All I am interested in, when someone has waded through that, did he apologize for disciplining her for following God over men? The rest is frosting.

I’m 17 minutes into it and I am not hearing anything. I have a gut feeling that this is going to be Mars Hill 2.0.

Smart PR to discourage the standing O. It would not fit with the “humble leader” narrative that is now being pushed hard.

Victorious wrote:

Got only 39 seconds into Chandler’s introduction and decided not to go further. This…”the pastor God has put OVER your LIFE to shepherd and care for your soul” was enough for me. Whatever does that mean??? Over your life….

The intro is a canned intro, which makes it even worse. That deal about the shepherd that God has put over your life to “care” for you is pretty rich, given that we now have a really good idea that what they mean by “care” is not what the dictionary would lead you to believe it means. Like a lot of words they re-define. Loaded language all over the place.

Churner wrote:

The part that bothered me the most in the sermon was that he clearly didn’t want to give any credit for his change of tune to bloggers, so he attributed it to covenant members coming to him several months ago with concerns.

Well, that’s very interesting. I wonder why he didn’t act on their concerns until after the slanderous blast email went out last week? But now, all of a sudden, he remembers Covenant Members who came to him Months Ago. Uh huh.

Gramp3 wants to know when Acts30 will be launched.

Start at 25:30 for the apology.
A “whopper” in the midst: “I care NOT about the PR…”

Can’t handle listening to the whole twisted Scriptures re elders caring thing when we know it’s going to mean your finances and life decisions would be surrendered to a select group of human young men rather than the spirit-led wisdom of the person dealing with the situation and the input of others around them. So not going to bother listening. Just glad no standing ovation. Praying for Karen. Glad this was exposed.

This will probably not be a popular opinion but I thought his apology was brilliant. I never thought a mega church pastor in DFW could or would accept any responsibility for anything bad happening. This very lengthy apology did not seem hyper crafted by a DeMoss PR machine full of weasel words. He not only invites any current member of TVC to come in and complain about any way they’ve been treated, he actually reaches out to former members, acknowledging that although he realizes they’ve long “punted” TVC from their lives he still wants to hear from them and to apologize in person. He states they want to go through this laborious process so that they can make both amends and improvements they feel are necessary. They feel that the errors made were not doctrinal but more human implementation type of errors. He doesn’t mention Karen and Jordan by name but he states that prior covenant members had brought up similar issues long before the Root deal and he regrets not doing more then. I think it is worth the listen. The apology begins at 25:30. So it’s not too long. I still hope TVC drops the covenant agreements. But this is a far deeper apology than I ever expected.
.
I did speak with some TVC members who were there today and yesterday at different services. Chandler showed up to face the audience and speak live, instead of just rebroadcasting the Saturday evening service. They felt he was very sincere. There was no applause, not during or after. There were no amens or other blind affirmations. Apparently not even a lot of nodding. The comments from the members at the different services were that once the apology started you could hear a pin drop. This is not the norm. They all commented on the sober and overwhelming silence. People then took communion and left right away, again, mainly in silence and skipping fellowship. This was not a light hearted back to business as usual event.
.
I can tell you at other mega churches in DFW you would not have gotten that much humility. You would have gotten excuse after excuse. And cheap applause lines would have been sprinkled lavishly throughout order to lavish the apologist with unmerited praise and adulation. The whole mess would have ended in a standing ovation. Think, the Gateway Conference with Mark “the victim” Driscoll.
.
For those who wanted Chandler spanked on this issue and TVC members taking this seriously in a discreet and sober manner, I think that’s what happened today. Are more changes necessary? I think so. For instance his closing comment is that any Christian still in good standing with their church may take communion, made me wonder whether Karen could take communion at TVC or not? Given the utter religious mega church cesspool that this area is, this apology greatly exceeded my expectations.

I’m commenting without reading any other responses. I tend to be optimistic by nature, so I’ll just be up front that I thought it was a good sermon. I think everything he said needs to be said. I also think that it’s not enough, but it could be a good starting point for the processes of repentance.

If he is serious about wanting to listen, then I look forward to seeing how the church will change. That will certainly included changes (or just removal of) to their Covenant as well as some clarity about their doctrine of divorce in abuse situation. If they are serious about listening, they are going to have to do a lot of unlearning about what they think is good and right, and I hope they are. Because REAL repentance over time would be an excellent example for other churches to follow.

I’ll be honest, I don’t expect change to occur overnight, and I am skeptical. But if there was going to be a first step, I do think it would look a lot like what he said.

@LT,

Thanks for your insights of what you thought of the apology, what your friends thought who go to The Village Church, the somberness of the service and the responses, and what happens in other churches (the lack of apologies, and I would say that is even true of small churches).

Melody wrote:

All I am interested in, when someone has waded through that, did he apologize for disciplining her for following God over men? The rest is frosting.

He did not address her specifically at all. He did apologize for disciplining church members where it was not necessary, and for treating victims badly. He said they want to listen to victims and understand. They invited anyone who has been a victim of the church to come and tell them their story.

I’ll admit this resonated with me, and I ‘ll tell you why. What happened in this situation was completely ridiculous. Anyone on the outside can see how messed up it is. I was talking to my wife about this, and her comment was “why is there even a question here?”

But it’s clear to me the MC and TVC DON’T get it. They should, but there is something fundamentally wrong with how they view the world that they couldn’t immediately detect that what they did to Karen was wrong and foul. All they know now, even in Karen’s situation it seems, is that they blew it.

And coming from that perspective, stepping back and saying “help me understand” is really all I can expect from them. Because their perspective is so warped they need to hear. Now are they really willing to listen? And will anyone actually take them up on their invitation? Who knows- it would certainly be a brave person who would go and speak to anyone at that church. But by God’s grace it could happen- some people might share their stories, and the church might actually listen.

What I would tell Matt Chandler is to just start reading abuse survivor stories. Get to know them. Maybe not even people at his church- just know what it’s like. Because knowing their stories is the key to empathizing. The stories are out there and there are blogs filled with them.

So yeah, I may be naive, but I think this is the best first step we could ask of someone who has been living in an echo chamber so long he doesn’t even see what is obviously evil right away. The only way is to start listening to different voices, and if he wasn’t blowing smoke, that’s exactly what he’s asked for.

Clever and convincing words are still just words. Without an acknowledgment of *how* this total moral and spiritual meltdown occurred, then I have no rational basis for saying this is anything other than PR. What exactly caused the failure? All we really know are mistakes were made and things were mishandled and we are sorry we made some implementation mistakes and mishandled the application of our membership covenant and the discipline process. Also lacking is any acknowledgment of why it took a public outcry for self-appointed Spiritual Leaders to supposedly realize they had made mistakes of implementation and application?

This speech was made before the Daily Beast article came out, and I imagine there will be some talk around the water coolers tomorrow for the Covenant Members.

I will also say from personal experience that anyone who has been abused would be very unwise to trust these men. They have not changed anything at all about what they believe and teach, and there is absolutely nothing that would make them treat you any better than they treated Karen. The mistress who breaks up a marriage thinks that it will be different for her because she is different. That is very foolish. Anyone who says anything other than happy talk about The Village is a threat to the organization. They need to collect intelligence on what is out there that might break. That is, IMO, what the appeal for people to come forward is about.

Call me experienced. If nothing has changed, then nothing has changed.

dee wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Smart PR to discourage the standing O.
They always do a standing O. I decided to start tweeting out that they would do it. I also put it on our headers. I wonder….

I think that was at least part of it. A decent Christian PR firm would know to spread the word *not* to do a standing O. Right now they have a bad set of facts that create the narrative that these men are arrogant bullies who are only concerned about themselves. That is a terminal condition for the organization unless they can turn the narrative around. A standing O would reinforce the bad facts narrative while a contrite delivery of general acknowledgments makes it plausible for the operatives to start spreading the narrative that the ELDERS are seeking reconciliation and are seeking to learn from their “mistakes” and “mishandling.” Which then sets the table for the bitter card, the unforgiving card, etc. We’ve seen those played already, but now they have more plausibility for some.

It is about the narrative.

Just a note: For at least the Saturday 5 pm and the Sunday 11:15 am service, no one was coached, persuaded or dissuaded on how to respond to Matt’s apology. There was no announcement at all before or during the service. Gateway has “atmosphere teams” at every service so I understand exactly how audience response can be manipulated and controlled without the use of an applause light or other formal device.

That was one of the overwhelming parts of the experience. The people I texted or spoke to said it was eerily silent. No shifting, no texting, no watch checking, no nothing. At the 11:15 am service one man coughed really loudly and it startled others because of the sheer silence. The apology was gravely and soberly received by the audience and apparently their response or lack of response was in no way engineered. Anyone who has read me before knows I am not a shill for mega churches. I’m not saying there are no issues left here. There are. But compared to what I expected, which did include standing ovations and back slapping and hugging; the apology and lack of giddy mindless sheep approbation floored me.

Michaela, thanks for the kind words!

TVC still maintains as of the most recent member email last Thursday that they failed “to lead Karen to repentance.” What is her sin? Also, did he mention any change in handling of child sex offenders? Still calling it “sin” instead of a crime? In-house member picked by the elders to be a counselor for a pedophile?

A word of caution when pastors say to come to them with abuse. If it’s child sex abuse, the message should be to go straight to police not the church. In TX all citizens are mandated reporters.

Child sex abuse is not an issue of sin to be brought to pastors for handling. Child sex abuse and child pornography/exploitation are crimes. Call 911.

I know some don’t think the apology was enough. I can see their point, but Karen (whom I support) did tell the elders to stop speaking to her and for her. MC was probably wise to not point her out specifically. I do believe he alluded to the situation as much as he felt he could. He also opened up to input from the members and former members. He acknowledged the mistreatment of victims.

I don’t know if there could have been a perfect apology, but he really seems to have dropped any spiritual power play. Time will tell. I continue to pray for everyone involved in any way with TVC, especially those who have been sinned against.

He definitely is acting better than Mark Driscoll.

Jeff S wrote:

What I would tell Matt Chandler is to just start reading abuse survivor stories. Get to know them. Maybe not even people at his church- just know what it’s like. Because knowing their stories is the key to empathizing. The stories are out there and there are blogs filled with them.

Yes, that would be an excellent thing to do. They also clearly need to get counsel to understand how abusers operate. This lack of understanding is one of the biggest blindspots that most churches operate within. Perhaps they will even see themselves in some of it and can make needed changes.

Jeff S wrote:

But it’s clear to me the MC and TVC DON’T get it. They should, but there is something fundamentally wrong with how they view the world that they couldn’t immediately detect that what they did to Karen was wrong and foul. All they know now, even in Karen’s situation it seems, is that they blew it.

