arguably a more pure sense of worship. I have heard sermons that have inspired me to worship in that more pure sense, and also in the “awe of God” sense where I fall on my knees in worship of / to Him. However, the number of times that has been due to a sermon has been extremely few and far between.

    Music, though – that is something else again. Music has been orders of magnitude more instrumental in my general growth and worship of God. In fact, I think I can safely say that if it was not for (God using) Christian music from the 70’s and 80’s I would not be a Christian today. DeGarmo and Key, Servant, Larry Norman, Phil Keaggy, (the list could go on all night) coupled with the praise songs coming out in the late 70’s and 80’s were far more impactful in leading me to worship and encouraging me in my growth. Now that grabbed my heart.

    And once my heart was grabbed, that is what then drove me to His Word.

  155. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:
    William G. wrote:
    Hebrews was nearly omitted because to this day no one actually knows who wrote it;
    Priscilla.
    Actually it was Apollos, though that undoubtedly means that Priscilla would have been influential.
    I know this because the Lord has revealed it to me. If I can persuade enough people of that, then it will become tradition and may be venerated as infallible truth in about 600 years’ time.

    Haha, most amusing. Of course you would only be successful in those efforts if you managed to hunt down and destroy all copies of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, St Jerome’s commentary on his Vulgate translation, and also the vast amount of Patristic literature that said Paul wrote it, not to mention all the Bible editions that attribute it to Paul. All of the ancient traditions of authorship going to the early church occurred in a time of great scarcity of information. Most of what we might call the metadata surrounding the New Testament, in terms of disputed authorship, textual variations between editions, and so on, is outside the realm of infallible dogma for most churches (which is why things like the King James Only movement, as much as I like the KjV, make me shudder).

    My own pet theory, completely unfounded by any serious scholarship, is that Paul wrote Hebrews and handed it to a better writer, perhaps Luke, who church tradition records as having accompanied Paul and narrated his Gospel from Paul’s preaching, and Acts from, in part, his adventures with Paul, to polish it. The basic objection to the Pauline authorship of Hebrews has always been that it’s in a clearer and more elegant style than the other epistles, and we know Luke to have been one of the top literary stylists of the NT. Only John, or whoever transcribed John, was more talented, having inadvertently anticipated the modern novel, as CS Lewis once observed. One fourth century Patristic authority attributed the stylistic brilliance of Hebrews to Paul having originally written it in Hebrew for the benefit of the Jewish community, a language at which it was proposed he would be better, than at Greek. Except for the fact that Aramaic was the vernacular language of the Jews at that time, and Paul was fairly well Hellenized for a Pharisee. So alas, it seems the origins of this peculiar epistle are, as Jerome observed, known to God and few others.

  156. Lydia wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    From the OP Jonathan Leeman says, “Staring down at Matthew 18:15-20, I would argue with the dissenters that Jesus places the keys squarely in the hands of the local church—wherever two or three are formally gathered in his name.”
    This is where Leeman is caught red-handed with eisegesis and equivocation of a sort. There is nothing in the text of Matthew 18 about being *formally* gathered. It is not an institution or formal organization that Jesus is talking about.
    This is where our lack of understanding Hebrew thinking really becomes a problem. That particular passage harkens back to Duet 19 concerning witnesses and dealing with conflict and comes after Jesus speaking on the topic of “who is the greatest”, “temptations and trespasses”, etc. The Jews he was talking to would have gotten it.
    I think the translation “church” really throws people off the important fact the post resurrection “church” had not even been started yet. So what is Jesus talking about when the Greek word Ekklesia is used here? to whom is he talking and what is the occassion? (uh hum….Pentecost happened AFTER this…hello Mr. Leeman)
    All these are questions that will help focus us on the historical meaning (and how it might apply today) instead of allowing charlatans like Leeman to do it for us.
    According to Leeman, I am to believe that Jesus Christ put mediators between He and I in the guise of local church leaders who are specially chosen humans to tell me if I am the real thing or not. That kind of negates the “Good News” if you ask me.
    And these specially appointed mediators (uh…) have a checklist of items for me such as my involvement in the church, proper submission to their perceived authority and most likely my tithing prowess.
    Right. Does Leeman really believe that sort of thing even sounds like the same Jesus Christ as presented in scripture? (Nevermind really knowing Him….) Let us just take scripture as the guide for a moment since that is what Leeman uses as his club) Is he speaking of the same Jesus Christ who a bit later ALSO spoke Matthew 20: 25-27….. as a warning?
    Perhaps Leeman defines the “spiritual” authority he and his ilk insist upon over others as being a “servant” or a “slave”. I have heard that one before as meanings are twisted over and over to fit the agenda. Again, we must insist on definitions of all terminology.
    What Leeman is really advocating is the pagan structure of authority (Chain of being..a sort of caste system) in the Body of Christ. He really has set himself up as a “mediator” between Jesus Christ and others with his interpretation of the “keys” passage.
    Personally, I would put him, Dever, Mohler, Mahaney, etc. firmly in the Nicolaitan camp.

    Note that the Eastern Orthodox reject entirely the idea that the Church started at Pentecost, since the Church is the Body of Christ, it, like Christ, must have always existed. Thus, when the word Ekklesia is used there, we consider it to refer to the Church. The Church is also in some respects a continuation of or replacement for the sacrificial cult that was the religion of Israel, with the closeness to God previously extended only to the Kohanim now available to all through baptism. Thus, priesthood of all believers. As for the high priest, that is Christ, the Bishop who represents him during the Eucharist, and the presbyters who represent the Bishop. We liturgically commemorate the closer relationship of the Bishop through the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy, which takes longer than a regular liturgy and features a number of added blessings and the hymn Eis pollá étē, Déspota (Many Years to You, O Master). In this respect it is similar to the Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman church, although the ceremonial is a bit grander.

