Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence. Leonardo da Vinci link
Special thanks to Dr James Duncan! Is this cool or what!
It is all about control. It has nothing to do with love, no matter what they say. The church, throughout history, has been replete with examples of men who found great pleasure in dominating small groups of people who were conned into believing that pastors/priests alone hold the keys to heaven. However, some people have been brave enough to throw off their shackles and speak out against abuse. Today we discuss two types of gospel™control.
1. Patty Simoneau: A 25 Year Calvary Temple Member Sees the Light
This is a transparent personal testimony of Patty Simoneau who, after 25 years of membership, threw off the shackles of control and commenced to bravely share her testimony of pain at the hands of Calvary Temple. I commend her for her willingness to share her story in her own words. Her willingness to open up her life to us is appreciated. (I can't wait to meet the Calvary Temple survivors in June! Your stories have touched my life.)
********************
I am writing this to share my testimony of my time at Calvary Temple. My purpose is to bring, into the light, the "other side of the matter." Proverbs 18:15:
An intelligent heart squires knowledge and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.
When I first began to attend Calvary Temple, I was a new believer and had not attended any other church. I then attended Calvary Temple for almost 25 years. It has now been almost 8 years since we left.
My husband and I have 5 boys. All of them left the church except for Joey who was 21 years old when we departed. Three short months later, the church leaders convinced Joey to get married. None of us, parents or brothers, were allowed to attend the wedding. We were told that they had a police presence at the church, just in case we did show up.
Joey now has two children-our grandchildren. The oldest is 3 years old and we have only been permitted to see her on two occasions. The youngest is 3 months old and we have not been allowed to meet him yet. This has truly broken our hearts, and I believe, has also broken the heart of God.
In the months leading up our departure, I believe that God challenged me in my growth in the Lord. Until then, I felt like I was doing all the right things like:
- going to services
- prayer
- working in children's ministry
but I felt further from God than when I first entered the church. Remember, I was a new Christian back then and had never attended any other churches.
I began to desire to hear from Jesus, alone, and not from those who were controlling the church. One night, around 4 AM, I believe that God spoke very clearly to me about three things which I later shared with Star Scott in a meeting
- There was no respect in the church for each person's relationship with Jesus Christ
- The church had replaced the Holy Spirit with a man
- Calvary Temple was a man- centered church, not Christ- centered.
A couple of events had troubled me:
1. I was told that I could not go to breakfast or hang out with my friend who had left the church. I told him that my age, I would not have someone tell me who I could or could not hang around with. I found my fear in disagreeing with the pastor was beginning to subside because I was now listening to God.
2. Starr Scott began to tell us how and when to discipline our children. I started studying the scriptures concerning the things that we were being taught. I even contacted at least 10 other ministries and they all told me the same thing. "Run for the door." One group referred me to a website called Wicked Shepherds
As soon as we left, the youth pastor Jeff Heglund called all the high school kids together(ed. note: Calvary Temple has a school) and told them not to talk to any of the Simoneau's because "they were not Christians and serving God." Our children were crushed. These were all of their friends that they had since birth. They had no other friends because the church discouraged friendships from outside of the church and school.
Then our son, Joey, who was 21 years old and who stayed at the church, told us if we willing to sign over the custody of his two younger brothers to him, they could continue going to the school. We absolutely refused and asked Joey to leave. We knew that God gave us those children to raise and we would not allow anyone else to do so.
Then our now former deacon told our other son that his dad no longer had spiritual oversight since he wasn't a Christian. Thankfully our son realized that such a statement was not right. He said, "My dad is a believer!" and refused to listen to them.
It has been a long journey but I am thankful to the Lord for leading us out. It has been amazing growing in the grace and mercy of our precious Lord Jesus Christ. 1 John 2:6 says:
Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our story. This is just one. You can imagine that in 25 years many other things have been said and done. Patty
2. 9 Marks: You don't get to decide if your kid is a Christian
TWW has written a number of posts looking at the seeming obsession of 9 Marks and their belief that they get to tell the world whether or not someone is a Christian. You can read about this belief here. Here is an excerpt.
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
I have news for 9Marks. I don't give two hoots about their keys. I know that I am a Christian. And guess what? It looks like I am not alone. A new post at Christianity Today asks the question Does My Local Church Have Authority to Declare That I Am Not a Christian? which was asked in recently completed survey by LifeWay for Ligonier Ministries (correction: RC Sproul) The results are bad news for the "we hold the keys" club.
But now they carry it one step further. You can't even judge the faith of your own child. You need *them.* In answering a question about baptizing believing children Jonathan Leeman says the following:
I’m in this position now with my own girls, the older two of whom profess faith. Here’s how that conversation can go.
Daughter: Daddy, am I a Christian?
Me: If you’re repenting of your sins, and putting your trust in Jesus, then yes.Daughter: I am.
Me: If you are, then praise God! Keep doing that, sweetheart!Daughter: Can I get baptized?
Me: At some point, honey. Right now, while you’re young, let’s continue to learn and grow. We’ll think about this more when you are older. I want you stand on your own two feet as a follower of Jesus, and not just believe these things because I do. But I’m so glad you want to follow Jesus with me! This is the most important decision you’ll ever make. There’s no one better than him.Notice a couple of things. First, I don’t formally affirm her as a Christian. Instead, I give her the criteria (repentance and faith) and I make conditional statements (If…then…). Second, I do rejoice with her in what she believes to be the case when I say “Praise God.” But again, I don’t go as far as employing my parental authority to say, “You are a Christian.” I honestly don’t believe God has given me such authority as a parent. Instead, I believe he has given the local church this affirming authority (Matt. 16:19; 18:18, 20).
I still remember the day that my oldest daughter was baptized. She was in 4th grade. She met with a pastor and expressed her understanding of baptism. On the day of her baptism, she was to share her favorite Bible passage. However, like her mother, she likes to talk and she has a good memory (unlike her mother.) Without telling me, she memorized Isaiah 40. Pete Briscoe leaned over to me and whispered "Does she know the whole thing? " I told him that next time he should tell them to only quote a few verses. The kids' baptism ran a little long that day.
All three of my kids declared their understanding of baptism and their faith as children. All three have grown to adulthood and have maintained their faith although there were some rocky times just like there has been for me. As my child's parent, I believe that I can decide whether or not my kid is a Christian and I do not need some pastor who barely knows my kid to declare it to be so.
Folks, be on guard. Today's hyper-authoritarian churches are beginning to sound like the church during the Inquisition. Never forget that RC Sproul said that
Arminians are Christians, barely.
Imagine how the Calvinistas will run with this one? Imagine how others put their parameters on what constitutes a Christian? Patty from Calvary Temple taught us an important lesson. The more she began to listen to God and read her Bible, the less she believed from her controlling pastor. That is a sound lesson for all of us.
You know, I could be first, but I’ve been first a few times and I think I’ll give someone else a chance 😉
Me too…
The weird kid thing aside, based on Matthew 18 I think it’s pretty clear the church does have a ton of God granted authority in dealing with and determining the fruit of those who call themselves Christians. Ultimately no one can determine salvation except God but we can certainly call into question people who clearly aren’t living under the authority of scripture.
Nth, N<10! Now to read the post.
Arce wrote:
The odd thing is that I slowly and thoughtfully read the whole post, got to the bottom, and nothing was there. I only checked in on a whim anyway – you never know when those rascally (did I say rascally? I meant adorable!) Deebs are going to post!
Oh, Patty. I am so sorry this cult is separating you from your son and grandchildren. I know of situations just like yours in my former cult. It’s agonizing for the parents/grandparents. Thank you for being brave to speak out. These stories need to be told.
Patty’s comment reminded me: If a church tells you not to talk to family, it’s not really a church, its a CULT. If a church tells you you can’t affirm your children in their first steps of faith, its a CULT!
I believe Jesus instructed his disciples to allow the children to come to him; not go to the ‘local’ church.
Patty –
I am so sorry for the hardships you and your family have endured. I pray God restores all of you and that you are reunited with your son and his family.
My dear, dear friend…I can remember like yesterday the morning that you and I went to breakfast at Mimi’s Cafe…I had already left Calvary, but you were still in…you had been my “already seeing, clandestine meeting, wolf-seeing friend” and our talks were, and still are, invaluable to me…there we were at Mimi’s and the mother-in-law of your deacon, and her granddaughters were there and saw us together…we knew what would happen next, didn’t we? Your deacon confronted you…you should share the rest of the story with this group…you tell it so well…
But what I want to say is this…you are the most feistiest, loving, God-loving, faithful woman that I have ever met…you have been my friend through all of this…
My prayer is that your son, daughter-in-law, and grandchildren will have the scales removed from their eyes and leave that place. I stand with you today as I always have.
Love you!!
Michelle a.k.a. ex-CTer
For your next John Piper – gender complementarian themed post:
Slice of the action: Young policewoman lauded as a hero in China after fighting off violent robber wielding 2ft machete with her BARE HANDS in five-minute struggle
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoplesdaily/article-3040450/Slice-action-Young-policewoman-lauded-hero-China-fighting-violent-robber-wielding-2ft-machete-BARE-HANDS-five-minute-struggle.html
I guess the police woman was supposed to just wait for John Piper or Mark Driscoll to fly over to China and capture the bad guy for her?
(There are photos on the page of her confronting the machete guy.)
__
“Cultic Blu, How Bout U?”
hmmm…
huh?
She had a great family, but her ‘religious’ choices blew them away…
She’s become the victim NOW, she’s drawing a crowd,
She’s blue, blue, da ba dee da ba daa…
Krunch !
—> And ‘they’ examined the scriptures to sêê that the things they heard in this 501(c)3 church were so?
What?
Could have fool’d me…
“Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa
Da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa, da ba dee da ba daa…”[1]
Will they ever ‘learn’?
(sadface)
Sopy
__
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ugkg9RePc
;~)
—
@ Bridget:
Christ and the local church are synonymous to them.
Corbin wrote:
They are usurpers!