This is not directed at you Jeff, but I am using your words to make the point.

“There is something fundamentally wrong with how they view the world . . . ”

How they view the world is driven by their theology, so there is something fundamentally wrong with their theology. I am more pessimistic (and older, have seen more, have seen these scenarios before) and really don’t see them rethinking their theology at all. They stated themselves that their doctrine is not in question, only their practice. However practice flows from doctrine and theology, hence practice will not really change.

proudjezebel wrote:

dee wrote:
During the time in question, it was a full court press on Karen. What changed was the blogs, the other media, and the lawyers commenting that this was a slam dunk lawsuit. He knows it and everyone else knows it.
This is why I have a hard time believing in the sincerity of the apologies today. There is a well-established pattern of this type of behavior, and it’s only when the blogs/etc. started making enough noise that they backtracked a little bit.

Exactly. The lack of honesty in this bit calls the sincerity of all of it into question.

dee wrote:

Victorious wrote:
the pastor God has put OVER your LIFE to shepherd and care for your soul” was enough for me.
—–
My husband was doing the bills while I played this and he said this part was ridiculous.

—-
I don’t know why churches teach that kind of thing when the Bible says:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5)

You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4)

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13)
—
Am I supposed to substitute “Holy Spirit” in all those verses with “church elders” or “Matt Chandler” or “TVC”?

@ David:

I sincerely hope you’re wrong, but trends seem to say you’re right. I myself am quite averse to the emphasis on authority in evangelicalism.

Victorious wrote:

Got only 39 seconds into Chandler’s introduction and decided not to go further. This…”the pastor God has put OVER your LIFE to shepherd and care for your soul” was enough for me. Whatever does that mean??? Over your life….
I’m just not up to it tonight. I’ll read comments from others instead.

That’s the problem right there, both for the leaders who promote it and the followers who buy it. This is probably more precious dogma to them than Jesus crucified for our sins. They certainly throw a lot of time into it. Any church that follows this teaching will invariably produce a warped, crippled, abused Bride of Christ–or, quite likely, no legitimate Bride of Christ at all.

dee wrote:

This part left me a bit curious. They have not directly apologize to Karen, for example. In fact, Chandler has never spoken with her not communicated with her personally as of this evening. He knows many of those who were hurt. Why desn’t he try to reach out to them first with an apology? Why wait for the hurt to come to them?

I agree that if the elders fail to directly contact those they KNOW they’ve harmed, it’s just smoke and mirrors.

Bridget wrote:

How they view the world is driven by their theology, so there is something fundamentally wrong with their theology. I am more pessimistic (and older, have seen more, have seen these scenarios before) and really don’t see them rethinking their theology at all. They stated themselves that their doctrine is not in question, only their practice. However practice flows from doctrine and theology, hence practice will not really change.

I agree with you. Only, this is the real test, isn’t it? It would be nuts for them to actually repent and see that their theology harms people. No one would do that, right? They are too invested, too build up on their mountain.

But what if they did? Is it likely? Maybe not. Probably not. It would be a miracle. But it would be a wonderful picture of Christ.

One thing I know from reading story after story at ACFJ- people looked deeper into divorce doctrine when they were confronted with the ugliness- when it affected THEM. That happened for me, and it’s happened for many others. Empathy and real understanding can change people. Maybe this is that opportunity for MC and TVC.

Jeff S wrote:

So yeah, I may be naive, but I think this is the best first step we could ask of someone who has been living in an echo chamber so long he doesn’t even see what is obviously evil right away. The only way is to start listening to different voices, and if he wasn’t blowing smoke, that’s exactly what he’s asked for.

I believe you are not naive but rather that you want to believe the best. Well, I don’t know about Chandler specifically, but I can tell you that I have been in a situation where I thought the best and was greeted at first by a very humble demeanor until it became apparent that I wasn’t buying the lines. Then it got pretty ugly to the point that I wondered who flipped the switch.

I don’t have any reason to believe that the Matt Chandler who appeared so chastened is any different than the Matt Chandler who flew into a rage over an email that nobody even knew about. The difference is the mood of the audience and what Chandler needed the audience to believe. Today he needed the audience takeaway to be that they are humbly chastened. In the Narcissistic Zero rage, he needed the audience to feel like he was a strong leader who is being attacked behind the scenes by cowardly people. Sorry, I just see manipulation.

Daisy wrote:

dee wrote:
Victorious wrote:
the pastor God has put OVER your LIFE to shepherd and care for your soul” was enough for me.
—–
My husband was doing the bills while I played this and he said this part was ridiculous.
—-
I don’t know why churches teach that kind of thing when the Bible says:
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5)
You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. (1 John 4:4)
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. (John 16:13)
—
Am I supposed to substitute “Holy Spirit” in all those verses with “church elders” or “Matt Chandler” or “TVC”?

And of course…

“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.”

They must just hate that one also.

Jeff S wrote:

It would be a miracle. But it would be a wonderful picture of Christ.

I’m all for miracles 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

I have been in a situation where I thought the best and was greeted at first by a very humble demeanor until it became apparent that I wasn’t buying the lines. Then it got pretty ugly to the point that I wondered who flipped the switch.

I’ve experienced this as well. Ugly.

After the melt down of Mars Hill, they would be really foolish to not handle this situation better.. But, as a 50’s something person, I would not be able handle these “leaders” being my Shepard….. While the opening of mC might not have been as offensive in the past, with all the stuff coming out now, how in the world can he with a straight face say that he is “sheparding” people, and that G&d has put him over them….. Over them to teach them how to do all the bad things they just did in the “Root” case??

LT wrote:

dee wrote:
LT wrote:
He not only invites any current member of TVC to come in and complain about any way they’ve been treated, he actually reaches out to former members, acknowledging that although he realizes they’ve long “punted” TVC from their lives he still wants to hear from them and to apologize in person.
This part left me a bit curious. They have not directly apologize to Karen, for example. In fact, Chandler has never spoken with her not communicated with her personally as of this evening. He knows many of those who were hurt. Why desn’t he try to reach out to them first with an apology? Why wait for the hurt to come to them?
Secondly, he states that their doctrinal stand has not changes. So, here is question to ponder. I might ask it tomorrow as well. Assuming that they still believe that an annulment was wrong, how would they change disciplining Karen in a more loving manner?
There is plenty to be wary of. Like the fact that you still can’t express your concerns directly to Chandler himself but rather to lead pastors or campus pastors. I understand there are practical reasons for that. But after this massive PR disaster wouldn’t he want to be in the loop for “a season”? When CEO’s get caught off guard on major PR issues, the best tend to want to go amongst the commoners and get the stories in person so they are not receiving filtered information which is how the company usually steers off course in the first place. It also shows compassion and humility which diffuses hostility.
The members I spoke to were not aware of what the prior instances were but apparently it was about five people who tried to have their concerns heard. I want to be clear that these five and many many more in the future will now be heard because of you Dee! I don’t see this having happened without this blog. I’m not saying their concerns will necessarily be fixed. But they previously had no voice. I thank God for outlets like this. If Matt C is truly repentant he will be grateful as well. I am inclined to believe TVC is placating the masses because I do not trust mega churches. However, the TVC people seem truly concerned and Matt’s response and the members’ response is not typical. Perhaps there is some hope.

Tweetie Pie wrote:

His comments at the 18 minute mark about escalation of sin and hardness of heart causing dark, angry, aggressive behavior sounded like he was talking about JD Hall.

I actually wondered at that point if he was going to tie that behavior to the elders when their dictates aren’t obeyed.

@ LT:

Chandler is well aware of what happened at Mars Hill. He worked with Driscoll for years on Acts 29 board. Chandler knows it can all be over in short time if they are not careful. Besides, he has always been the “humble” leader. That has always been his shitck. Don’t let it fool you as others do. There is nothing humble about that Covenant nor about amassing thousands of followers or seeking stages and speaking gigs and they get quite comfortable with all the money. Image is everything to maintain.

@ Jeff Chalmers:

Exactly. Mature wise leaders would never have made those kinds of “mistakes” with people’s lives in the first place. (Karen bad-Josh good) Mature wise leaders don’t think they have the right to that kind of overloarding control. That is the foundational problem. And it is obvious Chandler still thinks that sort of control is good. They just need to control better.

Gram3 wrote:

This is a non-negotiable part of the narrative going forward. If they cannot offer a plausible explanation for how this absurdly tragic misapplication of doctrine occurred without it being a logical outcome of said doctrine, then their case is lost, IMO.

If your doctrine is categorically correct and not open to alteration, but you acknowledge you have significantly harmed multiple people in your application of it, then it would seem that, logically, either the solution is one of “tone” and you simply need to be “nicer” — or the problem is one of lack of ministry skill or deficient character of the appliers.

In this particular situation, given a self-acknowledged series of misapplications of presumably correct theology, resulting in apparent abuse, wouldn’t that mean you have unqualified/disqualified leaders running the ship?

I believe the same core recommendation applies here as I suggested in 2014 during the meltdown of Mars Hill. Go to the New Testament passages that outline the personal character and ministry skill issues required of overseers/elders. List out the “must have” items and the “can’t have” issues. Then compare that *manadated profile of those in public leadership* to the situations with multiple victims of alleged spiritual abuse via The Village Church. Re-read the initial general apology issued a few days ago where the main issues acknowledge by The Elders of The Village Church were NOT doctrinal, but character qualities: lack of gentleness, compassion, etc.

If there is a trail of harming of sheep, wouldn’t that indicate that unqualified/disqualified overseers have been in charge? And what does the New Testament teach such leaders?

“They always do a standing O.”

What? What kind of behavior is this? Granted, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, so this sort of thing would never happen within our circles, not even when the bishop comes for a visit. But I think this practice should stop. It just tends to feed the ego of the preacher.

@ mirele:

Totally agree. They NEED that sort of interaction with Karen for PR image management.

BD wrote:

The key points:

1. Will you forgive us where our counsel turned into control.
2. Will you forgive us where we failed to recognize the limits and scope of our authority.
3. Will you forgive us where we allowed our policies and process to blind us to your pain, confusion and fears.
4. Will you forgive us where we acted transactionally rather than tenderly.
5. Will you forgive us where we failed to recognize you as the victim and didn’t empathize with your situation.

We don’t believe we have a doctrinal issue here, we believe we have a practice issue here.

We have failed, I’m sorry, we’re trying to own all that we can.

This is part of narrative shaping. They have limited strategies open to them to salvage the situation without denying their precious doctrines which created this organizational crisis.