    An important element that makes this work is the relatively extreme asceticism of Orthodox bishops. Mark Dever et al do not deny themselves anything, whereas the bishops are celibate monastics who are forbidden from even sleeping in the same house as a woman, and who also as a rule do not eat meat, and who do not eat at all on many days, nor historically did they or other clergy shave or cut there hair. Thus it’s very difficult not to venerate them or refer to them as Master, given the remarkable change in appearance the years of monastic self denial brings about. They tend to look like Renaissance depictions of God, with their flowing white beards, et cetera. I could never refer to someone like Mark Driscoll or Mark Dever as master, as much as it might stroke their ego, but in the case of the bishops, I find it almost involuntary. Now I suspect a lot of Protestants would find the idea of referring to another human as “master” to be a bit chilling, and indeed it was a bit of culture shock. The Russians refer to them as Vladyka, the Syriacs as Mar or Mor, or in the case of the Patriarch, Mor Moran, literally meaning Master of Masters (or Lord of Lords, which further ties into the sort of anti-Protestant idea of he Bishops as representing Christ as High Priest). This system is effective however in producing a high degree of pious humility among the faithful, which no mount of threatening, bellicose behavior from the likes of a 9Marks pastor could produce. In the Roman church, the tendency to delegate all of this spiritual power to the Pope results in the diocesan ordinaries not having as much spiritual clout; pious Catholics who would not dream of disobeying the Pope routinely disobey their diocesan Bishop over minor matters, although conversely, I think celibate Roman priests, due to the set-apartness their status suggests and the clericalism of the Roman church, command somewhat more respect than married Orthodox priests, who frequently have exceedingly close relationships with individual laity, but aren’t feared the way bishops are. Being married and rather ordinary, the Orthodox priest is much closer in personal stature to the Protestant minister, at least to traditional ministers, if not the megachurch celebrity pastors.

    Regarding Dever et al being Nicolaitans, you have doubtless already read the quote of Epiphanius of Salamis, who himself was merely quoting Irenaeus. However, another ancient writer, whose identity escaped me, said that the Nicolaitans practiced ritual wife swapping. The idea of that transpiring among the self selecting ranks of celebrity pastors strikes me as somewhat amusing, especially in light of the recent scandal surrounding Mark Driscoll. However, this lot are really closer to the Novatianists.

  157. Tim wrote:

    Deb wrote:
    Off topic, but not really.
    I thought that anything you choose to talk about is (since you’re Deb, after all) by definition ON topic. 😉

    There is a formal name for this belief: it is termed The Divine Right of [adorable blog] Queens.

  158. @ Gram3:
    Hello. I had started to look through my books and put together some of the expositions of Matthew 18 when I remembered that I had Thomas Aquinas’ “Catena Aurea” on my Kindle. This gives you lots of Patristic quotes. I looked at Other commentators like Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry. I mentioned D A Carson in my earlier post. But even people like Daniel Doriani in the Reformed Expository Commentary Series by Presbyterian and Reformed says that ” the plan is remedial, not punitive. It allows the sinner to see the gravity of his rebellion, so he may repent.(1Corinthians 5:1-11). It protects and purifies the church and prevents the bad example from leading others astray.” He then goes on to say that ” To bind is to forbid entry, to loose is to permit entry into the kingdom. Jesus here commands his disciples to bind the impenitent, the unrepentant, and tell them they cannot expect to enter the kingdom of they deliberately and impenitently persist in clear sin despite serious warning. Believers are penitent; they petition God for grace. Refusal to repent, on the other hand, is a mark of unbelief, and at the last extremity requires that someone be treated as such. When leaders take such steps, Jesus says, they do not speak on their own authority. They merely reassert what the Lord has already asserted from heaven… Is any ecclesiastical task more excruciating than pressing on with someone who refuses to repent? Facts can be murky, motives mixed….he does not promise that if two people agree about anything whatsoever he will grant it. He promises aid to disciples when we meet to heal broken relationships in the church….What a blessed community would be ours if we followed Jesus’ counsel. Everyone would seek the lost and everyone would seek to restore those who have sinned against them. Leaders would assist with the hardest tasks of discipline and restoration, knowing the Lord is with them.”(Matthew volume 2, chapter 66).

    This is far removed from what our modern day New Calvinists would call exercising the power of the keys. It’s about restoration and forgiveness for all, by all, and not about the power and status of the pastor.

  159. @ William G.:

    Extra-biblical practice isn’t made good by being ascetic. That is adding to the words of the Holy Spirit. We have one Lord and master, and that Master is not a priest or bishop. I don’t see a difference between that and the adoration given to the Gospel Glitterati. Jesus is both King and Priests. We are in Christ, so we should not recognize others who proclaim that they are more priests than we are or who proclaim that they are vicars of Christ. It just isn’t so. All who are in Christ are being transformed into his image.

  160. Gavin White wrote:

    This is far removed from what our modern day New Calvinists would call exercising the power of the keys. It’s about restoration and forgiveness for all, by all, and not about the power and status of the pastor.

    I agree that church discipline, in the biblical sense, is designed for repentance and reconciliation. There is power in the gospel to accomplish this, not coercion by the elders or the congregation. An unrepentant and notorious sinner who brings shame on Christ should be urged to repent and be reconciled. This process should not include personal shunning.+

    If the offender is a leader or elder, he/she should be removed. Unfortunately, the NewCals are all about “exercising the keys” for the little people and exempting their buddies from the requirements given for leaders in the NT. Examples include Mahaney and Driscoll who are defended and promoted while The Bloggers are vilified. They are the New Pharisees who rule over their own kingdoms, IMO, not the Kingdom of Christ.

  161. Gram3 wrote:

    @ William G.:
    Extra-biblical practice isn’t made good by being ascetic. That is adding to the words of the Holy Spirit. We have one Lord and master, and that Master is not a priest or bishop. I don’t see a difference between that and the adoration given to the Gospel Glitterati. Jesus is both King and Priests. We are in Christ, so we should not recognize others who proclaim that they are more priests than we are or who proclaim that they are vicars of Christ. It just isn’t so. All who are in Christ are being transformed into his image.