@ Jimmy:
“…but we can certainly call into question people who clearly aren’t living under the authority of scripture.”
++++++++++++++
so, scripture = law?
Hi, Patty Simoneau.
I am very happy for you, that you are free. I have hope that your oldest son will wake up, and your relationship restored.
You said, “The church had replaced the Holy Spirit with a man”. Isn’t that the truth, with so much of church culture. Makes running a business easier.
Arce wrote:
🙂
Jimmy wrote:
What does that mean? For example, look at what UCCD (9Marks) did to Todd Wilhelm. Look at how Mark Driscoll treated some of his people? Look at the churches who go after people who ask questions? Look at Calvary Temple. Look at Calvary Chapel. SGM, etc.
What are the parameters for judging who is living well? The longer I am at this game, the more I am convinced that the church, as a whole, is not doing a stellar job in this matter.
@ Sopwith:
What in the world is this? I don’t understand what I am reading from you. Are you just being mean or is this supposed to mean something I don’t understand.
@ Jimmy:
“…we can certainly call into question people who clearly aren’t living under the authority of scripture.”
++++++++++++
sorry….. i’m still hung up on this one. So, it’s a list of rules to abide by? is that the measure of a Christian? You mention “authority”, so I suppose that turns the rules into laws.
I guess i’m repeating myself here.
But here, this is new (at least in this particular conversation): everyone I know who is expressly not a Christian (atheist, agnostic, moslem, hindu, Mormon, ‘new age’) live in such a way that is in keeping with conduct codes as described in the bible. In fact, they are better people than most Christians I know (kind, compassionate, generous, honest, responsible, disciplined, etc.). What is most striking is how sincere there. Nothing to prove.
In light of all this, I can’t help but feel you’re getting quite carried away with exalting the bible. (not that I don’t like it — LOVE some parts of it)
Corbin wrote:
Many years ago in some Christianese cult watch book, there was mention of some group who officially named themselves “The Local Church” and claimed that EVERY reference or use of the term “local church” applied to them and them alone.
Jimmy wrote:
In my experience, Authority of SCRIPTURE(TM) = “Ees Party Line, Comrade!”
Jimmy wrote:
Nonsense! Arrogant, pride-filled, power hungry people have infilterated our nation’s seminaries and churches and spouted off their un-Biblical rhetofic and have justified destroying countless Christians’ lives and reputations, disgracing the name of Jesus Christ and the cause of Christ.
The Apostle Paul, when dealing with a man having sex with his step-mother in a church, told the church to confront them and then later to welcome him back. That was done with love.
What we see today (which has even been criticized from conservative Christian pastors and elders in Europe who have called the American cases un-Biblical) are excommunications and shunning for simply disagreeing.
I was excommunicated and shunned from my church of 8 1/2 years for discovering, while doing research for a prosecutor, that a new church member placed in positions of authority was a Megan’s List sex offender who had served prision time. The pastors/elders screamed at me and defended him. It turns out he was their friend. They said he was ‘harmless’ and ‘coming off Megan’s List’. His supervising law enforcement agency, the Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force, called that ‘all lies’ and ‘total lies’. The sex offenders’ task force was so concerned by the lies my church’s pastors/elders told me that the task force contacted the California Attorney General’s Office which runs my state’s Megan’s List. The Attorney General also confirmed the story my pastors/elders told me was ‘all lies’.
The upshot? I was ordered to be excommunicated and shunned.
I seriously doubt that most of the people doing these excommunication/shunnings are even believers, even saved. I think when they stand in judgment before the Lord, He will sentence them to Hell and tell them that He never knew them. They lack the Lord’s love. It’s all about themselves, their power, their need to be in control, in the right, and to punish any dissenters.
P.S. Oh yes, before my excommunication/shunning, a long-time close personal friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s (Grace Community Church in Southern California) was also ordered to be excommunicated and shunned. That godly Christian man is a doctor, faithful, loving husband to his wife of 40+ years, loving father to grown children, and gave of his time and money to our church. His ‘crime’? Questioning the pastors/elders about Biblical error in leading our church.
Obedience and Fruit. Check out Ephesians 5 for instance. @ elastigirl:
Uhh, yeah I do “exalt the Bible” as God’s word. If you view it as a bits and pieces that you either agree with or don’t agree with then there’s not much more to discuss on this topic.@ elastigirl:
There are obviously a lot of terrible incidents of abuse. I’m not trying to minimize that at all. There are quite a few standards laid out in the Bible though and we’re wrong to look at them and shrug instead of lovingly speak truth. Jesus said both “I don’t condemn you” and “don’t sin anymore.” What standards was he calling people to when he said don’t sin? Was the Apostle Paul wrong in what he said in Ephesians 5? We have the right to judge fruit (Matthew 7). @ dee:
What is the likelihood, with the accusations against “Star” Scott, that guru Scott may experience some prison time? I realize there is a statute of limitation on some of these charges, but some of these charges may still be happening because people with these kind of problems don’t easily change. Nothing much may happen on spiritual abuse charges, and the shunning and family breakups because of separation of church and state, but what about the “molestation” charges by Scott’s son. Pedophiles don’t easily change. I reread this in TWW article from a couple days ago.
Mark wrote:
I would think there’s still some currency, agreed. Also, this nicely ties in with naive ‘so heavenly minded they’re no earthly good’ church attendees and a ‘Christian’ warped view of human nature and paedophilia.
Jimmy has defrosted eh? I’m thinking of a certain Star Wars episode.
PS I’m snorting at the term ‘gospel citizen’. More ho ho’s than Santa from me…
@Patty, I’m sorry that you had to suffer so much, and continue in your grief of separation. I’m quite ropeable reading about what has happened to your family.
…………………….
Sometimes I feel the best advice may be to leave town when you leave your church, and skip the shunning and shaming stage. I appreciate it’s not always possible or practical, but who needs these attempts at mental crippling?
Pingback: Calvary Temple: More | Civil Commotion
Michaela wrote:
That paragraph hits it on the nose.
The ex-students of mine who are now ministers are arrogant, power hungry, so full of pride, and the people in the pews do not see it. Some of which I see doing so much harm…and they can’t stand criticism.
Do you know who see it? I mean really see it? The folks outside the church.
It makes you wonder?
I just checked on Matthew 18 and there is nothing there remotely about ‘the church’ going on a witch hunt. vv 1-6 are about humility; vv 7-9 are about how a person needs to consider and deal with his own temptations to sin; vv 10-20 are instructions about how somebody who is sinned against by another person can take steps to get the church to intervene in his personal situation; vv 21-35 are about forgiveness. There is nothing there about what some have called sin sniffing.
How is it that the people who seem to be the quickest to ‘reference’ scripture are also the people who seem the quickest to distort scripture. I think I know why, but that is too off topic for here and now.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I have studied the compilation of scriptures that we have available in the English language today for decades. In them it is written, the letter kills and the Spirit gives life. Jesus questioned those, who in his days on earth, meticulously studied, but did not realize the words spoke of Him. It was Jesus who opened the written Old Testament to the two deciples on the road to Emmaus.
I have also experienced all manner of abusive control from pulpits, from elders, from “prophets” and other who declare they are “in the ministry”. The common element, their view of the “authority of scripture”. Even that phrase is part of their mental control tactics.
In contrast, Jesus is alive and He is faithful to His promise to pour out the Holy Spirit, Who opens our understanding to all that Jesus said, by empowering the living of Eternal Life. The scriptures all, and all the Holy Spirit ministers points to Jesus, the Christ. Those who man/woman a pulpit as Reverend authority, more and more do not, because they twist the scriptures to their own ends – and not to pointing to Jesus as the Beginning and the End – the Alpha and the Omega.
@ Jimmy:
Ephesians 5: 1-21 is an exhortation to believers to live upright lives. It says nothing about church tribunals or about the sheep turning on each other is some cannibalistic fury. I suppose that is the section you referenced.
Matthew 7: 1-6 is that famous and elegant example about don’t you be judging people but rather go take the speck out of your own eye. Matt 7: 15-20 is a caution to people as to how to recognize the ravenous wolves ‘who come to you’ in sheep’s clothing. Something people have been talking about in the false teachers I believe. Here again, there is no mention of culling the flock of those determined to be ‘less than’ but rather a caution about the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Matt 7: 21-23 is where Jesus reminds religions people that their religiousness will not fly at the judgment if they have lived lawless lives. One could get into a discussion about law at this point, seeing as how Jesus was a Jew born under the law and may have mean the Mosaic law-that would be an interesting conversation. But there is nothing in that section which says that anybody but the individuals concerned are responsible for the sad outcome of their choices.
I am not following the reasoning behind seeing what you and some people seem to be seeing in these sections of scripture.
@ Haitch:
If my info is correct, it’s not the same Jimmy even if he sounds like him.
@ Jimmy:So which sins are you going to pick since all of us sin. How do u decide? We have gluttony, pride, envy, arrogance, adultery, etc. I bet my life alone could keep you busy all day
@ Jimmy:if it was so easy to exalt God’s word, then why do we disagree on a whole bunch. Are we not arguing interpretation? I am now going to straighten my veil!
Oddly enough, I happen to agree that the local church has been given a great deal of authority in this area. But I also happen to believe that the phrase “local church” has been corrupted to the point of uselessness in fundagelical culture.
The local church, biblically, means all the believers in a locality. Nowadays, that would mean a rich and diverse collection of ecclesiastical history and culture, both new and old. The last thing it means is some isolated, lone-ranger sub-group that has arrogated to itself authority to make ex cathedra pronouncements on doctrine and biblical interpretation.
Thus, I would warmly welcome the idea of a 9Marx * “local church” properly submitting itself to the authority of The Local Church. That would mean said 9Marxists submitting properly to the biblical command to “give preference to one another in honour”, and learning to respect the experience and “Kingdom citizenship” (so to speak) of all the other “local churches”, whether the 9Marxists agreed with them or not.
If this happened, spiritual abuse would be much harder to conceal and perpetuate. Far more believers would be educated, from early on, to realise that they have a choice not to submit to anybody who demands authority over them.