One thing they can do is to play the unforgiveness card which would be a species of turning the table. So, with this “will you forgive” language, they have prepared the way for the talking point of “If you keep thinking about why the failure occurred, then you are just being unforgiving. Matt apologized and asked for forgiveness, and Christians should be eager to forgive.” The big hole in this is that is precisely how they tried already to frame their treatment of Jordan. It did not work except for people who were already persuaded.

I predict you will see the same lines over and over again, because they do not have good facts and they have themselves damaged their own credibility by their recent statements and actions. What changed? I say nothing except a lot of words until we see the real problem addressed which is corrupt doctrine.

Gram3 wrote:

The difference is the mood of the audience and what Chandler needed the audience to believe. Today he needed the audience takeaway to be that they are humbly chastened. In the Narcissistic Zero rage, he needed the audience to feel like he was a strong leader who is being attacked behind the scenes by cowardly people. Sorry, I just see manipulation.

“Under cover of Heaven’s gate —
I. MANIPULATE.”
— Steve Taylor, “I Manipulate”

Bill M wrote:

So my option A is burn the membership covenants and your option B is fire the leadership.

How about a compromise solution? Burn the Leadership.

Lydia wrote:

Chandler still thinks that sort of control is good. They just need to control better.

Their overlording needs to be more winsome and seasoned with grace. That’s all. They meant well.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Nah, that is too much like their hero, Calvin.

Darlene wrote:

“They always do a standing O.”
What? What kind of behavior is this? Granted, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, so this sort of thing would never happen within our circles, not even when the bishop comes for a visit. But I think this practice should stop. It just tends to feed the ego of the preacher.

I attend an Anglican church. I can’t ever recall a sermon ending with a standing ovation; they usually end with prayer. The few standing ovations I’ve seen are for clergy, staff members or lay volunteers who are either stepping down or moving on to new positions.

Standing “O”.? Atmosphere teams? I remember when church was holy.

dee wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Smart PR to discourage the standing O.

They always do a standing O. I decided to start tweeting out that they would do it. I also put it on our headers. I wonder….

Wait, what? I feel really dumb asking this but do you mean standing ovations? They don’t do standing ovations. It goes into communion then worship. Where are you getting your info?

I’m sorry if I’ve missed something.

Melody wrote:

All I am interested in, when someone has waded through that, did he apologize for disciplining her for following God over men? The rest is frosting.

Instead of speculating perhaps you should listen. He did apologize, deeply, profusely and without reservation.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

How about a compromise solution? Burn the Leadership.

I wonder if there is another “law” for when people take an obvious hyperbole, treat it seriously, and start lecturing.

Sorry I’m compiling a list.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

How about a compromise solution? Burn the Leadership.

ISTM we are seeing some metaphorical self-immolation.

This is Matt “Scream Insults at Critics” Chandler, begging people to meet with and critique him?

Even if the “Narcissistic Zeroes” weren’t already terrified before the Karen Hinkley situation, why on earth would they want to come forward after having seen how horribly Ms. Hinkley was mistreated?

Moreover, it was especially troubling that Chandler defiantly refused to blame TVC’s doctrines and inherent philosophy of ministry for the problems. Rather, he (wrongly) attributed the problems simply to failure to properly execute said doctrines and policies.

This is absolutely disturbing and should be a clear warning to anyone listening about the dangers of Acts 29 in general and of TVC in particular. They believe, apparently sincerely, that “regular Christians” must be controlled by so-called “elders” and that these “elders” have, essentially, free reign over the details of the lives of their underlings.

Chandler can dress up this flawed ecclesiology however he wants. In the end, it’s like trying to argue that slavery in the American South could be benevolent and even helpful when the slave owner was kind. Kind or not, slavery is wrong. Same with this heretical, authoritarian approach to church polity.

Jeff S wrote:

What I would tell Matt Chandler is to just start reading abuse survivor stories. Get to know them. Maybe not even people at his church- just know what it’s like. Because knowing their stories is the key to empathizing. The stories are out there and there are blogs filled with them.

I appreciate your posting, and LT’s also, i am hoping that its sincere but also i am having serious reservations about it being so. Mark Driscoll had a similar ‘sermon’ where he asked those, if any, that he had wronged to come meet with him so he could see his errors. he also had vague apologies that didnt actually indicate specific wrongs. also because of chandlers rant he shows mysoginistic tendencies in my opinion and the cycle of abusers always has the ‘i am sorry’ phase. This might sound harsh but the reason i quoted the part i did above is that Matt Chandler already knows what its like to be abused and how a victim feels. that he hasnt already done the things you suggested is very telling.
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/videos/home-improvement/518365524/
he already knows about authoritative abusive church doctrine, he knows what its like to be abused, according to his own video.

Matt has already gone through the scrub the bad sermons off the web and apoligize phase once before: ‘I lacked some grace I should have had. I lacked some understanding’. http://realestate.aol.com/blog/videos/home-improvement/518365536/

and yet he is on video in a very public rant yelling at narcissitic zeros.

The same concerns i have regarding Jordan Root, Root is portrayed by the church as a poor young man who had some problems and has sought help for them from the elders. BS in my opinion. He volunteered and was associated with many agencies ‘to help stop trafficking’ at a time when he was deep into child porn. this means he is able to lie really well and convince people that he cares about little children and they trusted him enough to work with him, and he confessed to fantisizing about kids in his care. he is not some poor didnt know better guy that had no help or way out, as are some of the guys i work with. Jordan Root is currently a licensed professional counselor in the state of Texas, License Number: 68895 for a list of his other gigs ‘helping children’ go to:
http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/she-speaks-village-church-protects.html?m=1

i truly hope Matt Chandler is feeling some guilt and repentance and that he is really sorry, but as others have said if he keeps the same doctrine and thinks its ok to have authority over others then he hasnt seen his problem at all.
true repentance= do all possible to stop to the evil of this type of child abuse. confess victims names 2 cops

Mr.H wrote:

This is inherently contradictory. At every step of the way, the elders of TVC insisted that the key issue was that they had a right to control various aspects of Karen’s life on the basis of the membership covenant she signed. This understanding of the situation was echoed on multiple occasions by official TVC staff.

That is because it is designed to produce an emotional response, not a rational one. If they wanted people to think and learn from this, they would have analyzed what the real problem is that underlies this. But they cannot do that.

if you were bored enough to listen to the sermon you would have heard scripture being misused and made to fit their actions. it was kinda of like we were so devoted to our mission of following scripture we got sidetracked and overstepped our bounds, but we thought we were being obedient to scripture. to say scripture was taken out of context is an understatement. as has already been stated he knows he is in trouble and a lawsuit is a guarantee win for Karen they are scared. imo

singleman wrote:

Just before the 33-minute mark Matt Chandler asserts that TVC doesn’t have a doctrinal issue; they have a practice issue. I would respectfully and vehemently disagree.

Well, that’s the real issue, isn’t it? The clergy/laity divide, the church discipline invention, the heterodox trinitarianism of CBMW complementarianism – it is a collection of pious platitudes designed to – very subtly – twist traditional Christian teachings just enough to cement their power and worldly success. I’m not asking Matt to repent of how he treated Karen; I’m asking him to repent of his aberrant and harmful theology. The rest will follow.

Kevin wrote:

as has already been stated he knows he is in trouble and a lawsuit is a guarantee win for Karen they are scared. imo

At which point we will be treated once again to the misuse of scripture, and people will be screaming that she should not be suing other Christians. While totally missing the point that the only reason she would be suing The Village is because The Village has ceased to behave like a church. It would be kind of like inverse church discipline where she would be regarding them as a tax collector or pagan because they were not acting like Christians should and have utterly failed as a church of the living God. This whole thing is stranger than fiction.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

I’m asking him to repent of his aberrant and harmful theology. The rest will follow.

That is true, but he cannot do that without denying the reason for the existence of Acts29 and the entire Gospel Glitterati enterprise. I don’t think the Big Guys are going to let him go there. The interesting thing about this is that there is not only documentation of her rightness but also documentation of their many sins toward her. They simply do not have a good explanation for why they did what they did. Karen was victimized and defrauded by a male steeped in their System, and they re-victimized her for no reason at all. Of course the reason is obvious to everyone looking in, but it cannot be acknowledged. And that is because the very distinctives that have made the Gospel Glitterati enterprise what it is are the very things which have caused this very public meltdown.

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
I don’t know. I was really thinking of the entire YRR/Acts 29 movement. The ones who have built their fame and following in it like Driscoll and Chandler are not maturing because they don’t have to.

That is definitely true. So, is Hardin an example of an old guy who likes to hang out with the young guys so that he still feels cool and hip? If so, I really wish he would have bought a convertible and then spoken some sense into the rest of them. But, I think it was too late, because Chandler is the rainmaker just like Driscoll was at one time.

I wonder if there are any young men left in the YRR movement with enough integrity to just say, “I don’t care if I don’t get invited to your conferences and you don’t blurb my books which Crossway will never publish. But this is simply wrong, and this is why it is wrong, and this is what we need to make it right and make sure it never, ever happens again.” It won’t be Challies or Justin Taylor or Joe Carter. But maybe one of the lesser lights whose star is rising but who decides to blow the whistle because he/she loves Jesus more than the Big Guys and the applause and fame.

So it seems that this Paul Noth cartoon from the New Yorker would illustrate this situation: http://imgc-cn.artprintimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/69/6948/ABFK100Z/posters/paul-noth-i-learned-about-the-despotism-at-the-same-time-you-did-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg

Gram3 wrote:

If so, I really wish he would have bought a convertible and then spoken some sense into the rest of them.

lol!

@ Gram3:

Yeah, a lot of people think Merritt just popped on the scene. He grew up around the SBC elite and got most of them to sign his environmental manifesto years ago when he and daddy were doing an MLM with dad’s church members. Not a fan.

It seems to me that a church network that has built their whole kingdom around condemning present day women for eve’s sin in the garden, working so hard to become staunch men that would never allow themselves to be tempted by eve, they have actually become instruments that deceive people by using the exact same tactics the devil used in that garden to deceive eve.

1) the serpent quotes what God said in a question to eve. gen 3:1
2) eve replies exactly what God said and also that He said they would die if they ate of it.
3) the serpent twisted it into a new meaning, said that the punishment wouldn’t be as God said,(cheap grace) and subtly explained what God really meant (interpreting scripture for us), and appealed to how good it looked(outward appearances), to the desire to be like God (power and authority) and be wise(how many books have they written sharing their wisdom?) Gen 3:6
Adam and Eve obeying the serpent caused a seperation from God, the fall of mankind, and actually the first person to die as a result of their disobedience was their son.
Following the serpent always effects children.