    The trick is identifying what comes from the Holy Spirit and what comes from demons. The Bible itself is defined extra-Bivlically, and concepts like sola scriptura are extra Biblical. Paul’s warning in Galatians about those preaching another Gospel would be easier to apply if there were just one Gospel narrative and it predated Paul, but in fact we have four of them; they are all believed to post date the Epistles, and sometimes they contradict each other. Because of the ambiguity this causes, the Church has always relied on clergy to guide us in their interpretation.

    This is what Dever is doing, this is what Driscoll did, and this is what my parish Priest does under the supervision of his diocesan bishop. Now, in Orthodoxy, we call the process of being made into the image of Christ Theosis, and believe that the primary way of achieving Theosis is to control the passions through ascetic discipline. Thus, our bishops are celibate monks who abstain from sex, meat, alcohol (aside from the blood of our Lord, which one cannot be intoxicated by, even if it is intoxicating, given the limit of one Liturgy per day, and the small size of the chalice, and the fact the wine is diluted twice with water, including boiling water to make it hot before it’s served, so as to resemble blood, this boiling water reducing the alcohol further), and other luxuries. They have a cell attendant who serves as their secretary, but in times past also served as a continual witness to their chastity. Now some are hypocrites who break the rules; I am particularly suspicious of some bishops in former Communist countries who are known to have owed their allegiance to the security services, but on the whole, they are shepherds who are set apart from their flock by virtue of having been able to attain to a higher degree of personal physical deprivation in pursuit of spiritual advancement.

    Mark Dever and his lot on the other hand seem to be the opposite. Driscoll flouted his sexual accomplishments. None seem to practice any self denial at all, perhaps the fruits of a perverse anomic Calvinism that asserts that we can in no way please God, and thus should not bother. Prosperity gospel preachers go a step,further and flout their worldly treasure; can we trust such men to guide us in the acquisition of heavenly treasure?

    My neo-Calvinist edited Kimg James Study Bible boldly declared, in discussing the Essenes, that Christianity is not an ascetic religion, yet a few pages later one reads in Matthew of our Lord fasting forty days in the desert, an act most Christians commemorate in Lent. If following the example of Christ and his disciples as set out in the Bible is the way to take on his image, than we have a clear precedent to follow, not just in our Lord, but also in His apostles, who denied themselves worldly comfort and were in many cases celibate; of these Paul was among the most prominent practitioners of self denial, although one cannot point to any other than the traitor Judas, who was chosen for a reason, as being self indulgent.

    Thus, I am willing to follow my Bishop, and call him Master, as Christ’s representative in my diocese, because he appears at least, to, like Paul, be living an austere life in service of the church. If he isn’t, it does not effect the validity of the sacraments he confers; to believe that would be to subscribe to Donatism, a heresy thoroughly discredited by Augustine of Hippo among others. However, it is not Donatism to avoid placing oneself under the spiritual direction of someone like Mark Dever, who has not even the appearance of ascetic self denial, but is rather characterized by an apparent lust for privilege and authority, or someone like Mark Driscoll, who boasts of amorous exploits, or someone like Joel Osteen, who flaunts his secular wealth and encourages Christians to engage in self indulgence under the perverse, and decidedly unbiblical, fantasy, that Jesus was a man of great worldly prosperity. I cannot be absolutely sure that my Master preaches the precise doctrines of a The Master he claims to represent, but owing to his austere lifestyle, his apostolic succession, and the antiquity of the Orthodox Church and it’s liturgical rites, which have not changed substantially in a thousand years, I feel safer with him than with some of the alternatives. For that matter, I think that most Protestant and Catholic Churches are safer than the examples cited.

  162. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    There is a formal name for this belief: it is termed The Divine Right of [adorable blog] Queens.

    You know I can’t help wondering, given my experience of how much of a sense of humour some frozen chosen Christians [don’t] have, whether somewhere in the sad world of blogdom someone will quote this post having taken it seriously.

    It’s when YOU start thinking of yourself as an adorable blog queen that it’s time to really get worried …

  163. William G. wrote:

    An important element that makes this work is the relatively extreme asceticism of Orthodox bishops. Mark Dever et al do not deny themselves anything, whereas the bishops are celibate monastics who are forbidden from even sleeping in the same house as a woman, and who also as a rule do not eat meat, and who do not eat at all on many days, nor historically did they or other clergy shave or cut there hair.

    With respect and sensitivity to your religion, how did the dynamic of not sleeping even in the same lodgings with women develop? It’s a fair and honest question I think, and one that’s worth looking into.

    William G. wrote:

    Thus, our bishops are celibate monks who abstain from sex, meat, alcohol (aside from the blood of our Lord, which one cannot be intoxicated by, even if it is intoxicating, given the limit of one Liturgy per day, and the small size of the chalice, and the fact the wine is diluted twice with water, including boiling water to make it hot before it’s served, so as to resemble blood, this boiling water reducing the alcohol further), and other luxuries.

    Again and respectfully, the very things in the pre-Hellenist Jewish paradigm, sex, good meats and alcohol which are given by the Almighty to humans for their good enjoyment are shunned. How did this belief system evolve?

  164. William G. wrote:

    Thus, I am willing to follow my Bishop, and call him Master, as Christ’s representative

    Why do you need a Master, your bishop, who is regarded as a vicar of Christ, if the Holy Spirit, sent by the risen Lord, lives in you? Jesus said it was good for him to leave so that the Paraclete could come. If the Paraclete indwells you, why would you want to follow another?

  165. Muff Potter wrote:

    With respect and sensitivity to your religion, how did the dynamic of not sleeping even in the same lodgings with women develop? It’s a fair and honest question I think, and one that’s worth looking into.

    Again and respectfully, the very things in the pre-Hellenist Jewish paradigm, sex, good meats and alcohol which are given by the Almighty to humans for their good enjoyment are shunned. How did this belief system evolve?