To personalise the example, Lesley and I were expelled (with the usual shunning and associated nonsense) from “a church” a while back. I do not apologise for the fact that we still grieve the lost friendships from that period – if we ever loved those people, then we should grieve for them. Nevertheless, I would be entirely willing to submit to The Local Church over our relationship with the church CEO who threw us out. If a fair and representative sample of local churches – House Church, Baptist **, Methodist, Episcopalian, Roman, and whoever is there – listened honestly to our respective stories and felt that Lesley and I had done wrong, I would accept the authority of the whole church to expel us. Probably wouldn’t happen, though, because nobody would have heard of the CEO in question – he didn’t like the idea of working with any other churches unless they came under his authority…
* I know how it’s spelt.
** “Baptist” means something very different in Scotland
Dee wrote:
I, by contrast, am going to mix the Yorkshire Pudding batter.
@ Nick Bulbeck:You always make me laugh
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Hmmm . . . he would fit right is with the 9Marxists fellows it seems.
Here’s the latest post I did. Juts looking at the movie The Dark Knight Rises and exploring the themes of redemption, faith and idolatry. I need to do a post on celebrity pastors in the near future.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/movies-theology-the-dark-knight-rises-thoughts-on-faith-idolatry-and-redemption/
@ Dee:
We aim to please…
The batter now mixed and in the fridge (for tonight’s Toad In The Hole), I am now off to the local car-repair folks to have (in the mechanic’s words on the phone just now) a “blether” about our ageing diesel’s EGR valve.
Michaela wrote:
I think you and Jimmy are in fact basically in agreement. Without nitpicking over everyone else’s foibles, mistakes and imperfections, we are to judge the fruit of those who profess faith. You have correctly done this regarding your former church. To fail to do this is both unbiblical and can mean (as you know from first-hand experience) you can follow men into the same deception that they are in themselves.
When it comes to judging who is or is not a believer, in the end God alone knows, but it is not unreasonable for a pastor to want to make sure, for example, that a fairly young child who wants to be baptised really understands what they are doing. But that is hardly heavy shepherding.
As far as shunning is concerned, the apostle Paul actually lists the bahaviours believers should ‘disassociate’ from, namely immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. I suppose reviler = verbally abusive person might include someone who criticises the local church leadership, but this could not possibly be any excuse for silencing genuine questions or someone who is, in fact, telling the unvarnished truth, even if it is not want they want to hear. But you don’t need to know any Greek or Patristics to recognise the behaviours Paul lists when you meet them, it’s not NT rocket science!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
But Nick, you do understand that it is all about ‘us vs them’ don’t you? Under your plan there who would be the ‘them’ ?
Daisy wrote:
Since Driscoll has allegedly been assaulted by a machete-wielding maniac in the past, maybe he needs the police woman to fly over from China to protect him? (Not to mention protection she could provide against nail-scatterers, rock-thowers, pesky reporters, (or should I say stone-casters and broadcasters) black helicopters, book-confiscating MacArthurites, and Janet Mefferd!)
Nancy wrote:
Not to worry – we’ll think of someone.
Nancy wrote:
Not sure it’s off-topic at all. The reason, IMO, is that their profession of faith in the authority of scripture is not really about the authority of scripture but rather about them using the scripture to justify their own lust for power and control over others. That is why they either intentionally distort or are blind to the distortion of what the texts actually say. Their pitch is “argue with me and you are arguing with God.” They are co-opting God’s authority as their own and re-writing God’s words to serve their interests.
That’s the view of this conservative who has seen behind the curtain, so others may see it differently and their perspectives would be helpful.
The irony is thick and rich that Leeman would implicitly doubt the sincerity of his children while he would undoubtedly testify to the sincerity of C.J. Mahaney.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
As usual, your whole comment proves you to be, IMO, one of the foremost living “authorities” on God’s green earth (or in metropolitan Alloa, at the least) upon the topic of “The Local Church”.
How horrible to be separated from your own children and grandchildren by people who claim to speak for God. This is *not* what Jesus was talking about when he said to prefer following him to following one’s family and tribe. I’m thinking this is the spirit of anti-christ rather than the spirit of Christ.
Taking the two stories together…the pastor/church who is abusive, and who gets to determine who is a christian…those of you who say ‘we can’t say who is or isn’t a christian’…do you believe the horrible pastor in the first part of this blog post is a christian? Because you can’t say no if you you don’t believe anyone can determine who is or isn’t a christian. I’m not trying o be argumentative, but I see this often…so and so famous pastor is evil, and in the next breath-don’t judge someone’s salvation.
Gram3 wrote:
“Men of Sin” will glom onto ANY Cosmic-level Authority — Bible, Koran, Darwin, Marx, Freud, Science, Nature, whatever — to get Cosmic-level justification for what they were going to do anyway (“I WANNA!”).
Bridget wrote:
I’m feeling like making a great many comments on this topic, which perhaps I’ll have more time for later. Right now, I’ll just say two things. First, Leeman’s reasons for denying baptism to believing children seem to me neither Biblical TM, Gospel-centered TM, nor Winsome TM.
Second, in the comments Pastor Carpenter (a die-hard 9Marks fan, for those not familiar) explains away several Biblical examples of believers getting baptized immediately, rather than waiting for some sufficient level of indoctrination first, I’m reminded that in previous 9Marks comments, he tells of encouraging a couple of adult believers to officially *join* his *local church* and become *members* PRIOR to being baptized. His reasoning was that *local church membership* is of utmost priority, there was some delay in finding a proper baptismal font, and that they had the intention of being baptized in the future.
Jimmy wrote:
The issue is how “the Church” is defined. Certainly, the Church, which is rightly defined as “every believer in Jesus”, ought to judge fruits and make some determination about whether someone is or is not a follower of Christ, so they can decide whether they ought to be in fellowship with them and call them brother or sister. No problem there. In fact, this gathering of believers as facilitated by D & D is the Church and is doing just that, calling out those like the leaders of CT and 9Marks whom we believe to be wolves or warped sheep and saying that they are promoting a man-centered false gospel. This is precisely what Ephesians and Matthew promotes.
The issue with 9Marks and the like is that they define “the Church” in an institutional sense, as in their particular organization in which they have declared themselves to be the leaders.
The father in the hypothetical speaking to his daughter is failing to recognize that he is the Church and very much should be declaring that his daughter is saved if he sees the evidence of fruit, just as, if he were a rational father, he would be declaring that 9Marks leaders very well may not be based on their lust for control and the lack of those fruits.
@ Gram3:
I agree totally with what you have said. And also I think that they have poor, poorer or even poorest arguments so all they can do is bluff and try to intimidate. They bluff by quoting scripture while trashing understand or application of said passage, and then hope nobody calls their bluff. They intimidate by claiming that they wield personal authority given them by God and that to defy them is to defy God. And they try to intimidate by making personal judgment calls on who is or is not a believer. Now why and how calvinists would do this-say who is or is not among the elect-is a mystery but there they go doing it.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yep. Needed repeated so I did it. Again, yep.
Nancy wrote:
Because God has them personally on speed-dial, of course.
What would God ever do without if they weren’t there to tell Him who is and is NOT Elect?
Gram3 wrote:
Oh wow. That is so true. Chilling
Law Prof wrote:
Hmmm. I am not sure how far you would take that. It looks to me like the great commission on the one hand and that statement in Jesus’ high priestly prayer in which he asked that his people not be taken out of the world but rather kept from the sin in the world are saying just the opposite of any idea of only associating with other believers, much less limiting said association to other believers who meet some level of ‘fruit’ as determined by those who want that level of separation.
That idea sounds too much like saying that it is not enough to be a believer but that one should be a ‘true’ believer. That sets up a system where one is under obligation to prove to one and all (including himself) that he is a true believer. So-how much money does a true believer give to the church; how many nights a week is he over at the church; which political ideas must he have and how must he vote; how young must he marry and how many children must he have; what bible translation must he carry (and prominently display in his vehicle so that passers by may see it); what radio stations must he play softly on his desk radio at work as a testimony to fellow workers; and on and on. I think I have said enough to demonstrate that I know the drill. I just think it is not what Jesus was talking about; it is religiosity trying to replace Jesus in people’s lives. And I think that Jesus addressed that squarely when he talked about the sorry eternal results of the judgment in some religious (true believers) persons’ lives.
But I am thinking that I may have misunderstood what you were saying.
Stay tuned as Dee has said. We are currently supporting a brave young woman whose story has rocked me to the core. Spiritual abuse is happening all around us by churches we may least expect, because we have not heard the stories of their survivors yet. This church is shunning and hurting this woman, a hero, while protecting a pedophile. The silence is being broken. Light is shining.
@ Nancy:
And we do all recognize I suppose that the requirement to be a ‘true believer’ is adding works as a ‘symptom’ of salvation.
Amy Smith wrote:
At the risk of overdoing commenting on ‘shunning’, or ‘disassociating’ as my version calls it, a paedophile is precisely the kind of pseudo-believer the saints are commanded to avoid and not get mixed up with. It must be one of the worst forms of immorality – if there are degrees of being immoral.
Sorry, this turning the NT on its head, the doing the opposite of what it teaches really struck me in this comment. Which is not so say that the human cost is not every bit as important.
Gracie71 wrote:
Good question. Here is how I reconcile it in my life. Would you think that a man who had sex with a woman not his wife, got her pregnant and then ordered her husband to be killed sounds like a Christian? Yet King David was beloved by God. If he had died in the midst of killing Uriah, would he have been in heaven? I think so although I struggle with that along with his bazillion wives/concubines.
The only thing that I can judge on is actions and the actions of Scott clearly tell me he isn’t following the Jesus I know. His actions are horrendous and I hope the child sex abuse allegations will be investigated and that anyone who hurt children is convicted and sent to jail.
I did not write the Book of Life nor did God ask for my advice in putting names in that Book. I leave that up to him. I am not up to the task. Perhaps other are. As CS Lewis said, there will be many surprised in heaven.I am comfortable with that.