Instead of working so hard to be the perfect Adam, I pray that these men and many others that follow their ways will return to the cross of calvary where the Last Adam died for their sins, and humbly repent and ask to be conformed to His image.

Should we name another rule for the divide and conquer strategy that isolates and silences victims?

1 Peter 5:1-4?? Did you hear how he skipped over quickly “not for gain”??

Oh, I did hear the whole thing. What bosh!

sam wrote:

i am curious about legal ramifications for THe Village Church having given church members both verbally and in a few emails that vouch for the charector of Jordan Root and the invitations early on to ‘invite him to your house for group or dinner’ if he re-offends. that is something i would have never done because i dont know legally, but surely i am morally responsible if i took a guy to a place known to have children present and assured everyone he was safe to be around. Even later with the assurances that my staff would be with him always when he was on campus, if something goes wrong and he does offend, couldnt a victim sue me for gross negligence? If i had a chache of lawyers to consult i am sure that not one of them would advise me to make statements like that or to do that at all.

Attorney Richard Hammar at Church Law and Tax complies a list every year of the top reasons that churches get sued in court. Reason No. 1 is Child Sexual Abuse.
Year after year after year.
http://www.churchlawandtax.com/blog/2015/may/top-5-reasons-churches-went-to-court-in-2014.html

It is a tremendous area of legal liability for churches. Besides exposing The Village Church to legal liability the actions of the pastors/elders (or inactions) may pose individual legal liability.

Here’s a Texas child sexual abuse lawsuit that was filed against the Catholic Church. Page 5 starts with the Causes of Action. It is a good example of what attorneys will sue a church and its leaders for when a child is sexually abused.
In this lawsuit the child molester was an employee of the church, not just a church member.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/PetitionFiled4810.pdf

Apologies always seem disingenuous when they are qualified with the disclaimer that everyone messes up. Why did MC have to have people raise their hands on how often they “wander” from God themselves?

Gram3 wrote:

This whole thing is stranger than fiction.

An observation that has been simmering in my mind regarding this story and others that TWW has reported: Most television shows that feature a story with a priest/minister/pastor/church person/christian that one would expect to be of exemplary character usually ends up being the villain of the piece and often in a sick, twisted way. My gut reaction to such shows has been ‘but that is not what Christianity is about. Hollywood has got it wrong.’ But it seems that show business is just mirroring what it sees happening in real life.

I applaud Karen and the stand she has taken. I am sorry for the terrible way she has been betrayed, first by her husband and then by her church. I hope she finds healing, joy and fulfillment in the next stage of her life.

I meant to say, “maybe TVC is just taking cues from the guy that pulled the wool over their eyes.” And I do specifically mean the ELDERS at TVC.

Jeff S wrote:

One thing I know from reading story after story at ACFJ- people looked deeper into divorce doctrine when they were confronted with the ugliness- when it affected THEM. That happened for me, and it’s happened for many others. Empathy and real understanding can change people. Maybe this is that opportunity for MC and TVC.

Perhaps so.

On the other hand if MC came from an abusive family situation, and if his mother stayed with an abusive husband, and if he thinks that somehow that may have contributed to his current stardom (don’t waste your abusive childhood or something) then this problem of abuse/divorce has long since sat down in his living room and impacted his life and has been processed emotionally by him already.

I am thinking that these ideas and these sorts or circumstances can push one in either direction in thinking about divorce vs enduring abuse vs enabling abuse/sin.

And for the opportunity to repeat what others have said elsewhere–sola scriptura can lead to some real problems. One of those problems can be what we see here. These people preach sola scriptura but seem to have found the concept unworkable, so they have added the idea that there are people who must interpret and apply scripture in other people’s lives since only the bible is not working out like they wanted it to.

At this point these people need to step back and actually listen to scripture instead of leaping in and trying to remedy what they don’t like about scripture–by substituting their own take on things. They cannot try to replace the Holy Spirit in people’s lives on the one hand and minimize Jesus (ESS) on the other hand in order to twist things to their own advantage while still preaching sola scriptura because that is not what the bible says. And they cannot in this manner teach doctrine which is contrary to the doctrine of the trinity and expect God to somehow take his cues from them.

Of course there are problems with practice. Where there are problems with doctrine/ theology there will be problems with practice right on. Which came first, bad doctrine or bad practice? Danged if I know. But one cannot be corrected without looking at the other.

@ Nancy:
O/T
I am glad you posted what you did on sola scriptura. it is a topic i know virtually nothing about. i googled it but i was wondering if you could post a link or two that might help me learn what it means and what you are saying in your post. i did read a bit on wikipedia about the diff be tween lutheran and methodist which said methodist are prima sola scriptura and the reason i was wondering is because there is a place where paul says something like, ‘does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair’ but when i look at nature, ie lions the male always has long hair and the female short so i just tucked that scripture in the ‘prayed about it, have no idea’ pile i have here. i think i will be out of town for a few days but will check back when i can, thanks.

Patti wrote:

Apologies always seem disingenuous when they are qualified with the disclaimer that everyone messes up. Why did MC have to have people raise their hands on how often they “wander” from God themselves?

I agree.

Victorious wrote:

Got only 39 seconds into Chandler’s introduction and decided not to go further. This…”the pastor God has put OVER your LIFE to shepherd and care for your soul” was enough for me. Whatever does that mean???

Jesus is the good shepherd. Chandler is claiming to stand in the place of Jesus. It is a fulfillment of Mt 214:5: For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. (ESV)

I think the best way to demonstrate the sincererity of the apology would be the mass resignation of all the elders and church leaders (starting with MC) involved in this institutional abuse.

There is no way I way I would meet with these men without a neutral 3rd party present (not Ambassadors of Reconcilliation). A lawyer would be best–their private face is always different from their public face–exponentially more malice.

Matt Chandler did an outstanding job on owning their sins and stepping forward to make things right. This is what I expected.

Jack wrote:

Matt Chandler did an outstanding job on owning their sins and stepping forward to make things right. This is what I expected.

What was their sin? I am curious to know how an invested Chandler apologist sees it.

No, sam, you will really need to study that out for yourself. My point is that they preach one thing (sola scriptura) but they practice another (scripture + their interpretation of scripture). In the process they have come up with some ideas like ESS and some practices like themselves trying to be the Holy Spirit in other people’s lives. Bad theology and bad practice.

lydia wrote:

Jack wrote:
Matt Chandler did an outstanding job on owning their sins and stepping forward to make things right. This is what I expected.
What was their sin? I am curious to know how an invested Chandler apologist sees it.

Yeah, curious as to what the sin was, since nobody seems to be saying that Chandler owned up to any actual SINS.

[Crocodile Dundee voice]: That’s not an apology. THIS is an apology: http://scmpd.org/apology-accepted/

mouseyhair wrote:

Can’t do it! Just can’t do it! Going to trust everyone’s take on it! CAN NOT listen to these guys…….

Neither can I – the unctuous glop is just more than I can stomach.

I’ve only read about half of your responses so far. It is no coincidence that when we were leaving the sgm church in the area, our former pastors were very concerned that we immediately get under the cover of another good church. The ONLY church they recommended was The Village and they name dropped MC.

Also I feel like I have heard a similar apology and invitation to discuss with people who feel they have been abused. Part of the troubling thing with being a shepherding pastor is that they believe they are still responsible for those who have left if they aren’t under the cover of another pastor. To add to that, it can’t be just any pastor, they have to have the RIGHT doctrine too. They want to be released from being responsible from those sheep who have in their minds rejected their RIGHT teachings.

BD wrote:

In the Daily Beast article Karen declined to talk about the update prior to the sermon saying,

“I need some space and time to step back from the craziness and process everything that has unfolded this week. It’s taken a huge toll on me.”

Wise. I suspect there are a lot of people who have had a huge toll taken on them in their dealings with this church.

This is an extremely important point. It is so hard to explain to folks who have not lived it. And at Karen’s age, I am constantly amazed at her wisdom. Think about it. The very people she was supposed to be able to trust with her life turned out to be frauds. From both sides!

We cannot down play the toll that takes on a person. The wisest thing in the world to do in that siatuation is create distance. Lots of it. She broke with TVC in a very professional manner, she dealt with the Jordon situation swiftly and professionally while in a foreign country, no less.

She found out that Covenant did not mean what she thought it meant when she signed it. She was betrayed and defrauded by her husband and her church leaders. The very people she sould be able to trust with her life. That is a lot to take in, folks. It is one thing for us to talk about it here and another for the person who lives it.

As she moves on she will still be processing all this fraud and betrayal for years to come. It will indirectly inform her decisions and relationships. And one thing people might not understand is that after something of this magnitude happens in life it is impossible to look at these same people in the same way as before.

One thing that helped me, because it fit my personality, is that I started studying the systems and the trends from a more objective outside view. That was a coping mechanism for me…to figure out what was going on in the larger scale of evangelicalism. The other thign that helped me was to go back to the very basics of Jesus Christ.

Karen did her duty and did it well in the midst of one of the biggest betrayals a person can face in life. And in both situations of betrayal and fraud, they used Jesus Christ, her Savior to do it.

So unimpressed. It reminded me of a not so slick infomercial. A true apology consists of “I” statements. All of the “We sinned…we erred” etc. represents blame-shifting. He is the nominal head of the church, the face and voice of TVC yet he punts the blame to the largely unknown elders. “I” statements may actually represent a broken heart. “We” statements cannot.

I cringed when he invited those sinned against to meet face with the elders to air their grievances. I totally agree with the commenter who insisted anyone naive enough to do so take a tape recorder. I did this once at my authoritarian church and I still live live with the angry, vindictive response of 4 men vs 1 woman. I was amazed at the transformation that occurs behind closed doors. Please don’t go alone.

And the grand finale: Communion is reserved for covenant members but just this once, we will be magnanimous and allow visitors in good standing in your local church to partake. This whole performance was an epic theological fail.

1. For about the first third of the video, I confess to being distracted by Mr. Chandler’s moves. I had never seen him preach before, and kept thinking he could have been a dance or exercise instructor instead.

2. He made a comparison of wanderers to dogs who just need more good training. What?!?

3. He thinks doctrine is not the problem, just their practice. This is the same Matt Chandler who also said, “I have never been to seminary”.

4. He wants to meet with all those who have been offended. Is Matt sure he’ll have time for that, what with his speaking schedule? Unless he meant the other guys.