    Firstly, the prohibition on bishops remaining in the same house with women overnight developed over the course of the fourth through ninth centuries, in the canon law of the church. If you read the Pedalion, you can see how gradually, the canons relating to monasticism were made stricter with each specific ecumenical council. What specifically proved to be the tipping point was during the Iconoclasm Heresy, in Constantinople and elsewhere, there were numerous instances where, in previously-built double monasteries, that contained an abbey for monks and a convent for women, there were instances where the monks and nuns shamelessly violated their vows to holy celibacy. Thus the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which restored the icons, also prohibited double monasteries, and imposed strict regulations regarding the contact of monastics of either gender with the opposite sex, to avoid further scandal. It should also be noted that the ancient canons of the church also prohibited homosexual activity, and since all of this was accomplished through canon law, it would naturally be seen as severe a transgression for a monk to sleep with another monk as with a woman. In fact, one of the ancient canons, which I believe predated the Seventh Council and instead was from the Council of Trullo, prohibited monks sleeping two to a bed. I can get you the specific canon numbers if desired.

    In general, the canons on this matter are extremely strict; some, such as Patriarch John the Faster, who ruled Constantinople in the late fourth century, required a penance even if a nocturnal emission occurred, whereas others, such as St. Athanasius, did not, on the basis that nocturnal emissions were not biologically controllable. Naturally on this point I prefer the position of St. Athanasius; I think St. John the Faster was rather too severe in his ascetic discipline, but for centuries, his canons formed the basis of the manual for the sacrament of reconciliation used by Orthodox priests and hieromonks.

    In general, the objective was to ensure that there would be no scandal; that no one could accuse the bishops of violating their vows of chastity. Priests in the Orthodox Church have always been allowed to marry, and in the early days, there were married bishops, but ultimately, with the exception of the quasi-Bishops known as Chorepiscopi, who can ordain someone in the minor orders, up to the rank of reader or subdeacon, but not to the diaconate, priesthood or episcopate, bishops were required to be celibate, and were drawn from the monasteries, starting in the fourth century. Many monks would protest vigorously at being made bishops and had to be taken from the monastery and installed in their sees with force, and this was desired; the goal was that those who did not seek episcopal honors but sought to resist them were more qualified than ecclesiastical politicians seeking to climb the greasy pole inside the church, which after Constantine I, became effectively a very important part of the overall government of the Roman Empire.

    The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches still follow the canons of the councils that they have acceded to (for the Oriental Orthodox, Chalcedon is rejected, but in general, the theology of subsequent councils is informally respected, even if the OO do not formally accept the councils), and the Roman Catholic Church hypothetically should be bound by them, but in practice is bound by two codes of canon law, one for the Latin Rite, of which the Pope was historically the Patriarch, and one for the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, such as the Maronites, the Ruthenians, the Chaldeans, et cetera. One would observe that if the Roman Catholic Church were to strictly observe the ancient canons, it would save itself scandal; during the Renaissance there were numerous incidents where Popes had mistresses and fathered children; the last Pope of the Borgias, whose name I cannot recall, but whose successor Julius II viewed as having been somewhat Satanic, was particularly noted for his sexual promiscuity, as was one later Pope in the 16th century. In the case of Pope John Paul I, considerable scandal was caused by the fact that he was found dead by one of the German nuns who until very recently served as Papal housekeepers; there were naturally rumors in the media about an illicit liason. Of course the fact that poor John Paul I died so soon after his election itself caused scandal, and his alleged assassination was a major plot element in The Godfather Part III. However, the scandal could have been reduced had the Roman church not used female housekeepers in the Papal residence, which is a flagrant violation of the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

    Now, regarding your next question, why asceticism? The practice of temporary asceticism was practiced by the Nazarites, who took a vow contained in Numbers 6:1-21. Samson is believed to have been a Nazarite, and the Second Temple in Jesus’s time contained barbershops where Nazarites would have their hair ritually shorn at the end of their avowed period of ascetic self-denial.

    The permanent ascetic state arose in following the example of our Lord, who did not marry. He did drink and eat, but with moderation, and thus a miniscule amount of meat and alcohol is present in the diets of most monks, for example, lamb on Holy Pascha (Easter Sunday), and communion wine, plus small amounts of wine after communion et cetera. Some Latin Rite monks manufacture alcohol and have become rather good at it, and consume alcohol and meat with greater intensity than their Eastern counterparts; the strictness of praxis depends on the individual monastery, and I won’t condemn the Carthusians for example, for eating fish throughout much of the year, but I will observe that on Mount Athos, the monks limit themselves to two vegetarian meals per day, and take only four hours of sleep, yet live to be very old and in a state of great happiness. Mount Athos represents an extreme example of monastic gender segregation, in that women are not allowed on the Peninsula, which though a part of Greece, is under the personal rule of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople; a special visa signed by him is required to enter the Holy Mountain. Mount Athos is quite large; imagine an area larger than San Francisco and more mountainous, consisting only of monasteries. Here also is an exception to monks not cutting there hair; on Mount Athos they do, so as to not resemble women and create even a visual temptation to lust on the part of the monastics. Thus many Orthodox clergy, who customarily do not cut there hair, are required to have their hair cut on the long ferry ride to the Peninsula.

    Now, monasticism follows on the example not only of our Lord, but also Paul, who remained perpetually celibate, and the majority of the rest of the Apostles, relatively few of whom were married. It was practiced informally in the early church. Some took it to an extreme; Origen castrated himself, a fact recorded by Eusebius, who had a great admiration for Origen; however, at the First Ecumenical Council, persons who castrated themselves were excluded from Holy Orders (ordination to the clergy) on the grounds that they were self-murderers; Eusebius was the most notable dissident at Nicea, and was a moderate Arian; Origen and Eusebius were never glorified (canonized) as Saints by the ancient church, although their writings are regarded as highly important, and the Cappodacian Fathers (Ss. Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great and his younger brother Gregory of Nyassa) compiled an anthology of Origen’s writings.