@ Gracie71:
Let me reply to that. Christians can and do sin. To say this person sinned/is sinning and we need to do something about that is one thing. To say they are not a believer, I don’t know how one could be sure of that. And also, christians can and do have mental illnesses, some of which are certainly egregious especially in the area of sexual perversions. But does a specific diagnosis mean that person is not a christian or does it leave us still not knowing all the facts about either the person or mental illness. So surely we should take steps to get that person out of the population and away from potential victims. May we say he is not a christian? Well, that gets dicey. How do we know for sure either way.
One of the problems is that calling people ‘not saved’ is used frequently and indiscriminately within fundamentalism as a weapon against whoever does not agree with them. For example the accusations that the members of a certain church within a certain christian tradition ‘are not saved’ is said almost like an affirmation of faith and a shibboleth of belonging among those of another tradition. Some of us are sick to death of that sort of thing and, yes, may lean too far in the other direction because of it. Or not.
@ Amy Smith:
Amy!! Did you get my email? 🙂 I’d love to meet you when you come out to Washington, D.C.
Jimmy wrote:
Jimmy, to my knowledge the only place where Jesus told anyone to “don’t sin anymore” is John 8 in the story of the adulterous woman. If you do some research, you will find that the story is not found in any of the original manuscripts. Many agree that it may have been a true incident, but that a zealous sage likely inserted it in the gospel of John.
Not to take the topic too far off course, but I can’t imagine anyone actually becoming sinless as Jesus was the only one to have been sinless. He would not condemn the woman but you neither did he condemn anyone else for that matter.
Was the Apostle Paul wrong in what he said in Ephesians 5? We have the right to judge fruit (Matthew 7). @ dee:
When referring to judging fruit, I think you’ll find that Jesus was referencing false prophets and how to recognize them. He was speaking to the Pharisees which is significant in interpreting it’s context as well.
@ Gracie71:
I don’t think anyone at TWW is presuming to say that a particular person or group is Christian or not or is in the Kingdom or not or is in the Body of Christ or not. That is what 9Marks is advocating, and it is not legitimate.
It is legitimate, I think, to ask whether or not what someone says or does *is consistent with* the pattern set by Jesus in his life and with the text we have been given. We can discuss those issues. That is not the same as saying authoritatively whether someone is a Christian or not.
From Leeman’s mailbag, we have this appeal to history:
“Best we can tell, most churches who have practiced believers baptism throughout history did not baptize until something closer to adulthood. It’s a relatively new practice to baptize children.”
Notice that 1: he specifics most churches who have practiced believers baptism througout history, not most churches in general. Best I can tell, most primitive NT churches practiced IMMEDIATE baptism for believers and their “household”, in which we can’t tell with certainty were infants and young children. Best I can tell, catechumems became popular, who believed but delayed baptism while studying further. By Augustine’a day this had become so popular that many believers put off baptism until their death beds. (Perhaps they felt they could never attain sufficient assurance through study and good works– or did they worry that future sins wouldn’t be washed away?) Professional clergy, of course, were baptized. Best I can tell, this is the end game of the 9 Marks teaching. After this infant baptism became the norm for most churches for over a millennium. So we have quite a variety!
2: Many 9Marks churches claim to be REFORMED, and most reformed churches thoughout history have baptized infants. Indeed, John Calvin called “catabaptists” “the Devil’s own miscreants”.
Personally, I disagree with Calvin on this and other matters, but Calvinists ought to at least– let me put it this way– CBHC wouldn’t allow Calvin to baptize his kids- or even, perhaps, take communion!
dee wrote:
I think the difference is that when David was called out on his sins, he was humbled and repented. I know christians sin, I do. But I have a hard time calling someone a christian who is arrogant, prideful, beats his wife on a daily basis, etc. with no remorse.
1Cor 5;10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler– not even to eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?…
How do we interpret that, especially when he uses the words ‘so called’?
@ Jimmy:
The word ‘standards’ is used by a particular baptist group with which I am familiar and by that they mean their lists of behavior rules which they have sanctioned as the way to fulfill certain statements in scripture as they see them. For example, since females must not wear pants of any sort the decision must be made as to the length of a skirt. Is mid knee sufficient or must it be below the knee? Whatever length is decided upon then is a standard. If that is what you mean by standards, then that is not in the bible.
Now there are sins, and fruits, and abominations and commands and such, but not ‘standards’ like that sort of thing.
Jesus required his followers to obey his commandments and said this is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you. Making a list and checking it twice to use it as a weapon against a fellow believer is not loving anybody. Confronting somebody because their grandchild was caught smoking cigarettes with his teen buddies one time and accusing the parents and grandparents of moral failure and poor parenting and probably not really being christians may be about a standard and may be standard procedure in some places but it is not biblical and it is not loving anybody. To call that loving is too ridiculous to even discuss.
So, you may need to be more specific in what you are talking about.
Gracie71 wrote:
Great example. Now we say that a drunkard is an alcoholic and needs treatment. And the local AA group may be meeting at the church. But the bible says—. yes it does. Our society has called greed and covetousness virtues, and that needs addressed from the pulpit surely, but who would be left in church if they were all shunned. The definitions of what constitutes immorality are up for grabs, and I would not touch that one except to say that we need to determine what that means and make some church plans for dealing with it. We send swindlers to jail and we should, and revilers need shooed out the door-or maybe they have anger issues and need counseling and some meds.
What I am saying is, certainly Paul is justly opposed to these things, but what we have to deal with right now requires some serious thinking through. Just shunning would not solve all those problems. Admonish from the pulpit, deal with offenses as they arise, refer for mental health/behavioral professional help, and call the cops when needed. But just shunning is not going to be a comprehensive solution. Not is today’s day and age.
@ Gracie71:
I do believe that church can disassociate with someone who is living an immoral lifestyle. In fact, 1 Corinthians 5 seems to indicate that we should do this in limited circumstances for over the top immorality. One could even say that someone is not living a lifestyle that is consistent with being a Christian. We can dissociate with people who do not hold to the basics of the faith such as the Cross and Resurrection. Just because I do not judge their salvation, does not mean that I cannot judge their actions as being inconsistent with the faith.
At the same time I agree with Nancy’s comment @ Nancy:
Each of the things mentioned in Paul’s account may have many underlying motivations. So, a swindler needs to go to jail. When he gets out, he should make restitution if he can. Could he be a Christian who, like David, needs to get back on track?
Also, the David thing is interesting. David knew what he was doing was wrong from the time that he did it. Did he stop believing in God during that time? If he had died, would he have gone to heaven? I believe he would have. David had a pretty hard heart for about a year.
In a confession that they do at my church, we ask God for forgiveness for things we know and for things we do not know. In fact, many of us will go to heaven with some things not repented of. At least I know that I will since I have the capacity to overlook or deep six some of my attitudes towards others and at times I ignore God.
You can well imagine that I am big on calling out people on things that are wrong like pedophilia, domestic abuse, spiritual abuse, etc. But, for me, I do not say they are not a Christian. I leave that up to God. How does doing that in anyway change the seriousness of calling someone out on their actions?
@ Dave A A:
Dave A A wrote:
That is a fascinating comment. I never thought of it like that before.
@ Gracie71:
PS I could be wrong on this matter. It is not hill to die on for me. Paul obviously knew a whole lot more about the so called brother but did not share that with us. But one thing i know for sure, I am not Paul and unless someone tells me that they are not Christian, then I will hold open that possibility.
My father who did not believe his entire life, made a confession of faith on his deathbed! I am so glad that my daughter was with me because I believed I was hallucinating. If someone had asked me about him a month before that I would have said that he was not a believer based on his own words.
Besides, there are some out there who do not believe that I am a Christian because of what I do at this blog. I tend to be a mite sensitive about this subject.
No one is “barely a Christian”. You’re either a total Christian (a member of God’s kingdom, a child of our heavenly Father, a co-heir with Christ, indwelt with the Holy Spirit) or you’re not a Christian.
I actually liked the dialogue Leeman had with this daughter, except for the grammatical error at the end.
But I affirm parents who decide to let their children be baptized at a young age, provided the children show an understanding of the Gospel basics.
Also, I don’t believe that any group of Christians should attempt to pass on whether professing Christians truly know God. Only God knows that.
My basic rule is to affirm people’s own professions. I don’t know anyway, so why not go with their profession.
I believe the church can observe whether a person’s doctrinal profession is in keeping with the faith, and whether their lifestyle is consistent with the faith (to the extent anyone’s is). Where the local church has to act in those instances is very rare, however.
But no person can, or should try, to make a judgment about a Christian’s status with God.
@ Gracie71:
Gracie, I get where you are coming from. AFter the evils I saw backstage at mega churches I really wrestled with this. I think this helps:
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
I know this is going to sound dumb and I am speaking in generalities but I think part of the problem comes from doctrine becoming “king” instead of our fruitful lives as proof of who we are. I really do think there is something to Christian virtue and character.
Reading church history is so interesting in this respect. When the councils started up and they were deciding what is orthodox (I hate that word) and what wasn’t that became the focus instead of what sort of lives to live. Then the wars started over doctrine, land, etc. That is a very general view and there is much more to it but I think the whole focus on “correct doctrine” besides the very basics is a big part of the problem. You can have correct doctrine, build a huge church and be a greedy thug.
Law Prof wrote:
I have agnostic, atheistic, and Jewish friends I call brother and sister. Even in a specific church there ought to be room for diversity. In my former church, a young Jewish man attended for some weeks while he was in the process of deciding whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. He wasn’t a follower of Christ and yet we welcomed him and treated him as a brother as we should have.
We also welcomed a member’s non believing alcoholic husband when he accompanied her on occasion to church. Our acceptance of him did not mean we condoned his out of control drinking. What a joy when he professed belief and got help for his alcoholism!