@ Marsha:

Acts 29 is a catchy play with words Marsha. Especially when you consider that there are 29 chapters in the book of Acts. It implies that Acts 29 will continue and support, and be a cut off the original church. I find the name to be ingenious.

Gary W wrote:

And a pig is always a pig.

Yeah, but you could put lipstick on it – to make it more palatable.

Is that a bad pun or a mixed metaphor? 🙂

Bob M wrote:

One person strings those verses together, and I think it is invalid, because you cannot take little sentences out of longer passages and make them say what they do not mean in their original context.

My favorite example of doing this is “Top Ten Ways to Find a Wife According to the Bible.”
http://wearegoonies.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/top-ten-10-ways-to-find-a-wife-according-to-the-bible/

Nancy wrote:

Lydia wrote:

And in both situations of betrayal and fraud, they used Jesus Christ, her Savior to do it.

They certainly tried to but that did not work out too well for them!

That is a bit hard to take when thousands of people back them up and do not see their leaders use Jesus Christ as a cover. They have to rethink everything they have been taught to believe by these guys. A big part of this is coming to grips with the fact most of the people you surrounded yourself with in church life don’t get it and may not ever. I realize Karen was out of the country but when you are in the midst of it and it was your life, It is hard to deal with people you thought you knew who do not see it or don’t want to see it. Your value to them was being in the tribe only. So many of the supposed friendships were somewhat fraudulent, too.

In fact, I would say using Jesus Christ as a cover is working very well for them to a certain degree even now. As long as enough of the thousands stay there,keep pay them and they can recruit more through love bombing, they will continue to operate in the same vein but only with more discretion.

I think Chandlers cult of personality is still supported by thousands. And he will be supported by the Gospel Glitterati.

Former Fundy wrote:

The big question that it raised for me was this: if it is true that they have been seriously considering their church discipline practices for several months (I believe that Matt said they were approached several months ago by other members), how could they possibly justify the recent communication and actions towards or about Karen? That 8-page letter on May 23rd was not the work of a group of men who were having doubts about their discipline methods.

YES. I had the same thought. Even if we take him at his word, and some kind of internal review has been underway for months — the documents and emails they’ve been sending to Karen and to the membership show absolutely no evidence they’ve learned anything yet — their communication looks totally like the “before” and not at all like the “after”.

Lydia wrote:

Nancy wrote:
Lydia wrote:
And in both situations of betrayal and fraud, they used Jesus Christ, her Savior to do it.
They certainly tried to but that did not work out too well for them!
That is a bit hard to take when thousands of people back them up and do not see their leaders use Jesus Christ as a cover. They have to rethink everything they have been taught to believe by these guys. A big part of this is coming to grips with the fact most of the people you surrounded yourself with in church life don’t get it and may not ever. I realize Karen was out of the country but when you are in the midst of it and it was your life, It is hard to deal with people you thought you knew who do not see it or don’t want to see it. Your value to them was being in the tribe only. So many of the supposed friendships were somewhat fraudulent, too.
In fact, I would say using Jesus Christ as a cover is working very well for them to a certain degree even now. As long as enough of the thousands stay there,keep pay them and they can recruit more through love bombing, they will continue to operate in the same vein but only with more discretion.
I think Chandlers cult of personality is still supported by thousands. And he will be supported by the Gospel Glitterati.

The sad thing is that the infection of how and what they built has been spread all over the states and even to other countries under the banner of Acts29. I’ve met several Acts29 leaders and they all buy the stuff. One new church plant I visited had just moved to a new site and had the opening days teachings on the place of women in the home church. Wow! What a way to indoctrinate or, in my case, run straight out the door. Maybe their intent was to remove all thinking people from the church right off the bat.

roebuck wrote:

I suspect you meant ‘there are 28 chapters’. Yes, with them being the 29th, they are making a rather impudent claim, IMO…

If we take their notion of there being a 29th chapter (which is questionable) then the entire Church universal is the 29th chapter, not just some entity they’ve drummed up in the last few years. I see the arrogation of the title to themselves as arrogant rather than reformative.

Victorious wrote:

This…”the pastor God has put OVER your LIFE to shepherd and care for your soul” was enough for me. Whatever does that mean??? Over your life….

Maybe something like this scene from “The Last Battle”?

Shift: “You think freedom means doing what you like. Well, you’re wrong. That isn’t true freedom. True freedom means doing what I tell you.”
Bear: “H-n-n-h?”

Anyone else feel like the poor Bear?

Bilbo Skaggins wrote:

He definitely is acting better than Mark Driscoll.

Pardon my saying so, Bilbo, but that’s a pretty low bar to meet…

Bridget wrote:

Really? I know of whom you speak. I didn’t think he was one who would say such a thing as “under the cover.” So sorry. Glad you didn’t take his advice.

Both pastors actually did, although Sr. Pastor more subtle in how he put it. It’s been a couple of years so the way assoc. Pastor used “covering” stood out more.

Gram3 wrote:

How many boys and men were shamed into wearing their hair a little longer than a buzz cut back then because people refused to interpret using a conservative hermeneutic?

I vaguely remember pictures of Jesus from that period with a buzz cut and beard.
Because long hair was for HIPPIES(TM).
Don’t know how they got around the beard.

dee wrote:

Here is my prediction. Unless they get smart and get him some REAL counseling, not the nouthetic kind, they are assured of an *incident* in the near future. This guys addictions and sexual preference are long and fixed. He will slip. The question is “Will the church admit it when he does?”

NO.

Is anyone making a list of all these excellent points that everyone is making?

Nancy wrote:

And for the opportunity to repeat what others have said elsewhere–sola scriptura can lead to some real problems. One of those problems can be what we see here. These people preach sola scriptura but seem to have found the concept unworkable, so they have added the idea that there are people who must interpret and apply scripture in other people’s lives since only the bible is not working out like they wanted it to.

This is what I was wondering about in some post the other day.

Why does any church (if they claim to be sola scriptura, and I’d assume TVC claims to be sola scriptura) need an 8 or 9 page membership agreement for? They already have their church membership guidebook: the Bible itself.

Ben Denison wrote:

the documents and emails they’ve been sending to Karen and to the membership show absolutely no evidence they’ve learned anything yet — their communication looks totally like the “before” and not at all like the “after”.

If you watch the show “Brain Games” this makes a lot of sense. They are hoping that people interpolate what they want to believe into what the reality is. That way they are fooled into thinking what they perceive is the real thing. That’s what PR and marketing do all day long. Crisis managers are experts at this, and you can be sure that they have the best ones available.

Ben Denison wrote:

the documents and emails they’ve been sending to Karen and to the membership show absolutely no evidence they’ve learned anything yet — their communication looks totally like the “before” and not at all like the “after”.

They are learning crisis PR management. They have SGM and Mars Hill as templates of what not to do.

Ben Denison wrote:

Chandler said specifically in the sermon that anyone who comes can set the ground rules; he said he wants to make sure they feel safe.

That is a bare assertion of safety when their actions disprove that claim. When they recant their false doctrine, then there is some possibility that people might be safe with them. Abusers with abusive doctrines will abuse until they repent of the whole thing.

Gram3 wrote:

Ben Denison wrote:

the documents and emails they’ve been sending to Karen and to the membership show absolutely no evidence they’ve learned anything yet — their communication looks totally like the “before” and not at all like the “after”.

If you watch the show “Brain Games” this makes a lot of sense. They are hoping that people interpolate what they want to believe into what the reality is. That way they are fooled into thinking what they perceive is the real thing. That’s what PR and marketing do all day long. Crisis managers are experts at this, and you can be sure that they have the best ones available.

You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned they have used all emotion in their respones but not rational thought.

People tend to buy into the faux sincerity and not ask logical questions pertaining to how and why they handled it as they did. What underlies their thinking, for example.

The emotionalism protects the bad doctrine.

dee wrote:

I am looking forward to following the developments over the next year or so.

Putting on my “profit” hat, I stand by earlier predictions that the 3 guys who made the mistakes will be quietly “transitioned”.

Jack wrote:

on owning their sins and stepping forward to make things right.

Can you elaborate?

What were their sins, specifically?

How do you think they will make things right, what steps do you think they will put in place to correct things?

Daisy wrote:

Jack wrote:
on owning their sins and stepping forward to make things right.
Can you elaborate?

I’ve not seen Jack do this. So far he is a dump and run sorta guy.

I am not a fan of Mr. Chandler and I am sure the people who choose to be under his leadership will respond to this by either voting with their feet or their seats. I think the good that can come from this rest in how the church at large learns from this. To that end this is a good thing.

Gram3 wrote:

They are the elites who have picked up the mantle of the Early Church. The Early Church was persecuted, just like Acts29 is persecuted today by people who want to destroy it. Seriously, this is how messed up their thinking is.

The adjective grandiose comes to mind to describe this sort of thinking.

Patti wrote:

Is anyone making a list of all these excellent points that everyone is making?

Perhaps the legal counsels for The Village Church and Acts29 and 9Marks are …

* * * * * * *

I’m not a lawyer. But, the past 10 days while this has unfolded, my mind keeps going back to the legal nature of these kinds of covenants, and not just the legalistic nature of the church systems that enforce them.

FWIW, I expect to see a series of “unintended LEGAL consequences” surface in the next few years for the non-profit boards, elders/overseers, and staff at churches that have these kinds of legal-contract forms of church membership covenants in place.

Think about it … You have a highly detailed church discipline policy and procedure in place, with what looks to be legal/contractual obligations of both Church and Member — BUT these codified discipline procedures are being carried out by non-lawyers. If these implementers make a mistake along the way, what are the potential ramifications for them as individuals, and for the Corporation — even if the church has mega-liability insurance coverage?

If you’ve looked at some of the research on membership covenants here at TWW and elsewhere, you’ll already know that some of the potential backfire issues for the church/implementers include harassment and defamation.

Go to Watch Keep and the nearly 40 pages of source documents posted there about treatment of Karen Hinkley by TVC elders. Read the other accounts of alleged abusive treatement (at least one of which goes back 5 years). Compare the details against that research information on covenants, and see what you think about whether specific elders/staff might have overstepped legal boundaries.

In my opinion, you can’t expect legalese procedures to be implemented by home-grown ministers or by marketing/PR people, and not end up with a legal mess in the long run. And I don’t foresee that any such messes can be fully cleaned up by the PR people or lawyers.

Daisy wrote:

Can you elaborate?

An elaboration on a talking point cannot happen by definition. Unless someone considers additional talking points as some kind of elaboration.

@ Dave A A:
Obviously your pastor is guilty of committing pastoring. He should be drummed out of the club.

lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
That is exactly the tactic. Get buy in or agreement. There is a psychological aspect to getting the audience involved.
I warn my kids about this all the time when they are listening to speakers in an audience.