    Formal monasticism began in the fourth century, following the example of St. Anthony the Great, who was a Coptic Christian, who, following the death of his parents, sold his all possessions, set up a trust for the care of his sister, and became a hermit. There was an older hermit who acted as his mentor, St. Paul the Hermit, who dwelt at an oasis in the deep desert. St. Anthony, according to the biography of him written by St. Athanasius, experienced terrible temptations and continual, physical attacks of a demonic nature, but ultimately prevailed, and attracted, despite his attempts to flee them, a large contingent of disciples, who became known as the Desert Fathers. The site where St. Anthony ultimately settled, in attempting to flee them, which inevitably became a monastery after hundreds of his disciples found him there, is the Monastery of St. Anthony, the oldest Christian monastery in the world, and arguably the oldest monastery if one uses the term strictly, and excludes the Eastern ascetics, whose disciplines superficially resemble those of Christian monks, but who generally do not make lifetime vows, and who tend to be much more concerned with physical practice (Yoga, Martial Arts, et cetera). The BBC ran an excellent three part documentary featuring the Anglican Priest Rev. Peter Owen Jones staying with Zen monks in China, Indian saddhus (ascetics under the direction of a Guru), and finally, at St. Anthony’s Monastery, where he stayed in a cave tended to by Fr. Lazarus, an Australian born convert to Orthodoxy, who is a priest in the Coptic Church and who among other things conducts the Divine Liturgy nightly in the Cave of St. Anthony, which is now a chapel. St. Anthony’s Monastery is a fantastic place; I would call it Disneyland for the Christian ascetics, but there are dangers; the devil is known even now to violently attack Christian monks in various ways. For that matter, most Orthodox and Catholic priests and bishops report frequent demonic attacks of various forms, and you can find documentation of these to satisfy any morbid curiosity, although I suggest against it. Morbid curiosity into the occult is dangerous; fatheralexander.org contains a number of good articles on the dangers in meddling with it. I myself once in my life succumbed to the temptation to read a horoscope and suffered almost incalculable damage as a result, and there is a strong occult element in most Eastern religions. It is my opinion, as someone who is generally a skeptic about claims of other worldly things, that most of the accounts regarding strange occurrences for example among the Fakirs of India, are to be regarded as accurate, and the result of demonic influence. In addition, I personally believe there is a strong element of demonic influence in many of the evils reported on Wartburg Watch, but stronger still is the more common problem of Christians not bothering to properly control their passions.

    Many Patristic sources assure us that Baptized Christians who do not dabble in the occult cannot become posessed by a devil (which is quite different from becoming mentally insane; someone who is mentally ill can respond to psychological intervention, whereas demonaics tend not to respond, and exhibit a well-documented aversion to holy objects); the far greater danger is failing to properly control your passions and falling victim to delusion as a result. The two central Orthodox spiritual texts regarding this are the Philokalia compiled by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, which was recently translated into English by Kallistos Ware, and which you can find online, and also the Ladder of Divine Ascent, by St. John Climacus (St. John of the Ladder), which you can also find online; the latter is a manual for the process by which a monk gains control of the passions.

    One thing that should be observed is that most Byzantine (that is to say, Greek, Russian, Serbian, etc) Orthodox parishes operate according to a monastic rule, the Typikon of St. Sabbas, or a 19th century recension of it, the Typikon in the Style of the Great Church. Prior to the conquest of Constantinople, there was a separate rule by which the Cathedral of the Hagia Sophia and many churches operated, which was much less severe, but after Constantinople fell, the Greeks became a captive people, and escaped the physical horrors imposed by their Ottoman masters by practicing extreme ascetism and embracing the stricter monastic Typikon; this also contained things like hymns to various saints, which were absent from the Cathedral Typikon. In the liturgy at Hagia Sophia, only the Psalms and Biblical Canticles like the Magnificat were sung, whereas in the monasteries, a great deal of hymnody, such as the Kontakia and Troparia of different saints, various Akathists, and so on, were written, and there was much more music than in the Latin Rite, which historically lacked the antiphonal singing of the East. The Ambrosian Rite of Milan featured Eastern-style antiphonal singing. Ultimately the Latin Rite did acquire the excellent Gregorian Chant, but in the fourth century and fifth century, sources such as St. Ambrose suggest that the Latins tended to sing in monotone, a practice retained until the 18th century in some places for Low Mass.

    The short answer though, is we Orthodox believe there are two acceptable modes of human sexuality, as demonstrated by the apostles and Jesus Christ: Holy Matrimony, and Holy Celibacy. Of these, St. Paul himself suggests to us that celibacy is to be preferred, but matrimony is allowed lest anyone otherwise succumb to the temptations of lust. This is indeed in marked contrast to Judaism; aside from the Essenes, who lived as permanent Nazarites, the Jews did not practice lifetime celibacy, and indeed rather frowned upon it. Indeed, most Semitic religions object to monastic celibacy; it is forbidden in Islam, and in the Mandaean religion that worships John the Baptist; it is also I believe forbidden amongst the Zoroastrians, and the Yazidis, Yarsanis, and other Kurdish faiths. In general, monasticism was always a taboo in the Semitic faiths, and Christianity is the only Semitic religion where it is practiced; one might also note that organized monasticism first began amongst the Coptic people of Egypt, who are not Semitic, but rather, are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians. However, among the first to take it up after the example of the Copts were the Syriac Christians, and monasteries were operated by both the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church; one Syriac Orhtodox Monastery in Iraq has become a refuge for tens of thousands of Christians and Yazidis displaced by ISIL, the Monastery of St. Matthew. The Assyrians lost their monasteries as a result of the genocide attempted against them by the evil despot Timur the Lame, better known as Tamerlane, but recently opened their first monastery in nearly 800 years, in central California, which is quite thrilling; I intend to visit it with my Assyrian friend at some point in the future.

    So, whereas monasticism is clearly opposed to the religious preferences of the Semitic peoples, which can be traced back to their common heritage in Mesopotamia, it was introduced into Christianity following the actual Biblical example of our Lord, and His Apostles. If Jesus had married, or been a lover of women, as some Gnostics dared to suggest (the Gospel of Philip reports that Jesus used to kiss Mary Magdalene often), this would set a different example for Christians, but the fact is He chose Holy Celibacy, and Paul recommended it, for both men and women.