The church belonged to a particular denomination but we never catechized any attendee about agreement on non salvation issues in determing whether he or she was a follower of Jesus. Anyone wanting to teach Sunday School or become a voting member of the church had to be in sync with the denomination, which makes sense, but otherwise there was no problem and people were welcomed and accepted.
Unless someone is committing a crime or causing disturbances in the church, I cannot see the need for excluding them from church, let alone shunning them in the community. Where else should people curious about religion, exploring what they believe, or struggling with problems go but the church?
@ dee:
King David was a trainwreck, really. I think we have to be careful about applying the “bbeloved” label, because i don’t for a nanosecond think God let him off the hook for the many evil things he fied that harmed others, cf. both Bathsheba and Uriah. What an arrogant person David was! Seriously. Reading about him makes my skin crawl, though i think his experiences at Saul’s court (never knowing when/if Saul wad going to try and kill him) messed him up very bwdly.
Yes, he worshipped YHWH, but i would *never* want to run into him IRL!
@ dee:
Let me boil it down: David seems to have cheerfully harmed others in order to get what he wanted, without a thought spared for those people.
I do not think God loved his behavior, nor does he sound like anyone i would ever want to meet.
dee wrote:
Two quick points – first, while it doesn’t get brought out in public, the question of children’s vs. Believers baptism is a hot item of contention in Reformed circles (behind the scenes that is).
Second, it cannot be stressed enough that what passes for Calvinism today in America has extremely little in common with John Calvin and his actual beliefs. Calvin may have devoted two pages at most of his *Institutes* to election, and said little about it even then. The Calvinism of today owes infinitely more to the English Puritans (125 years post-Calvin) than to Calvin himself.
@ Eeyore:
For good or ill, America has elements of Puritanism in its DNA.
@ numo:
That said, David is fascinating in the same way that many of Shakespeare’s kings are fascinating – complex, certainly not entirely good or entirely evil. I think that what we know about him is rather surprising in its honesty about his very real chsracter flaws.
Quick note on the whole Thing about shunning a “so-called brother” who is living an ungodly lifestyle etc etc.
First, let’s suppose we managed to agree on what constitutes an ungodly lifestyle. I know, but bear with me and you’ll see where I’m going.
The NT does not command us to shun a person who lives an ungodly lifestyle – otherwise we couldn’t associate with anyone, and we’d be hee-haw use as ambassadors for Christ. It commands us to dissociate with a person who calls himself a believer and lives an ungodly lifestyle. And the whole point of that is that we effectively take his word for it that he is a believer! And if a believer, then he has accepted a certain responsibility to set an example of what happens under Jesus’ kingship.
The more I think about it, the higher the priority I’m inclined to place on building accountable relationships between local “churches” (as though the plural made any sense…). Because, as we all know only too well, too many Diotrephes-wanabees (3 John, for those interested) have set themselves up as private popes and order believers to shun other believers for asinine reasons.
If you’ll forgive my stating the obvious, turning one believer against another believer is the very essence of what it means to be divisive. Thus, ironically, one of the groups of so-called brothers I am most strongly inclined to shun is made up of the leaders around the world who are most inclined to demand that people be shunned.
@ numo:
David was a ferocious fighter apparently from youth (bear and lion) right on. After I read part of the book about american sniper and could not finish it I have been doing some reading on what it takes mentally for a human to face the enemy up close and actually kill him. Think what David did to Goliath even after Goliath was apparently dead. Fighting and winning battles was what David apparently did best and it was not distance combat where all one had to do was push a button. It was gruesome in ways I can’t even imagine. And God chose David for king. I have not processed that in my thinking as much as I need to, but it is a sobering thought. Never mind what that says about David; what does that say about God.
@ Dave A A:
It’s very kind of you to say so, Dave, and it’s also unusual to see the words “Alloa” and “metropolitan” in the same sentence! Other than a sentence that begins Alloa, unlike metropolitan areas, …
Police can tell paedophiles by clothes they wear and tattoos they have after pioneering training
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-can-tell-paedophiles-clothes-5527016
Durham Police has adopted a programme developed in the US by the Texas Rangers
Police officers have received pioneering training to detect hidden signs that give child abusers away, including the clothes they wear and tattoos they may have.
@ numo:
I disagree with you on David. He gives me hope. And a key difference is that David eventually owned what he did. Its called the 51st Psalm. That’s what makes him different from CJ Mahaney or Mark Driscoll.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick,
I told a coworker the other day about Yorkshire Pudding and how I almost ruined a relative’s 50 year old Yorkshire Pudding pans by washing them in soap and water.
She (lovingly) yelled at me, “STOP!” as I a teenager thought I would help her with tea-time dishes while staying in Yorkshire.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I’ve had a busy day, and have one remaining bottle of Alloa Fraoch ale. Though I don’t much care for ale, I think I’ll open it.
Nancy wrote:
All I mean is that as a believer in Jesus who’s called to discern and have nothing to do with those who have the form of Godliness, but consistently denying the power, I don’t want to be in Christian fellowship with those who are false disciples, abusive controllers, phonies and frauds. I do not care whether they choose to give their ministry a Christian name. Associating with those so-called believers or thoroughly corrupted beliivers does not, IMHO, promote the work of the Church. Therefore, I want nothing to do with the 9Marks crowd, smug neocal fanboys, Driscollites, or controlling abusers. I want to see them called out for what they are and openly oppose them. That’s why I support what D & D are doing here.
I do not mean refusing to have any association with anyone who’s not a Christian, that would be diametrically opposed to what Jesus taught. Definitely I’m in agreement with you there.
@ Lydia:
It truly is a strange religion.
Just want folks to know I’m not talking about shunning, shaming, runaway disciplining, sin-sniffing, etc. I’m saying I want nothing to do with the sort of crowd that calls themselves “Christian” and practices such things.
In other words, I consider the 9Marks gang and like-minded pharisaical individuals to be the ones whom I want nothing to do with, the ones who I refuse to be in Christian fellowship with because I have profound issues with their beliefs and practices, which I generally consider to be ugly and ungodly. While I might associate with them for the purposes of being a witness to them or rebuking them (“Who do you think you are, exactly, to tell a father that he can’t identify his own child as a believer without your input?”), I will not attend their churches and assume that they are not a brother or sister until they show me otherwise. “You shall know them by their fruits.”
Nancy wrote:
This is commonly called “One-Upmanship”.
Or “Can You Top This?”
Nancy wrote:
God made it clear Israel shouldn’t get involved with kings. David made an excellent example, he was a man after Gods heart but was a lousy king. His son was one of the wisest men, yet another lousy king.
Authoritarian kings are a bad solution to a political problem. Similarly authoritarian power in the church is also bad. No one is worth of that much power.
Enough with kings.
Michaela wrote:
Makes sense; the old-style Yarkshire pudding pans weren’t teflon-coated, and Yarkshire folk would use lard or beef dripping to grease them with, by gum. So the fatty deposits were what stopped the batter from sticking.
When I was at Cambridge, there was (and may still be) a Cambridge University Yorkshire Nationalist Society. Among their manifesto commitments were Compulsory sheep for all college lawns and Converting Old Addenbrookes Teaching ‘ospital into a ‘uge drinking-‘ouse for students.
By ‘eck, that’s roobish, is that.
@ Dave A A:
Slàinte mhath!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Which, being interpreted meaneth I regret I am unable to attend the wild pig hunt today.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Have a cast iron skillet that I only use for cornbread. Cornbread only.
My grandmother gave it to ” us” as a wedding present 34 year ago.
Found my wife cooking bacon in it one time shortly after we married. It took me 6 months to get the skillet ” right” again for the cornbread.
At one time only used cottonseed oil to coat the pan before pouring in cornbread batter. Now, I have gone ” high tech” and use Pam spray. ( and surprisingly, it works better. )
Lydia wrote:
Lydia, I don’t think your comment is the slightest bit ‘dumb’. There must obviously be a limited set of defining beliefs that characterise authentic Christianity, without which it is too vague and ethereal to mean anything at all. The fundamentals or basics if you like. So it is not as though doctrine simply doesn’t matter.
Yet along with a minimum of doctrine, evangelicals have decidedly failed to agree on a minimum change in behaviour in order to show that a profession of faith is itself authentic, and not just hot air. If someone’s faith doesn’t change their life at all, then it is not real faith. Orthodox (sorry!) faith must result in a minimum level of orthodox behaviour. A gradual change.
As I’ve said before usually in the context of charismatic discussions, to have the ‘Word’ (biblical doctrine) for something does not mean you have the thing itself. It’s no good knowing the Hebrew and Greek for sanctification, and yet not have the holiness of character without which no-one will see the Lord.
The problem you have put your finger on here is that it is very much possible to have an intellectual assent to biblical doctrine, to know doctrines (The Doctrines of Grace even) and in fact teach them, and yet have a dead faith. Perhaps because of family background (such as brought up in a pastor’s home) or stuffed full of head knowledge at seminary to be able to say all the right things, and even act as though you are a believer as far as churchianty and services go and look the part, but still be dead in treaspasses and sins in reality on the inside.
The failure to judge ‘fruit’ or actions as well as doctrine means the latter can be used as a cover for all sorts of nasty behaviour, and evangelicals, especially those who decry the work of the Holy Spirit, are taken in. Fooled by hypocrits.
Faith without works is dead, and evil works, the kind of things exposed on this and other sites, show a heart of unbelief in the perpetrators. The right phrases trip off the tongue, but evil deeds done over a long time, and the desire to cover up such evil deeds only reveal we are dealing with ‘un-believers’.
Bill M wrote:
He did indeed. But when nothing would do them but they had to have a king like the surrounding nations, God had his prophet anoint his (God’s) for king, and He chose David to succeed Saul. Again, I am asking myself what that says about God. I think we may be missing something here in looking at the OT. I think we may be evaluating some of what went on then by today’s ideas of what should have gone on. Maybe we are missing something in doing this.