Once you know how the trick is done, it’s easy to spot someone doing the same trick. Most people are unaware of the science of persuasion. And once someone can spot the tricks, that person can help others spot the tricks.

Gram3 wrote:

This is called “buy in.” What Chandler was doing was inviting them to put themselves in Chandler’s place. They’ve done stupid or sinful things, too, right? Everyone’s a sinner, right? So, they should forgive Chandler just like they would want to be forgiven, right? There by the grace of God go I, right?

Seems he’s appealing to his status as a peer with those in his audience, which is true at some level as members of the Body of Christ, but it creates a false presentation at another level.

The biblical standards for overseers and teachers are far higher, aren’t they? The consequences for continued sinning by those in positions as public role models of Christlikeness are stronger, aren’t they? Forgiveness does not always remove consequences, does it?

Theologically speaking, only Matt Chandler and the other elders/staff/corporate board members are true peers in the consequences of how official ministry representatives of The Village Church acted on its behalf toward Karen Hinkley and others.

So, this argument of “we’re all sinners, we all need forgiveness” looks like duplicity to me, which is the opposite of integrity.

@ Daisy:
I get what you are trying to do. I just don’t think that JacKamilla intends to think or really to present a real argument for his/her POV. He/She is a talking points robot. Believe me, I’ve found out that even the highly-educated ones cannot get beyond the talking points because there really is no there there. But they have convinced themselves that there is a there there and so cannot understand why you cannot see that there is a there there.

These people are abusers. They abused this woman (and who knows how many others)unremittingly and mercilessly for months. They did so under the cloak of religion and in the name of Jesus. They did not even stop abusing her when they were caught publicly, but only when the backlash began to grow to a degree that might threaten their celebrity religious status (too late, but I digress).

Finally they made an “apology”, and now, apparently, a kind of one-stop apology tour. But in the very epicenter of the “apology”, they defend the thing that made the abuse possible and even predictable – their demand for virtually unchecked power without meaningful accountability – in the name of God – over the lives of the people who join their church. That’s not repentance, folks. That’s just the same sick system trying to get a pass with a “my bad”.

Imagine if you had a guy who was beating his wife for several months, all the while telling her it was his obligation before God and an expression of his love and faithfulness. And when the neighbors found out and said something, he replied they “didn’t have all the facts” but that he could assure them he was just fulfilling his duties as a husband in the name of Jesus. And then finally when it looked like his story was going to go international, and the public outrage was growing, he agreed that he wouldn’t beat that particular wife anymore, but that he wanted to emphasize that as a husband, he was “put OVER his wife to shepherd and care for her soul”, etc., ad nauseum. Would anyone regard that as repentance? A fool, perhaps.

Here’s the thing. Is it possible for an abuser (religious or otherwise) to repent and reform? Of course it is. Is this what it looks like? No. They have demonstrated themselves to be wholly unqualified to hold such power and authority over another human being, and that’s assuming that such power should even exist. Far from accepting their failure, they demand more of the same submission.

Gram3 wrote:

I agree with your prediction that kephales will be transitioned. I don’t think they will be able to do it very quietly now that everyone has some names and knows the likely landing pads for these guys.

Updated profit-see “The 3 mistake-prone kephales will be transitioned with attempted quietude.
Of course, the guy behind the curtain– Mark Dever– will NOT be transitioned. New villagers will continue to have 9Marks “Membership” as required reading.”

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Seems he’s appealing to his status as a peer with those in his audience, which is true at some level as members of the Body of Christ, but it creates a false presentation at another level.
The biblical standards for overseers and teachers are far higher, aren’t they? The consequences for continued sinning by those in positions as public role models of Christlikeness are stronger, aren’t they?

Spot on, Brad.

I saw this tactic used frequently during my 3 years in Acts 29.

Acts 29 has an extremely high view of pastoral leadership, until a pastor makes a mistake. Then, and only then, are they brought back down to the status of “ordinary Christian.”

It’s like a General who only wants to be a General as long as there is no war. Once the war starts, he wants to jump back down to Private.

@ LT:

“The members I spoke to were not aware of what the prior instances were but apparently it was about five people who tried to have their concerns heard.”
++++++++++++++

Five? 1234…5? That’s it?? Methinks the members and leaders are in for a surprise.

Assuming many will see the futility of ‘getting a hold of one of the church leaders’ to explain things to them, I am hoping TWW can be of assistance.

Mr.H wrote:

Acts 29 has an extremely high view of pastoral leadership, until a pastor makes a mistake. Then, and only then, are they brought back down to the status of “ordinary Christian.”

Well, Gram3, I’m afraid you just don’t understand your place of not questioning how a Christian leader can claim to be just a sinner like you, yet have the authority to tell you how to live your life. And you best do it or be kicked out of his club. (snark off)

elastigirl wrote:

Five? 1234…5? That’s it?? Methinks the members and leaders are in for a surprise.

SO FAR, as of today (June 1st) there are five specific personal stories posted at Watch Keep. If I remember right, when it was first posted on May 26th, there were three.

http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/stories-of-village-church-and-other.html

Dave A A wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

I agree with your prediction that kephales will be transitioned. I don’t think they will be able to do it very quietly now that everyone has some names and knows the likely landing pads for these guys.

Updated profit-see “The 3 mistake-prone kephales will be transitioned with attempted quietude.
Of course, the guy behind the curtain– Mark Dever– will NOT be transitioned. New villagers will continue to have 9Marks “Membership” as required reading.”

🙂 You remind me so much of Gramp3.

@ elastigirl:

They must be delusional about what they have been considering for the past few months. Yes?

Or, they believe everything they did in handling Karen’s situation was good and correct.

elastigirl wrote:

when a Christian celebrity & his lieutenants have wilfully made choices that result in people being harmed and don’t acknowledge it until they are backed into a corner and have no choice, it is not uncommon for an engineered standing ovation to take place.

Comrade Stalin and Baba Saddam really really liked engineered standing ovations. Some of them lasted for hours nonstop, with secret police dragging away any traitors who stopped — hands bleeding, throats croaking Praises.

Gram3 wrote:

@ brad/futuristguy:
We can also see the contradictory nature of much of what they say. We are over you but we are equal to you. We are the Leaders whom God has ordered you to obey, but we are just like you with all your failings.

doublethink, comrades, doublethink.

Mr.H wrote:

Well, saying that a pastor is acting better than Mark Driscoll isn’t really saying much. Chandler and Driscoll are more similar than people realize. I think that the key differences are simply that that Chandler is smarter and less impulsive than Driscoll.

More like he does much better Angel of Light transformation cosplay.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Comrade Stalin and Baba Saddam really really liked engineered standing ovations. Some of them lasted for hours nonstop, with secret police dragging away any traitors who stopped — hands bleeding, throats croaking Praises.

For real, HUG?

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

This one?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0FDjFBj8o

Bridget wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

This one?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0FDjFBj8o

THAT’S THE ONE!

Oops, guess I was late.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Bridget wrote:
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
This one?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0FDjFBj8o
THAT’S THE ONE!

Sheepishly. So, can I boast that I remembered something that HUG couldn’t remember? This is something to boast about if ever there is something. BTW – I remembered it was a TED talk and added that to the search with “saying nothing.” It popped right up. 🙂

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

you ever read Solzhenitsyn about the fear of being the first to stop clapping for comrade Stalin at the party congress?

brad/futuristguy wrote:

SO FAR, as of today (June 1st) there are five specific personal stories posted at Watch Keep. If I remember right, when it was first posted on May 26th, there were three.
http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/stories-of-village-church-and-other.html

Thanks for the pointer; I had only seen 3 as well. Story #4 is heartbreaking: Husband is abusive and having an affair (living with someone else). Wife is told:

I was to wait on a process for them to determine whether or not my ex husband was truly a Christian. If he was NOT a Christian they would approve my divorce. If however they felt he was actually a Christian they would Not Ever Under Any circumstances approve my divorce. Despite the fact that he was abusive. Despite the fact that he was living with someone. Meaning if they felt he was a Christian I would have to spend the rest of my life married to him. Even though he was a risk to my life!

@ Ben Denison:

Didn’t #4 also claim that TVC helped her abusive husband with a pro bono attorney? I have seen this one happen in other churches, too.

roebuck wrote:

Darlene wrote:
“They always do a standing O.”
What? What kind of behavior is this? Granted, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, so this sort of thing would never happen within our circles, not even when the bishop comes for a visit. But I think this practice should stop. It just tends to feed the ego of the preacher.
This whole mega-celebrity-pop brand of evangelicalism is just sick in my opinion. When you have PR firms and ‘Atmosphere Teams’ and deafening rock bands and fancy light shows – well, that’s just not Christianity in my book. When you give standing O’s to the pastor, that’s absurd.
I guess I’m old-fashioned. Maybe I need to look into the Orthodox Church…

I hear ya! 😉 But we have our problems as well.

Lydia wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

you ever read Solzhenitsyn about the fear of being the first to stop clapping for comrade Stalin at the party congress?

No, but that was probably the original source of my anecdote. I heard it years ago, without a source cited. (Problem with having such a huge mental database without a search engine is you have all this info mashed together with little connection or source trace.)

And it DOES fit a Dictator with an Ego that won’t quit.

Including a Pastor/Dictator.

@ Jbthebaptist:

Hee hee. You mean they sinned against their own Covenant? But, but, but, that was just a mistake of process. And besides, CJ broke his own rules when he left CLC and fled to Mark Dever's arms.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Variation on a theme.

“It was essential to smile – if you didn’t, it meant you were afraid or discontented. This nobody could afford to admit – if you were afraid, then you must have a bad conscience. Everybody who worked for the State – and in this country even the humblest stall-keeper is a bureaucrat – had to strut around wearing a cheerful expression, as though to say:”What’s going on is no concern of mine, I have very important work to do, and I’m terribly busy. I am trying to do my best for the State, so do not get in my way. My conscience is clear – if what’s -his-name has been arrested, there must be good reason.” The mask was taken off only at home, and then not always – even from your children you had to conceal how horrors truck you were; otherwise they might let something slip in school…”

(Hope Against Hope: A Memoir, Nadezhda Mandelstam)

*horror-struck

elastigirl wrote:

@ NNicols:

“They don’t do standing ovations. It goes into communion then worship. Where are you getting your info?

I’m sorry if I’ve missed something.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++

when a Christian celebrity & his lieutenants have wilfully made choices that result in people being harmed and don’t acknowledge it until they are backed into a corner and have no choice, it is not uncommon for an engineered standing ovation to take place. I think you have indeed missed something.