    Why did God previously discourage celibacy, but encourage it with the advent of Christ? Well, perhaps for the same reasons that circumcision ceased to be mandatory, the eating of pork and shellfish (but not blood; Christians following Acts 15 should avoid delicacies such as Black Pudding when travelling in the UK, if they wish to be fully Biblical) became allowed, and other changes were made. The Mosaic Law was created to govern the people of Israel during God’s personal leadership of them in preparation for the Messiah. It required discipline to follow, and in a sense, though more is allowed to Christians, if we are to attain proper self control, Christianity requires even more self-discipline. Also, one should observe that God desired the descendants of Abraham to multiply; in the time of Adam, and of Abraham, the population of the Earth was minimal, and indeed the Bible records God wiping out most of the human race in the Flood. Thus, there was a clear need to increase the population. However, by the time of our Lord’s incarnation, the population of the world had increased enormously, and famines, which perhaps owed themselves to overpopulation, were known to occur. Thus, the imperative for reproduction was reduced, and it became permissible, and even encouraged, for Christians to eschew marriage in order to devote themselves fully to God. Monasticism merely created a formal institution in which this celibacy could occur, although there are many Christians in all denominations who are not formally monks, who live in holy celibacy informally. It should also be noted that monasteries are to be found not just in Catholicism and the Eastern churches, but also in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and most recently, Methodism; also there is the monastic Taize Brotherhood, which is interdenominational. Lutheran monasticism in Sweden is ancient, and there are about three or four Lutheran monasteries in Germany and Sweden, and one, St. Augustine’s House, in the US. The Oxford Movement in the 19th century led to the restoration of Anglican monasticism, with the Benedictine Order of the Holy Cross, and also a few other orders, some following the Rule of St. Francis. I have an Anglican Franciscan prayer book which is rather good in my liturgical library.

    So when we consider the combined size of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Methodism, it should be clear that the vast majority of Christians belong to denominations in which monasticism is practiced. In Methodism, monastic orders like the Order of St. Luke remain obscure, and Lutheran monasticism is also not well known, but it does exist. Only a minority of denominations reject monasticism, but I would not be surprised if in the 21st century Presbyterian and Baptist monasticism emerges. After all, there is so little difference between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England, or the PCUSA, ELCUSA and the ECUSA, or the PCA and the ACNA and the LCMS, that the ecumenical alignment of the various Protestant bodies seems bound to allow for its introduction; what is more, given the emphasis Baptists place on studying the Bible, I suspect sooner or later some Baptists will take note of Paul’s stated preference for celibacy to matrimony, and on that basis will introduce into Baptism ascetic discipline, albeit most likely in a more informal manner, closest to the early church practice, which indeed suits the valuable witness that Baptists do provide to Christianity. However, I do not expect those of the Prosperity Gospel movement will be in any rush to embrace monasticism; to them, the idea of self-denial seems to be anathema, and I suspect sooner or later their exegetical efforts will focus on finding ways of de-emphasizing the record of our Lord’s 40 day fast, and other ascetic pericopes, in the New Testament.

    There also does exist among some Protestants a suspicion, voiced indeed by some of my relatives, that monastics are really crypto-homosexuals; this is pure calumny, and it is unbecoming of a Christian to presume to sit in judgment of the sincerity of another Christian’s personal vocation; what is more, it is also homophobic. While I am a traditionalist who does not believe that homosexuality is an authorized mode of sexuality for Christians, I am opposed fervently to the pure hatred for homosexuals that one finds in some places with Christendom. We can love them without approving of their lifestyle choices, and we can decline approval of their lifestyle choices without dehumanizing them or subjecting them to psychological abuse. A number of denominations tolerated modernist revisions in liturgy, theology and other areas for years, and only began to protest when relaxations on sexual discipline regarding homosexuality were introduced, and while I am not going to say this is homophobia as opposed to a genuine zeal for orthodoxy, I will say that it does appear as such to outsiders, and it is better I think to simply admit absolutely no change to the liturgy, the canon law, the fasting disciplines, et cetera, which has been the Orthodox view. In the Orthodox church, even the slightest of changes can cause a schism; there is a heated schism between those who adopted a version of the Gregorian calendar for fixed feasts and those who continue to use the traditional Julian calendar. This I think is a good thing, because it testifies to the antiquity of Orthodox practice; with Orthodoxy one can be sure that one is worshipping in a manner that is consistent, at the very least, with the fourth century church. We cannot be sure that we are consistent with the Ante-Nicene church, owing to a scarcity of documentation; there are very few extant Ante-Nicene writings, although many of them appear to validate our practices, it could be we have it wrong, but we prefer to trust in our Lord’s promise that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the church, and assume the way we’ve always done things is the correct approach, and not presume to introduce changes, or to have the freedom to introduce changes, on the basis of our own authority, which suggests spiritual pride and prelest.