@ K.D.:
I have an iron skillet/dutch oven which I use for cornbread and for anything else I happen to want to use it for. But bacon, I put bacon in cornbread a lot of the time right along with a little bacon grease and slap a little bacon grease in the pan for cooking it. My cookware if probably a disaster but my cornbread is like my mama used to make it-only you have to get ground cornmeal from the mill, not this stuff that comes in a bag from the grocery store.
But since my own mama was from east Texas I am surprised that her method was so different.
Nancy wrote:
The cottonseed oil could be my mother’s attempt to lessen dad’s cholesterol level. It was at time 300+. You are right, the traditional coating, mix was with bacon grease.
@ Ken:
Part 1
I have some problems with what you seem to be saying.
First, about ‘change.’ Picture the person who was born the compliant child. This compliant child was practically born on the back pew of the church, absorbed christianity with his mother’s milk and perhaps would have been the perfect child except that he maybe sucked his thumb until he was five. Now as a teen, let’s say he makes a profession of faith. And we are to scrutinize this kid watching for ‘change’ when really if he changed it would necessarily have to be for the worse?
Or let’s look at ‘head knowledge.” For me this hits home because I always excelled at school ‘book learning’ and always had to listen to jealous people in the family have opinions about how they bet I would grow up with no common sense. So I learned to ‘play dumb’ as a survival mechanism. So what does the person with ‘head knowledge’ have to do to convince anybody of anything, and more to the point why should they have to prove themselves in any special way just because they have said ‘head knowledge.’ Oh, blippin no to that–based on experience.
@ Nancy:
Part 2
And I want to throw one more in there. Some people are the emotions police in this business of judging other people. Do you, did you, have the approved emotions when…you made a profession of faith, you were baptized, you stood up in prayer meeting and testified, you heard about those dying without Jesus in darkest Africa and when somebody preached against making out in the backseat and some of the teens went up and you did not (never mind you were not making out in the backseat, you could at least have pretended? of something.) Again I call foul on this. It is superficial nonsense, and it is trying to establish a required pattern of not just thinking and doing but also feeling based on some presumed ideal which is not found in scripture.
You do know I presume, that the kid who is born into the evangelical culture is always a distant second to some street kid who gets gloriously and preferably dramatically saved in revival meeting one night. Being a basinet baptist is not equivalent to being a cradle catholic. We ain’t got no respect.
So how exactly could/should evangelicals decide on a minimum amount of change before they accept somebody’s profession of faith and at the same time be fair to their victims? Let me be clear, I think that people should say to the adjudicators of ‘did you really really mean it’: “Who are you to judge me; see to yourself.”
K.D. wrote:
I very much hope that’s in mg/dl, not mmol/l.
@ Ken:
I agree with you here, Ken. If I see someone consistently setting themselves up as an intermediary between other believers and God (nigh blasphemy), when they make of themselves something superior to other believers (whatever happened to “in humility, consider others better than yourself”?), who may not be questioned (e.g., Driscoll’s “sin of questioning”), who considers themselves the final arbiter on all matters spiritual (have they ever read about submission “one to another”? Do they care?), when they draw a mid six figure to seven figure salary “in service of God”, seek all the best places, the front row seats and act like privileged royalty, and when such a person uses backroom deals, slanderous whisper campaigns, ruthlessness and brute force to protect their interest in all of the above, I very much wonder whether we are dealing with a follower of Christ at all. I will not put myself and family in Christian fellowship with such people, as I do not believe it to be either “Christian” or “fellowship”. I have done so multiple times in the past to my great regret. If any of you are suggesting that I’m off base, unduly judgmental, trying to overreach and wrongfully judge the heart, I can’t know their hearts, I don’t know what Mahaney, Driscoll, Star Scott or any of them have been through; given their nature and nurture, I might have been far worse. So I can’t judge them all-in-all, but I can look at their fruits and decide whether I want to be in fellowship with them, and I simply do not–not going there again.
@ Nancy:
I guess I’m stuck at lions and bears in ancient Palestine, kinda like the camels in the Joseph story, along with the trade routes to the Arabian Peninsula.
I am not saying that bears or lions are imposdible; rather, that it might well be the same kind of statement as the one about Samson and the jawbone.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Mg/Dl forget not everyone on here is not on the U.S. System of weights and measures
Nancy wrote:
Double that if the Gloriously Saved Street Kid has a JUICY pre-Saved testimony. The JUICIER and more SIN-filled the better — how else can Church Ladies get their fix of all that vicarious JUICY SIN SIN SIN?
Law Prof wrote:
Bingo. I don’t need to know their “hearts” or discuss their “motives”. Their patterns of behavior and what they teach are enough.
Nancy wrote:
Ha Ha. So true!
Nancy wrote:
Bingo. What we should never do is hold up OT characters as role models or excuses for bad behavior. Different time, culture and situation. Just reading about events leading up to David’s death creeps me out. Would I really want my daughter to view David as a role model for what constitutes a Christian man?
@ Law Prof:
Well, yes, you are absolutely correct as I see it. But you are talking about leadership. False prophets so to speak. What some folks are talking about is the guy at the other end of the pew who is overweight and about whom they just can’t wait to say that he is abusing his body and scripture says you ought not do that so maybe that guy is not even a christian–that kind of garbage. But maybe you people are talking about evangelicalism and I am talking about fundamentalism and maybe in some other dimension of reality there really is a difference between the two.
I need to take a break from this idea right now. Actually I did not finish doing the taxes until Monday and ever since I have had the feeling that I may have been left behind. Maybe things are not as bad as I see them right now.
Nancy wrote:
But surely not. The compliant child might be convenient from a babysitter’s POV, but that doesn’t make him perfect. A Christian isn’t supposed to be compliant as such, but Christ-like; and sometimes that means offensive and even frightening. The money-changers in the temple had the temple police and the weight of the theocratic state behind them, for instance, but there was evidently something about this carpenter from Nazareth. And when the Sanhedrin saw the boldness of Peter and John, they took note that they had been with Jesus.
Suppose the compliant child encounters (in some way that makes sense to him) the risen Christ; calls Him King; and becomes a dwelling-place for the same spirit that raised Jesus from the dead. If anything, I would expect to see a more radical change in the previously compliant child than I would in the previously aggressive young rebel.
For instance: He may demonstrate a new-found strength and confidence to stand up for himself, both to school bullies and to church bullies. Again, this would manifest in some way that fits his underlying personality – there are many kinds of strength and many ways to face down bullies, obviously. And likewise, when faced with injustice or wrong, I’d expect him to show a new inner steel where previously he’d have timidly backed away for fear of causing a scene. In short, all of the characteristics that were repressed to make him compliant, I’d expect to see springing to life.
@ Nancy:
Yeah. Evangelicals have impossible standards, and i lived with that for far too long, because they got to me. I was, among other things, young and sick of hearing people say that Lutherans weren’t “real” xtians, and so i tried to do it their way.
Nancy wrote:
In my church (RCC) his profession of faith would be taken as seriously as the Gloriously Saved Street Kid’s Damascus Road Conversion Experience. Both are valid, just one is far more spectacular.
(And the most Spectacular Damascus Road Conversion Experience I have ever encountered was NOT to Christ but to PREDATORY Homosexuality — to the point even the gay community later disowned the guy as a Sexual Predator. But the sudden Conversion Experience was externally identical to a spectacular Altar Call, down to the Testimony and compulsive Witnessing afterwards.)
@ Ken:
Ken, I have a different take on the subject. It is weird so I try to be careful but I see most of the leadership of what passes for Evangelical insitutional Christianity as corrupt. (Yes, there are exceptions but even those exceptions sometimes go along with the corruption to be in the game).
I think that is worse than the garden variety sins of the pew sitters that are mosts often discussed. To use Yahweh to seek influence, power and wealth is insidious. Using Jesus to make a name of oneself is about the lowest form of thuggery there is in my book. Because it is a ruse…they convince themselves it is about evangelism and Jesus and they honestly believe that. Then it becomes all about their image and maintaining that.
They want to discuss the sin of homosexuality? First let us discuss the child molestations they turned a blind eye to from one of their own. That is the sort of thing I am talking about.
Nancy wrote:
Ah, yes. “Heart Good! Head BAAAAAAAAD! Heart Good! Head BAAAAAAAAAAAD!”
As a former Cold War Kid Genius, I am familiar with the “Intelligence 18, Wisdom 3” phenomenon from the inside. As your IQ shoots ahead of your physical age, a lot of the rest of your personality and emotional development lags behind. And you (and everyone around you) tends to play to your biggest strength, your IQ. Which just makes the situation worse.
But this goes way beyond that, into “I’m Proud I’m a Holy Nincompoop!” territory. As Internet Monk once said of the local splinter churches in Appalachian Kentucky, “The highest complement you can say about a preacher is ‘He has NO book-larnin and HE IS LOUD!'”
Ken wrote:
“Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the altar!”
— Screwtape
Bill M wrote:
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/old_issue.html
Nancy wrote:
I think we are talking at cross-purposes here a bit. I’m not talking about demanding sinless perfection to prove that someone is ‘born again’. Christians can and do sin, sometimes seriously, but they are no longer happy to do so (not after their conscience kicks in at any rate).
There is an opposite extreme to this, where correct doctrine and a standard evangelical testimony of conversion or belief is not seen in behaviour. They say they believe, but carry on precisely as before. Worse still, and I reckon this is what Law Prof is getting at as well, such people can worm their way into positions of leadership or influence in churches and do immense harm to other people. I think it is reasonable to expect genuine Christians not to be able to carry on like this for any length of time.
I’ve known Christians who have committed adultery; stopped and sought forgiveness and got the sorry mess sorted out. But when a man carries on with affaire after affaire on a long term basis, how can he really claim he is trusting in Christ to forgive him his sins? This huge inconsistency imo is a testimony to either not having salvation in the first place, or to a loss of faith. Yet it seems we evangelicals are very dense at seeing this, it goes on under our noses and we just don’t get it.