I was specifically referring to what Grams3 and Dee had stated earlier that TVC always does standing ovations but did not do so this time after the sermon so that was something to be noted. I certainly understand there are places that do.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

In it the speaker goes through every audience-manipulation trick (including the buy-in show-of-hands call), describing each trick as he does so, calling attention to every change and nuance of voice used to persuade and manipulate an audience. His entire speech is the catalog and demonstration of these tricks and deceptions.

Oh that sounds like fun!

I just read something that chilled me to the bone because it seems to go along with the Mars Hill collapse if not the current TVC abuse. I am not a Psychologist so take it for what it’s worth.

From “Without Conscience” by Robert D. Hare:

“GIVEN THEIR PERSONALITY, it comes as no surprise that psychopaths make good imposters. They have no hesitation in forging and brazenly using impressive credentials to adopt, chameleonlike, professional roles that give them prestige and power. When things begin to fall apart, as they usually do, they simply pack up and move on. In most cases they select professions in which the requisite skills are easy to fake, the jargon is easy to learn, and the credentials are unlikely to be thoroughly checked. If the profession also places a high premium on the ability to persuade or manipulate others, or to “lay on the hands,” so much the better. Thus, psychopaths find it easy to pose as financial consultants, ministers, counselors, and psychologists.”

NNicols wrote:

I’m sorry if I’ve missed something.

Happens to me all the time to me, and I missed your comment last night.

It is a classic audience manipulation technique used to rally the troops around a leader or idea. So, for example, last week would have been the optimal time for a standing O because the story had at that point been confined to The Evil WatchWitchBlogs. However, this past Sunday, a standing O would *not* have been a smart PR move because there were very serious questions being asked and the story had reached escape velocity, so to speak. In addition, they need to push the counter-narrative that Chandler and the ELDERS are really humble men and not arrogant bullies. It would have *looked* contrived instead of looking spontaneous, and therefore would have been counterproductive from their POV. Hope that makes some sense.

@ Bridget:
Ha! That is so hilarious and so informative. Compare that with Chandler, Mahaney, or Piper. Factless facts. Deep meanings with no meaning.

muzjik wrote:

“It is particularly dangerous when the pious-sounding doctrines of universal human depravity, and Christ’s perfect active and passive obedience on our behalf, are distorted by unstable and untaught men, so that the gravity of sin and the necessary obligations of Christian holiness are minimized. No wonder people begin to think that it is normal for Christians to use filthy speech, to adopt the world’s view of sexuality, and to engage in heinous sex crimes. (We’re all just wretched sinners after all!)”

Exactly. I have really enjoyed interacting with Dr.Owen over there in the past.

Jbthebaptist wrote:

But surely if they had placed her under church discipline for valid ‘biblical’ reasons and if their policy to not release people from membership who are under discipline is also based on correct ‘biblical’ interpretation then by releasing her from membership they are violating what they claim the bible teaches and therefore are sinning and should be placed under church discipline… or something like that!

Ah, but you are trying to make them be consistent. They are trying to slip a little inconsistency by us so we will all feel better and this will go away and then back to business as usual.

Chandler only ‘apologizes’ for their failure to ‘lovingly exercise church discipline’ wants people to come forward to tell them when ‘TVC did not empathize with their situation’ so they can ‘own’ it.

Note first that he doesn’t say that any of their specific acts of ‘discipline’ were wrong, no, they just didn’t ’empathize’ with their victims enough. But here’s what really bothered me – in all the time he spent saying how he wanted to ‘own’ their unloving attitude, there was not one word about making amends. That right there is, to me, a sign of a bogus apology.

Victorious wrote:

Got only 39 seconds into Chandler’s introduction and decided not to go further. This…”the pastor God has put OVER your LIFE to shepherd and care for your soul” was enough for me. Whatever does that mean??? Over your life….

That really stood out to me, too. Words mean things, and what these words mean is that they just can’t get away from the authoritarian approach that almost deifies themselves. Sorry buddy, I can go straight to Jesus for that kind of authority. They must have conveniently forgotten the verse that talks about only one mediator between God and man.

@ Gram3:
Just to be clear, JeffT, I was agreeing with every last thing you said.

Gram3 wrote:

It is a classic audience manipulation technique used to rally the troops around a leader or idea.

I just have to say, what with audience manipulation rhetoric and gimmicks and lighting tricks and noise level stuff and people pacing back and forth and specific costuming (jeans and tats) and performance worthy of a skilled actor and shills in the audience I never want to hear another word from any of them about those of us who are in liturgical churches. I am thinking that some of the bad mouthing they do about ‘dead ritual’ may be because it is pretty hard to get a standing O for the corporate prayer of confession for example much less for the Nicene creed.

I feel better now for having said that. I can go change out the laundry once more now.

And maybe it’s just me, but I don’t trust any ‘Christian’ Church that doesn’t have a cross up front, and doubly so if they have substituted their own logo for it.

Gram3 wrote:

That sounded to me like a Jack Handey impersonation.

BWAHAHA!

Gram3 wrote:

Gramp3 wants to know what’s up with the wrist brace?

Signing too many autographs?

Lydia wrote:

@ Bridget:

We know what happens when we give whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. Now we know what happens when we give, carte blanche, spiritual authority over others to young men.

^THIS

Gram3 wrote:

That said, I don’t really know what he was saying because he is not a particularly good conveyor of content. Persuasive, yes. Informative? No. Thanks to HUG and Bridge for providing an excellent example.

This is why I have huge problems listening to any of them. I listen for content not emotion. If I want the emotional stuff I can go listen to a motivational speaker at a seeker mega. I was around that stuff for years. And boy do they proof text, too.

In tennis news, the de facto men’s singles final at Roland Garros, between Djokovic and Rafa, is scheduled to take place on Wednesday (it will be followed by a handful of exhibition matches before the trophy is actually presented on Sunday, weather permitting). It could go either way but, in a shock turn of events, Rafa dropped a set today.

Nancy wrote:

I am not being sarcastic about that-he has been sick and he has been courageous and determined about it.

That is very true, and I’m thankful his life has been spared. I hope that he uses this experience to turn around and stop teaching such toxic doctrine. I hope that he turns away from the example of his idols and turns toward the example of Jesus. It surely would be a breath of fresh air for one of the well-known guys to repent publicly of the false doctrines that have produced all this pain and confusion. But first he is going to have to take a long look in the metaphorical mirror and ask who he looks like. Right now he looks like Mahaney and Driscoll and Piper and Dever who teach or have taught bullying theology to so many.

Lydia wrote:

Jared Wilson thinks we tabloidy bloggers are gossips and just digging up dirt to share

Jared Wilson does not have the greatest judgment in the world in the Doug Wilson meltdown, and he has already shown that he cannot receive correction. He typifies the arrogance that has caused this spectacle. I don’t think that Dee or Deb or Amy or Julie Anne were in any of those ELDERS meetings or were copied on any of the emails, including the slanderous one sent by the ELDERS to the entire membership. Except the member who was the subject. These are men who are deep into deception, and they will keep saying and doing ridiculous things until they snap out of it.

I said that one of the rising stars would have to be the one to blow the whistle on the toxic false doctrines, and I guess we can cross Jared off that list. I hope the fame and money is worth selling out a sister in Christ.

@ Darlene:
The snippet you mentioned seemed odd to me. He misused the “log-speck” reference to be a bad thing if used in a confrontation. So the leaders can use Mt. 18, but the flock cannot use the log/speck. Can the pastors be the only ones to wield the scriptures?

Lydia wrote:

Oh No! Just checked twitter and Jared Wilson thinks we tabloidy bloggers are gossips and just digging up dirt to share. In his view, We epitomize those Proverbs that teach about the kind of people we should not be.
Hee hee. You gotta wonder how many lemmings he has as followers. A lot I bet. I did not check.

I’m thinking the “gossips” more likely epitomize Eph 5:11 (“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”).

@ Darlene:

Also, the Bible says in Mt18, “if your brother or sister sins…” Not if they “drift.”

Drift is a broad-brush word. I have seen this used as a manipulation tool in church. “You aren’t as involved as you used to be, are you drifting?”

Law Prof wrote:

I’m thinking the “gossips” more likely epitomize Eph 5:11 (“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.”).

I guess you didn’t get the memo that chapter 5 starts at verse 22.

Darlene wrote:

Until you’re ready to be beheaded, keep your mouth closed. Those men were given the opportunity to recant, to deny Christ, and they refused, choosing to suffer and die for Christ instead. What sort of people question the salvation of Christians who call out to Jesus as their captors are beheading them?

Amen to that. It’s very easy for them to talk about being persecuted for the cause of Christ when the only “persecution” they face is people disagreeing with them on the internet. I really think that they are developmentally stuck at about age 13-14.

muzjik wrote:

(We’re all just wretched sinners after all!)”

Is that anything like “Everybody’s Doing It!”?

Gram3 wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Until you’re ready to be beheaded, keep your mouth closed. Those men were given the opportunity to recant, to deny Christ, and they refused, choosing to suffer and die for Christ instead. What sort of people question the salvation of Christians who call out to Jesus as their captors are beheading them?
Amen to that. It’s very easy for them to talk about being persecuted for the cause of Christ when the only “persecution” they face is people disagreeing with them on the internet. I really think that they are developmentally stuck at about age 13-14.

5 to 6

Bilbo Skaggins wrote:

“GIVEN THEIR PERSONALITY, it comes as no surprise that psychopaths make good imposters. They have no hesitation in forging and brazenly using impressive credentials to adopt, chameleonlike, professional roles that give them prestige and power.

Does “impressive credentials” include Honorary Doctorates?

Never trust an organization who is named after a chapter of the bible that doesn’t exist…….

I think I’ll start a ministry and call it Revelation 23……

brad/futuristguy wrote:

FWIW, I expect to see a series of “unintended LEGAL consequences” surface in the next few years for the non-profit boards, elders/overseers, and staff at churches that have these kinds of legal-contract forms of church membership covenants in place.

Great insight. One of the rationales for these signed documents is to minimize liability. If covenants instead become seen as a liability by insurance companies, because of associated lawsuits, they will pressure churches to dump them.

The signed covenants are a scourge and if it takes free market to kill them, so be it.

@ Gram3:

I’m sorry Gram but where are you getting this nonsense? What do you know about TVC that makes you think k this is what they believe.

Gs wrote:

@ Gram3:
I’m sorry Gram but where are you getting this nonsense? What do you know about TVC that makes you think k this is what they believe.