    Orthodoxy does also afford a great deal of freedom, because outside of obedience to one’s confessor and bishop, the boundaries of the faith are defined primarily apophatically, through statements of negative theology in the form of condemnations of various heresies. Thus, there exists a large territory in which diverse opinions can be had without transgressing the boundaries of the Orthodox faith. For example, some Orthodox believe in a literal reading of Genesis with a young Earth, creation in six days, et cetera; others believe in the Big Bang and evolution, and others are indifferent. No Ecumenical council made a dogmatic declaration on the matter, so opinions expressed regarding it are theological opinions. Likewise, one is generally free to read the Old Testament, or different parts thereof, as either historical, prophetic, prophetic but in a Christological sense, iconographic, or allegorical. Thus many Orthodox see the the Ark of the Covenant as a prophetic iconographic representation of the Virgin Mary, but most also believe it historically existed, and the Ethiopian Orthodox claim to possess it; they have a special chapel in which lives a monk who permanently vows to remain within, and is alone allowed to view it. Is what the Ethiopians have the real Ark? I am inclined to doubt it, but don’t really care; it is a matter of adiaphora, to use a word much loved by Martin Luther. The adiaphoric realm of Orthodoxy is much larger than that of many fundamentalist Protestant churches, where one is required to toe a strict party line of interpretation, or for that matter the extremely strict and expansive doctrine of Mormonism, which is commendable as to its vastness and the effort it makes to reconcile the Old and New Testaments, if nothing else (indeed, it would be one of the better accomplishments of false prophecy, and a rival to the work of Mohammed, were it not so obviously fraudulent in origins; in the case of Mohammed, one can admire the beautiful poetry of the Quran and appreciate an apparent sincerity on his part which is lacking in Mormonism). Actually among non-Christian religions my favorite is probably Sikhism; it prohibits monasticism and is anti-clerical, which I dislike, but on the other hand, the poetry of the Guru Granth Sahib is quite excellent, and I have found Sikhs to be trustworthy and righteous people who have perfected the ethic of the warrior saint in an admirable capacity. However, what I feel sets Christianity apart is the clear unity between the Old Testament and the New Testament, and the unique richness of the liturgy, which I believe to be inherited from Judaism, and which I would note is devoid of occult practices, unlike that of Mandaeism, for example. The pure love one encounters in Jesus is striking, but even more striking is the degree to which the Old Testament testifies to Him, even in editions such as the Masoretic Text, which tends to favor non-Christological readings in contrast to the Septuagint. The main reason I at present enjoy Eastern Christianity is I prefer to worship with those Christians who have endured, and continue to endure, the greatest amount of violent persecution, as I believe that our faith is like gold tested in a fire; also the Orthodox focus on the Holy Trinity and the extreme antiquity of the liturgy is assuring. At the same time, I retain a deep love for other forms of Christianity; I love Anglicanism in its tolerance, its splendid liturgical music and ritual, and its characteristically English pleasantness; I love the diversity of monastic praxis in Roman Catholicism and the solemnity of their mass; I love the theology of John Wesley and if I could find any Methodists who actually followed it to the letter I would be tempted to join them, as I was baptized in that denomination and have a great love for what I would describe as its conceptual theology, if not the actual watered down implementation of it.

  166. Gram3 wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    Thus, I am willing to follow my Bishop, and call him Master, as Christ’s representative
    Why do you need a Master, your bishop, who is regarded as a vicar of Christ, if the Holy Spirit, sent by the risen Lord, lives in you? Jesus said it was good for him to leave so that the Paraclete could come. If the Paraclete indwells you, why would you want to follow another?

    Simply because I do not presume to be able to discern the genuine instructions of the Holy Spirit from the prompting of demons. That the Holy Spirit dwells in me I have no doubt; I am a baptized Christian, and on reception into the Orthodox church I was further sealed with the Holy Chrism. To more fully receive and appreciate the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox practice monastic discipline, particularly asceticism in the form of the Jesus Prayer, which in the case of some dedicated monks, we believe has allowed them to see the Uncreated Light of Tabor that was witnessed at the Transfiguration, a process documented by St. Gregory of Palamas. The pursuit of this uncreated light itself seems to bring about a remarkable transfiguration in the face of our monastics, which seem to become radiant. My Bishop exhibits this visible radiance and is thus my Master, within the confines of this diocese, as appears to have acquired through ascetic discipline the wisdom to discern the Holy Spirit to a greater degree of accuracy than I can, and thus can be trusted proclaim the Gospel of our Lord, who is both his Master and my Master. Thus, you might say that Christ is our King, but my Bishop is my leige Lord. This system is hierarchical; the word hierarchy literally means “Holy Rule”, and not statiated bureaucracy, as it is so often misinterpreted to mean, but there are layers in the hierarchy, at least three of which (the brethren, the deacons, and the initially undifferentiated presbyters and bishops) are attested to in the New Testament; the later additional development of the hierarchy into more levels of authority can be seen as the natural product of the growth of the Church, just as when any human organization, be it a government, or an army, or a private corporation, expands, it requires more layers of middle management. Large denominations that do not have an episcopate have not been able to avoid having quasi-episcopal officers, such as the members of the various standing committees of the SBC, the President of the SBC ,or the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, all of whom in my opinion are bishops in all but name.

    In the Orthodox Church, we try to sanctify each level of the hierarchy as much as possible, rather than just allowing a soulless bureaucracy to grow; by viewing the hierarchy as an essential and organic part of the church with a vital function, and by viewing each level of the hierarchy as iconographically representing Christ and his Apostles, and following them accordingly, we can function more harmoniously, and with less discord. There is still a horrible problem of ecclesiastical politics, and there is nothing I hate more than ecclesiastical politics. It should be stressed that absolute obedience to the hierarchy also has never existed or been required; during the Iconoclasm of the Eigth Century, the laity of Constantinople rose up against the hierarchy to demand the restorations of icons, and in like manner, many other heresies have been quashed by the people rejecting a heretical Bishop.

    However, for the time being, as my bishop appears to be Orthodox and performing his job well, he is, in a temporal sense, my Master, although Christ is my Master and his Master and will come as a thief in the night to sit in judgment on both of us. If there is a time that I do feel the Holy Spirit, however, it is in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church; I do not presume to be able to discern His precise instructions, but I have no doubt that, nourished by the Eucharist, I am sustained and comforted by Him. Indeed, the Patristic witness suggests that the main role of the Holy Spirit is in comforting us in our distress; relatively few of us speak by Him as prophets, and I do not seek that burden; I desire merely that the Holy Spirit comfort me, and that through Him, together with the Father and the Son, and through the ministrations of the angelic host under their command, including my guardian angel, who the Psalms suggest has been given charge over me, I be delivered from all temptation, all the works of Satan, and the rising up of enemies hidden and manifest (to quote the Coptic liturgy). And now, off to Church!

  167. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:

    William G. wrote:
    Hebrews was nearly omitted because to this day no one actually knows who wrote it;
    Priscilla.

    Actually it was Apollos, though that undoubtedly means that Priscilla would have been influential.

    I know this because the Lord has revealed it to me. If I can persuade enough people of that, then it will become tradition and may be venerated as infallible truth in about 600 years’ time.

    Nonsense. It was Priscilla.
    I had this truth by divine revelation when you were still practicing your ABCs.