We’ve got to lean how to get beyond the look of being a sheep to discerning the fierece wolf that lurks beneath. We are so scared of ‘salvation by works’ that we don’t expect any good works at all.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Back in the day I used to sometimes hear folks brag that their preacher never went to seminary because ‘seminary ruins them” and brag that the same guy never uses notes in the pulpit. What notes has to do with anything I am not sure.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Indeed so. Some little girls who are really pretty have to deal with people thinking that if you are pretty then that is all you are. And there is the common idea that athletes are all body and no brain. People do that to people; it is really bad.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I assume from what you have said that when your wife was pregnant you did not besiege heaven with requests for a compliant child.
One of my grandchildren is a roaring extrovert, compliant, and scary smart such that when you talk to him you think he may look like a 6 year old but he talks like he is 42. But thanks be to God, they are not evangelicals. The evangelicals would trash that child.
A judge has ordered the young child victims of a convicted molestor to pay half of his legal fees. They are suing him and the Mormon Church for covering up his ongoing sexual abuse of very young children. I cannot seem to paste in links using my cell phone but I read this on Raw Story.
Lydia wrote:
Mrs. Muff and me taught our daughter to think for herself, use common sense, weigh trade-offs, and Never look up to role models.
She herself has learned that in real life, perfection is a fool’s errand.
@ Marsha:
Here you go, Marsha.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/west-virginia-judge-orders-victims-to-pay-half-of-sex-abusers-legal-fees-in-mormon-church-cover-up-suit/
numo wrote:
Or it might just be semantics. We have a large cat in the US which we call a lion (mountain lion) but which is a puma / cougar. I don’t know about bears and related species. But wasn’t whatever attacked the children who mocked the bald headed prophet called a bear. There may have been something called a bear back then.
Nancy wrote:
I encountered a secular analog of this in my younger days. That if I was really smart and all-together I wouldn’t need a crutch like notes and checklists. So I stopped using them and my default chaotic absent-mindedness took over.
Nancy wrote:
I got the “Giant Brain in a Jar” variant of that one. Nobody seemed to realize that that 160 IQ was attached to a scared little kid with emotional needs whose head was jammed with so much contradictory facts, facts, facts he didn’t know which way was up. Instead, they all stood in awe of the Giant Brain in a Jar.
Besides “growing up in Idiocracy” where your brainpower outstrips everyone around you (a difference of 50 IQ points is enough to make conventional conversations near-impossible), minimum expectations were somewhere around “How come you’re not a Brain Surgeon at 16 like Doogie Houser? YOU’RE A GENIUS!”
When my mother died in ’75, I was 20 with an emotional age between 6 and 9, and had to literally grow up overnight. No fun. I’m 59, and the damage is still there.
You know, there’s analogy to this in the latest version of My Little Pony. One of the main characters, Twilight Sparkle, started out as a bookish nerd with a big brain, prodigy in unicorn magic, and no social skills whatsoever; much of the first two seasons involved her trying to learn how to relate to ponies. (We even crack up in the same way; see the Second Season episode “Lesson Zero” to see what high IQ and runaway imagination worst-case scenarios can really mess you up.)
And one of the minor characters is a school-age filly named Diamond Tiara, the local rich kid/grade-school bully — fan consensus when she got her “cutie mark” at puberty (the graphic on a pony’s butt symbolizing their individuality and special talent/vocation, like their soul made visible), she interpreted it (a piece of jewelry echoing her name) as being only good for looking pretty and being a rich bitch and acts that out on everypony in school.
@ Muff Potter:
That is well done Muff. I agree. I was thinking of all those little girls who heard in SS that David was a man after God’s heart without any real explanation of that proof text.
Nancy wrote:
I suppose we’re on the same page here. I can’t imagine being in a church where someone would think they had the right to judge someone over their dietary choices and make of it some overarching spiritual thing. Such people would be nuts. I was once in a fellowship where a man was in something of an extended “between jobs” status, down on his luck maybe a little depressed about it to boot, but his wife, who is a co-owner of a small business, was making enough to make ends meet and they both seemed happy and were a solid couple. He was and is a gem of a guy, a humble believer all the way, and he just took the time off to stay home and homeschool their child. He got no end of grief, ridicule and judgment from the “manly” leaders and leader sycophants in the little neocal church he attended. One of a senior leader’s teenage boys regularly mocked this guy on Facebook, apparently with the tacit approval of their dad. It was disgraceful. Seems to me that so long as the couple was happy, what business was it of these leaders?
Lydia wrote:
Or perhaps the choice of various evangelical leaders to dump their middle aged, long suffering spouses in favor of a newer model trophy spouse without the stretch marks and wrinkles that come from years of sacrifice serving the leader and his progeny.
@ Nancy:
True – i was thinking of African lions. Now i really would like to find out what species used to live there that have either been driven out or become extinct due to human habitation.
@ numo:
The Syrian brown bear! Smallish, but nifty.
@ numo:
And the Asiatic lion.
I stand corrected! Very cool to learn about these species, though i am sorry to see that both are endangered species.
@ Law Prof:
Despicable on all accounts 🙁
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Thanks! These stories just keeping coming.
Bridget wrote:
Tip of the iceberg, drop in the bucket. One of many, many things this church–if it be proper to call it that–specialized in. But what I’ve noticed is that the class of people who think they have the right to rule over other Christians, set extrabiblical standards, and punish people for not meeting the standards or destroy them for questioning them, are by nature so utterly corrupt that it’s best to openly oppose them, forgive them in your heart (so you don’t share their poison), then move on far away from their influence and let the Lord deal with them.
Law Prof wrote:
Amen, except I think the Lord wants us to deal with them by warning others, withholding any support or affirmation and to help their victims. And there are going to be tons of victims as time marches on. It is becoming a groundswell. My prayer is some of us who have ‘been there done that’ can aid in healing and cutting that healing time down through various venues.
Lydia wrote:
Totally agreed, honest engine that’s what I meant by “openly oppose them”, warn others about them, get the message out, have nothing to do with these evil practices but instead expose them, as the Lord put it. Totally on board with you. My family is among those victims, and not a day goes by I don’t kick myself mentally for being party to enabling it.
A friend once told me his he couldn’t understand a thing his pastor said (pastor was the “hollering” type) but he sure could preach!
Florence in KY wrote:
That is hilarious.
The gathered local church is authorized… Bullsh#t. I read those passages, and none of them say “gathered local church”. This is another case of 9M laboring to make the Bible say what they want it to. Also, and no disrespect intended, Leeman sounds like a total jackass, whom his children will grow up to hate. Yeah, that’s what happen when you refuse to be a straight-shooter with your kids.
Florence in KY wrote:
“The hollering type” as in Pastor Yosemite Sam?
Law Prof wrote:
And bigger boobs. Don’t forget the bigger boobs.
Lydia wrote:
Just more evidence that Potter is a hell-bound liberal apostate of reprobate mind who doesn’t believe the Bible. ===> (smiley face goes here)
Law Prof wrote:
You’ll be familiar with the scrippie in 2 Peter referring to those who distort the scribshers to their own destruction.
I was thinking just the other day: it’s one thing to distort the scribshers to one’s own destruction, but quite another to distort them with a view to destroying someone else. But it occurs to me that when we set out to distort the scribshers, we cannot avoid destroying ourselves. In other words, I think you’re right about the “utterly corrupt” thing.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Absolutely correct. I have seen it more than once.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Here is the thing, the only acceptable place on the bell curve is + or – 0.00001 from the mean. Surely that must be in the bible somewhere? Whatever it is that is being measured, that is. IQ is only one variable, but of course you took off and dragged the mean behind you and that must have been difficult. But just let anybody vary in any identifier in any way and they will suffer some social pressure at the very least. Add that to difficulty with the particular identifier itself, and I just can’t imagine. I was never all that smart, just serious and motivated and hard working and even that was not the easiest row to hoe especially during adolescence.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Plastic ones.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Thanks, Nick! Happening cooking and eating. I also make a variety of trifles (chocolate with chocolate cake, chocolate pudding, whipped cream and raspberries; gingerbread and pumpkin pudding with whipped cream; Tres Leches – based on a Mexican dessert – with coconut milk, vanilla pudding, white cake, cinnamon, whipped cream, strawberries, condensed milk; and a few others.)
K.D. wrote:
Imagine if we Wartburg Watchers got together to ‘break bread’ and have a potluck. What a feast we would have! Nick’s Yorkshire Pudding, your cornbread, and lots of other good food. And of course we’d have to polish it off with our own Gram3’s invention: The Sacred Cow Sundae (ice cream, chocolate, whipped cream).
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Now you’re talkin my language, I quote him often, especially concerning the rabbits that destroy our plants.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Leeman’s next mailbag is out!http://9marks.org/article/mailbag-6-pastors-wives-taking-oaths-pastors-administration-work/
A reader asks about prospects who worry signing a *gathered local church* covenant may violate Christ’s commands against oath-taking. Leeman’s bottom line: everybody else is doing it– everyone agrees to various agreements and signs contracts so– “Stop being silly and join the church.”
Dave A A wrote:
In other words … another case of 9M laboring to make the Bible say what they want it to!
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Exactly! Because — church discipline! If attendees can’t be convinced to voluntarily sign up and join, discipline becomes more difficult for key-holders. But if children still under parental authority get baptized, then the imperative to sign up and join applies to them as well. And this could cause difficulties if key-holders want to discipine them… parents might object, or even civil authotities. Therefore, delay baptism until they’re standing on their own 2 feet and can be disciplined as discrete giving-units.
Dave A A wrote:
Thank you for alerting us to this. We have put it into a draft post and plan to do a post on it one of these days. “Keys” Leeman is the Hound of 9Marks. I know he thinks he is doing the “right” thing. But he puts his head in the sand when it comes to abuses.
@ dee:
Is Leeman the promo department for Mark Devers?
Bridget wrote:
“Keys” Leeman is in charge of the Website for 9 Marks. You can be pretty sure that he is the mouthpiece for Mark Dever.
@ Dave A A:
Let your yes be yes and your no, no. Just say no! :o)
__
Stop being silly and join ‘the church’?
hmmm…
Hell no.