  168. William G. wrote:

    The trick is identifying what comes from the Holy Spirit and what comes from demons.

    This would appear to be the answer to what went wrong along the way; it seems that folks simply don’t know….Or, more troubling, they don’t care….

  169. @ William G.:

    Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply. I got reeled into the Calvary Chapel cult as a young Army vet back during the Vietnam Era. In those days many of us virtually believed that its founder (Chuck Smith) was handed a King James Bible out of the clouds by Paul himself and of course was ‘anointed’ to expound the one and the only true faith and get us rapture ready.

    I remember distinctly the times when Smith would use the Bible to denigrate ancient liturgy and minimize Mary. We were all bobble-heads of course and didn’t know any better. Smith was a gifted orator and we ate it up like trained circus critters.
    In the intervening years I walked away from all that and haven’t looked back. If anything, I’ve learned that Christianity is a much older and much wider world than the one spawned by the Orange County beach culture not much more than 45 years ago.

  170. Muff Potter wrote:

    @ William G.:
    Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough reply. I got reeled into the Calvary Chapel cult as a young Army vet back during the Vietnam Era. In those days many of us virtually believed that its founder (Chuck Smith) was handed a King James Bible out of the clouds by Paul himself and of course was ‘anointed’ to expound the one and the only true faith and get us rapture ready.
    I remember distinctly the times when Smith would use the Bible to denigrate ancient liturgy and minimize Mary. We were all bobble-heads of course and didn’t know any better. Smith was a gifted orator and we ate it up like trained circus critters.
    In the intervening years I walked away from all that and haven’t looked back. If anything, I’ve learned that Christianity is a much older and much wider world than the one spawned by the Orange County beach culture not much more than 45 years ago.

    I am very glad to hear you escaped from the Calvary Chapel. I have a friend who is a spiritual hostage of that cult, and it was in searching for,ways of helping him to at least understand that in the Orthodox Church we aren’t a bunch of idolatrous Mary-worshipping pagans, but rather persevere in the ancient traditions, that I stumbled across this site. In my mind Calvary Chapel represents a prototype of what is wrong on the right wing of Christianity: authoritarian megachurches with infallible pseudo-popes who spend most of their time accusing the Pope of Rome of being the anti-Christ, while conducting themselves in an amoral manner, with no control over the passions, just as certain parishes in the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ iconographically represent that which is wrong with the left wing of Christianity: dying congregations ruled by authoritarian pseudo-popes who spend most of their time talking about social issues and denigrating faithful Christians, while conducting themselves in an amoral manner with no control over the passions, despite often liturgically venerating Buddhism, despite that faith sharing with ancient Christianity an emphasis on control of the passions (the difference being that Christians believe in a personal loving God, whereas Therevada Buddhists at least do not; Buddhism tends to be a bit colder than Christianity, although some sects are warmer than others; the Tibetans were inspired in the formation of their hierarchy by the Assyrian Church of the East, which used to have a diocese in Tibet until the genocide of Tamerlane; the establishment of the office of the Dalai Lama was a reaction to the Assyrian Patriarch).

    I encountered a local church planted by a former CC man; while there I met a gentleman who accosted me when I mentioned I am going to go to the seminary, on the grounds that ordination is unbiblical, and who appeared to equate worship with dancing to Christian rock music. When I mentioned the ordination of deacons and Matthias to replace Judas at the start of Luke, this poor man had no idea what I was talking about. Thus, it’s not really about what is Biblical, because Biblical ignorance naturally prevails in churches that don’t follow a lectionary, or use lectio continua in such a way that on most Sundays the Gospel is not read; also rock music, being Satanic, has the effect of interfering with the hearing of the Gospel; because rock music endgames the passions, the noise they make drowns out the voice of,the Holy Spirit, and the Gospel is negated. One cannot have two masters, and serve God while enslaved by the passions, and Christian rock music as a rule stimulates the passions and suppresses repentance.

    This morning I attended the Divine Liturgy, heard the reading of an epistle and gospel, the singing of various beautiful psalms and hymns appointed by the Typikon, and heard a sermon that focused on the problem of fear, which I have struggled with throughout my life. Then I joined in communion with my fellow congregants to receive the most precious body and blood of our Lord, and in so doing I joined the majority of Christians this morning. A pathetic minority however crowded into stadiums, to listen to hateful rhetoric about Catholics, Muslims, and homosexuals, false and dangerous interpretations of the Bible, and Satanic music; many of these went on to be possessed by demons impersonating the Holy Spirit, and while possessed, engaged in various occult practices ranging from glossolalia to snake handling. We must pray that our merciful Lord rescues these Christians from the soul-destroying heresy in which they are imprisoned, and has mercy on the heresiarchs who have been deluded by Satan into assaulting the Body of Christ in this manner. We must also be thankful that our Lord appears to be calling Driscoll to repentance, although his flock has been so confused by the false Gospel preached there that it will take much work to restore them to the orthodox faith. By orthodox, I of course mean the faith of the church catholic, the large majority of Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christians who celebrate the Eucharist with reverence, who do not hate the Virgin Mary or deny her Virginity, and who believe in the doctrine described by the Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles Creeds, the dogma of the ecumenical councils. I would estimate that at least 70% of Christians fall into this group.

  171. Kin wrote:

    I grew up in that realm and it’s almost oxymoronic. Sorta like “Most Humble Servant – follow me!”. Jesus made himself of *no* reputation.

    Interestingly, I ordered Wayne’s new book Finding Church ( http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Church-There-Really-Something/dp/0983949158/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413769482&sr=1-1&keywords=wayne+jacobsen+books ) and got it in the mail over the weekend. To my surprise around chapter 4 he discusses the idea of “Leading Servant” and uses the exact same word “oxymoronic” to describe it. Freaked me out.

    Haven’t finished it yet, but his thoughts too often parallel those expressed by many here regarding what’s happening in Christianity today. Very encouraging book that offers a different paradigm of how to think of Christ’s bride, the Church, and subsequently, how to live as part of it.