I am ‘the church’, silly…
(…last time I checked my bible)
hahahahahaha
Sopy
—
“I am ‘the church’, silly…”
Exactly. One of the “called out ones”.
Lydia wrote:
I’m going to risk a long reply to a short comment, just to quote one of your “*favorite*” theologians: Can’t find a short summary, so I’ll quote some “*highlights*” of his Institutes:
“The Anabaptists, not content with this moderate use of oaths, condemn all, without exception, on the ground of our Saviour’s general prohibition, “I say unto you, Swear not at all:” “Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil,” (Mt. 5:34; James 5:12). In this way, they inconsiderately make a stumbling-stone of Christ, setting him in opposition to the Father, as if he had descended into the world to annul his decrees. In the Law, the Almighty not only permits an oath as a thing that is lawful (this were amply sufficient), but, in a case of necessity, actually commands it (Exod. 22:11).”
——–
“Every person of sound judgment must now see that in that passage our Lord merely condemned those oaths which were forbidden by the Law.”
——–
“there is no better rule than so to regulate our oaths that they shall neither be rash, frivolous, promiscuous, nor passionate, but be made to serve a just necessity; in other words, to vindicate the glory of God, or promote the edification of a brother.”
So “lawful” oaths are considered (by Mr C) not only allowable, but sometimes commanded or necessary.
This Gospel Citizen junk is going to cause him to go further into legalism. He’s going to have to define what a gospel citizen is and what exactly is the make up of the authority that has the ability to declare one a gospel citizen.
Given his loose definition as it stands the governing local body can be anything anyone makes up and he would have no grounds to object. He would also have to accept anyone’s declaration of what makes a gospel citizen, be it infant baptism or an alter call.
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t mean to do this so we’ll have to wait and see how he defines his terms.
Law Prof wrote:
Amen and spot on, Law Prof! I appreciate your insightful posts here at The Wartburg Watch.
Law Prof wrote:
What if they won’t let you get away from their influence?
What if they come after you?
“Make an Example of one and a hundred will fall into line…”
Jonathan wrote:
For sure!
More frequently, he uses a sports team-member analogy to explain that free agents shouldn’t wear a team’s jersey without signing a contract.
Of course, the apostle Paul DOES define a gospel citizen with,
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,” and “our citizenship is in heaven”. Silly Paul– he forgot to make this contingent upon official approval of a gathered local assembly! The silly-billy was too heavenly-minded to be any earthly good. He needed to “stop being silly and join the church”. 🙁
@ ex-CTer:
I JUST KNOW THE FREEDOM IN JESUS> YOU ARE NOT “NOT SAVED CAUSE OF THE SIN YOU COMMIT…. It is the rejection of Jesus,,, that will drive us to hell…. confess continually your sins to God.. and with a remorseful , and repentant heart,, instanly he forgives us!!! He bought us with a price..his blood!!! so we did not have to.. ( we don’t habitually carry on in sin, but you cant change your position,, only God can.. and i his time… Thats a great message out of the Bible.. Gods word that makes living so Great,, there is no condemnation…. in Christ Jesus..
Tim wrote:
Amen, Tim!
I’m often wary of King James Bible only Christians anyway!
Law Prof wrote:
Agreed, LP
Gracie71 wrote:
Gracie, I’ve been giving this some thought, & the way “I” undestand Scripture, we are told not to go sin-sniffing, we are not to accept 4th or 5th hand stories that are told. We are to look to folks’ fruit. And if they are living in a Christian manner, we should accept that profession.
Its when we see, as in this post, that someone is declaring himslef an “apostle” & is teaching false doctrine, breaking confidentiality, & claiming special knowledge & power for himslef…..Then we need to be careful not to follow him in his evil deeds. “I” would be comfortable saying that such a person is to be avoided at all cost. Especially when he claims to read hearts & souls, to have ESP–that is over the line, he has fallen into error. Again, “I” would not want to be around such deeds of darkness.
Ken wrote:
That’s right, Ken. It’s the person who is living in a totally immoral way that we are to look out for.
Gracie71 wrote:
Yes, that’s a good example, Gracie. Sociopathic acts & claiming to be “Christian” don’t go together.
A group of people who don’t know that an easter Lilly has six petals can so easily blind themselves. A group of people who don’t know that the maple tree produces maple sap have no wisdom….. when we watch the eagles the eagletts are not sent to a ‘church’ to declare their growth in righteousness….
Going to a church is not the same as being the church……
Being the church is helping the fatherless and the widow….
Dave A A wrote:
I’ve seen this tactic before, the use of absurd analogies that primarily serve to obfuscate so that the analogy-maker can do whatever he or she pleases. Perfect nonsense to use professional sports franchises and free agency as a metaphor for the Kingdom of God. But I’m sure it appeals greatly to the neocalvinist man-centered target market.
william wallace wrote:
Like unto thee, I also am exceeding wary thereof.
When we try to decide who is and who is not a christian we can get into trouble.
Before we could do anything we would have to say what defines a christian-what criteria. And we all know that there is variation in christianity about this. When we say what is the bottom line, we do not all agree about the details.
Then we have to decide if we do or do not believe once-saved-always-saved, because our thinking will vary based on whether we believe that idea or not. Then we have to be very clear as to what a heretic looks like and what is heretical and decide how somebody can be a christian heretic if they are not a christian.
Then we have to deal with apostasy and whether there even is such a thing and decide what to do with people who declare themselves unbelievers after perhaps even decades of possibly looking like one of the best fruit trees in the orchard. So if that is the case do we go back and say that we were wrong all along about this person, apparent fruit or not, because if we say that we have to admit that we can’t recognize good fruit when we see it and since we are so bad at being fruit inspectors we better give it up trying to make those decisions. For example, like David of recent discussion fame.
And there is the case where Paul instructed the local church to turn somebody over to Satan. Turn over from what? How can you turn somebody over to Satan if they already belonged to Satan all the time? Or was this man a christian that Paul was talking about? It seems so to me.
When we permit a church culture in which it is acceptable to declare somebody not (even) a (real) christian this will be used as a weapon against people for all sorts of attempts at control and bullying and abuse. Could that possibly be what the scripture was advising? I don’t think so.
Of course, sometimes a genuine fraud comes along and can be identified beyond reasonable doubt. A ‘signed confession’ would help in such a case but is not necessary.
I am thinking, adjudicate/ make decisions about the behavior but leave the eternal decisions to God. Not that he was waiting for us to tell him what the answers are anyhow.
@ Nancy:
Within reasonable limits, I agree with you. However, if someone asks me: “Was Stalin a Christian?” I’m going to answer that he was almost certainly not…but that I hope he somehow came to be a follower of Jesus in his final moments. But I think I’m safe in saying that as a professing atheist and murdered of tens of millions, he was not a Christian.
There must be balance, and I’m not saying you’re counseling otherwise, but if we always must be in a state of “Well, you never know, it just MIGHT be God leading so-and-so to do that or say that, so-and-so could well be a sincere believer”, we can fall into just as many traps as the crowd that wants to play God by declaring exactly who is and is not a Christian/heretic/apostate/etc. I’ve seen well-meaning Christians, in deathly fear of calling a spade a spade for fear of some kind of divine retribution against being judgmental, cease to make any judgments at all, and throw themselves right into the hands of the Mahaneys and Star Scotts and Mark Driscolls of the world.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I don’t know, I suppose they can do it through family members, getting at you in that manner, but so long as you’re not willing to put anything ahead of God (such as job security, friends, etc.), what can they do to you?
Lydia wrote:
This sentence reminded me of the rebuke given to the Pharisees:
But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
It’s not as though there is an either/or here. Evangelicals are right to make a stand on homosexuality. You are right though that certain of them have neglected to be consistent and expose and deal with the variant form of immorality, child abuse. If I were to apply the verse today, instead of tithing mint and herbs I would say Evangelicals obsess with correct doctrine to the extent of nuances in Greek, and can’t see the bigger picture of what really matters in church life – doctrine and bahaviour, meaning it has to be lived out. You might also be right that keeping up a pious holy facade before the world has come to matter too much. Wanting the best seats in the synagogue = wanting a platform ministry and coast to coast radio network, whereby they can be heard on every street corner.
I know you know this anyway, but there is the danger in criticising Evangelicals for their inconsistency of giving the impression that they should deal with the child abuse and keep quiet about homosexuality until they have done so. All immorality needs to be confronted and dealt with. All immorality is harmful.
Law Prof wrote:
I thought it was Charismatics who were particularly gifted at doing this …
@ Law Prof:
I absolutely agree with you in what you have said. I never meant to intimate that one should assume that just because somebody might be a professing christian that anybody at any time should conclude that therefore some particular behavior or action might be God leading that person to do that. I may be wrong, but I think that is a slice of pentecostal thinking with which I hugely disagree. I have no personal experience in that sort of church situation. Yes, adjudicate and deal with the behavior. I do not link those two ideas at all, however. And as for somebody who is a self proclaimed atheist, certainly I would take them at their word for that.
I am trying to say that man looks on the outside and God looks on the inside and when man forgets his limitations in what he sees and what he knows he (man) has gone too far. But then, I think that believers can and do fall into serious sin and deceptions, and if we think that a real christian would never do that we place ourselves in needless danger. Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall, sort of thing.
Law Prof wrote:
I meant to comment on this as an aside.
From memory two things: I heard an interview with an ex-KGB man who said that Stalin had a secret ‘chapel’ in the Kremlin, and would go there and plead for God’s forgiveness for the horrendous crimes he was committing, only to carry on again afterwards. (I’ve no idea how true this is, but Stalin did have religious influences in his younger days. Maybe even Stalin couldn’t completely suppress his conscience.)
Also his daughter saying how Stalin as he lay dying looked around him wildly with great fear and horror at what was coming upon him. She said ‘God does not give a peaceful death to such monsters’.
Law Prof wrote:
Don’t forget the Sun Myung Moons, Jim Joneses, and Bo & Peeps…