John Piper, Wayne Gruedem, Bruce Ware, Owen Strachen, Mark Devers, Doug Wilson Jared Wilson, Mary Cassien, Mohler, CJ Mahaney, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, etc. . . . Sorry for any misspellings.

His biggest problem is his doctrine. When you believe that God has placed you as people’s Sheperd, etc… you are doomed to repeat the errors and arrogance of the Shepherding movement.

In other words, you assume your role as pastor allows you to “speak into people’s lives”, such as their marriage, divorce, sex life, money. You are taking it upon yourself as pastors that you know better, and are their to instruct and enforce your teachings.

By doing this, you are encouraging people to follow you, not because you are wise, but because you see yourself as in charge of other people.

He can claim it’s practice to fault, but it’s not true. They are only practicing what they preach-that pastor knows best.

Gs wrote:

@ Gram3:
I’m sorry Gram but where are you getting this nonsense? What do you know about TVC that makes you think k this is what they believe.

The article on MC in Wikipedia talks about some of his beliefs. I have no way of knowing if the article is accurate, but I am making the assumption that it well may be. Other than the fact that he is listed as a continuationist, and if Wiki is accurate, he does seem to fit the mold of what gram3 is saying. Add to that the doctrinal opinions of some of the people who are associated with the same current movements in evangelical christianity that he associates with, and again it all seems to fit the pattern of what gram3 is saying. And then throw in the beliefs that he/his church have evidenced in the current affair, and again-it all seems to fit the pattern.

If you have evidence to the contrary it would be good to hear what you have to say.

Gs wrote:

@ Gram3:
I’m sorry Gram but where are you getting this nonsense? What do you know about TVC that makes you think k this is what they believe.

First, I don’t think you’re really sorry, Gs, you’re merely trying to insult Gram3 with that post, so don’t say what you don’t mean. Words have real, objective meanings, I know you might well run with a crowd in which they are typically turned on their heads (e.g., “loving you well”, when spoken by virtually any leader within authoritative religious cults) and it can be difficult to see this in certain groups.

If you have not heard of the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine and its prevalence among neocalvinists and complementarians, then you need to do some more research prior to firing a shot across Gram3’s bow. When you have done at least a cursory search on the subject, then return and you will have some knowledge to bolster your opinions.

Dave A A wrote:

@ Dave A A:
Just in case some aren’t familiar with this, here’s the required reading list to become a covenant villager:
“Required Reading
We require prospective members to read Church Membership by Jonathan Leeman before signing the Membership Covenant. This book is handed out at Covenant Membership. It explains what membership is and why it’s important to commit to a local body of believers.”
http://www.thevillagechurch.net/connect/membership/

There’s another name – Jonathan Leeman (of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, Washington D.C./9Marks/Mark Dever’s cohort) – who needs to REPENT, APOLOGIZE, ask for FORGIVENESS and STEP-DOWN for all of the YEARS OF DAMAGE he has done to the lives of good Christians, their families, their churches, and to the Church’s witness before unbelievers – with his HATEFUL, AUTHORITARIAN ideas that have ZERO to do with Jesus.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

In tennis news, the de facto men’s singles final at Roland Garros, between Djokovic and Rafa, is scheduled to take place on Wednesday (it will be followed by a handful of exhibition matches before the trophy is actually presented on Sunday, weather permitting). It could go either way but, in a shock turn of events, Rafa dropped a set today.

Thank you, Nick. I needed that!

@ davidb:
davidb wrote:

Maybe the description should be considered from another direction. What if I’m an individual believer and I’m looking for someone wise, that’s been down the road, that I can TRUST to love and care for me? I apply the Bible’s description of these types of people (elders, overseers) and this becomes my personal criteria for the ones (or one) that I will trust to care for me.

Davidb, You nailed it precisely. When we were kids, the term, “Respect your elders” had real meaning, and it had nothing to do with religion at all. Elders are not our bosses, they are people who have lived life, and gives wise advice to avoid the pitfalls experienced by the elder himself/herself. That is why we are to “submit” to them, and that isn’t the same “submit” that the Calvinists hammer down. In this case of the word “submit”, or obey, it’s due to the fact that they are wise, and in reality we know that we can trust them, and they care for us. Then religion comes in and redefines key words, and screws it all up.

Ed Chapman

@ Gram3:
Oops. Should be ELDERS, not ELFERS. Freudian, I suppose.

I would live to be proven wrong here, but these types of apologies are usually meant to shore up the base rather than reconcile with the estranged. Just once, I’d like to see one of these apologizing guys say, “We are praying and fasting for God to show us who we have hurt so that we can go and repent. If we have missed you, please consider helping us repent by letting us know, but we trust that the Holy Spirit will show us many if those who we need to seek out.”

@ Gs:

She gets it the same place I do. From following the movement for years. knowing the players and recognizing who Chandler is emulating and who his gurus have been. It is the same stuff over and over in that world.

Stan wrote:

! I wonder if these guys realize their hardcore liberal atheist counterparts in higher academia, and how alike they are.

That would require some self-examination. I’m still unsure who has the log and who has the speck in the sermon/speech. I have a genetic reasoning deficiency, type XX.

Law Prof wrote:

If you have not heard of the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine and its prevalence among neocalvinists and complementarians, then you need to do some more research prior to firing a shot across Gram3’s bow. When you have done at least a cursory search on the subject, then return and you will have some knowledge to bolster your opinions.

Yep. There is heirarchy in everything to them– including the Trinity. Isn’t it really cool that is just so happens they are in the higher caste closer to God so they can be mediators for others who can’t be at that level of their caste system Christianity?

Lydia wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
If you have not heard of the Eternal Subordination of the Son doctrine and its prevalence among neocalvinists and complementarians, then you need to do some more research prior to firing a shot across Gram3’s bow. When you have done at least a cursory search on the subject, then return and you will have some knowledge to bolster your opinions.
Yep. There is heirarchy in everything to them– including the Trinity. Isn’t it really cool that is just so happens they are in the higher caste closer to God so they can be mediators for others who can’t be at that level of their caste system Christianity?

It’s a remarkable coincidence.

What amazes me is the number of 20, 30 and early 40-somethings who have never amounted to anything in their lives, never held down a real-world job, never raised a child to adulthood, never demonstrated any competence in anything in particular, who will declare themselves a “pastor” and/or apostle, prophet, what-have-you, and people will actually follow them, as if the strength of the young leader’s own claims standing alone are sufficient to place the followers’ own spiritual well being as well as their children’s under their care and guidance.

What in thunder are people thinking?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Does “impressive credentials” include Honorary Doctorates?

Lol! It impresses those who don’t know how easily one can be bought. I am a college dropout with an honorary doctorate. And I didn’t go to seminary. But I don’t have a mega church. Yet…. 😉

Michaela wrote:

There’s another name – Jonathan Leeman

Yep! In The Caine Mutiny, there were the paranoid captain and the mutinous first officer– but the most guilty party was the guy writing the book.

My wife and I joined an Acts 29 new church plant in the TX Panhandle from about 2012 to 2014. Good people and I don’t think they got the memo from Chandler about covenant agreements. I mean, we went thru a class and then signed one. But when we left the church, nobody chased us.

I’ve always found irony in the fact that men grow up for 12 years being taught and molded by mostly women, then decide women are not qualified to teach them. It’s really a shame. I’m a man but I’ll be the first to say that women by and large are more equipped to teach than men. They are wiser, more compassionate, and often more passionate in their walk. Women are deeper; men are much more superficial. I realize I’m speaking in generalities, but hopefully you understand where I’m coming from.

Unfortunately, if I want to worship in a church that truly puts women on equal footing, I have to go to a mainline denomination of the “anything goes” variety. Why do women in leadership, and evangelicalism, have to be mutually exclusive?

LT wrote:

This will probably not be a popular opinion but I thought his apology was brilliant

It was masterfully delivered and beyond the ability of the average church go-er to dissect.

Would Karen be offered communion? Hell No! Replay the sermon in your mind. He alluded to members. (that would obviously be Karen and her former husband) But having done that, he avoids mentioning her again. Why? Because she wandered from the faith and is dead.

From my experience in life, she is the object of intense rage, but rage that is under the surface. When you have crossed the Leader it is not over. It is never over.

Thank you for relaying the scene on Sunday. I appreciate you opinion, having been there in person. I think it was well thought out pinion even if we do not have the exact response. I am genuinely interested in how the congregation responded.

@ Darlene:
You got an anger feeling too? Anything else? Very interested if you have more thoughts.

I have not read through all the comments, but have not seen anyone mention anger.

Gram3 wrote:

Marsha wrote:

The Acts 29 name is revealing. It clearly indicates that they are going to add to the Bible in their teaching and practice since there is no Acts 29 in the Bible. I would be ashamed to belong to a group that even gave that impression and they have actually done it.

I was talking with a lady when this first came out, and she immediately said, “There is no Acts29! But they think that they are a continuation of the “real” church, as if there was no church between Acts 28 a couple thousand years ago and their organization. How arrogant! But that is how they think, and that is why we get the authoritarianism implemented with such arrogance.

Why Mark Driscoll, bless his little heart, after getting kicked out for his abuses at Mars Hill recently claimed that God spoke audibly to Mark. And of course after that, Mark claimed that everybody had sinned against him, bless his little heart (and we needed to seek his forgiveness).

Michaela wrote:

Additional Note: Mark Driscoll founded Acts 29.

Correction: Mark Driscoll is a CO-founder of Acts29, along with David Nicholas. (Check the Wikipedia article on Acts29 for basic details.) David Nicholas is often left out of the founding of the network, though his role was important. I’m aware of this because a friend of mine may be writing more about the founding of the network in days to come …

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Michaela wrote:
Additional Note: Mark Driscoll founded Acts 29.
Correction: Mark Driscoll is a CO-founder of Acts29, along with David Nicholas. (Check the Wikipedia article on Acts29 for basic details.) David Nicholas is often left out of the founding of the network, though his role was important. I’m aware of this because a friend of mine may be writing more about the founding of the network in days to come …

My understanding (limited, perhaps) is that Driscoll essentially co-opted David Nicholas’ ideas and concepts to use as a foundation, and then added his own particular distinctives to it, leading to the Acts 29 we know today.

I don’t know much (and can’t find much) on Nicholas, who is now deceased. Was he an advocate of the kind of authoritarian culture that Driscoll became infamous for?

I guess I should just wait to read your friend’s article. 🙂

Mr.H wrote:

My understanding (limited, perhaps) is that Driscoll essentially co-opted David Nicholas’ ideas and concepts to use as a foundation, and then added his own particular distinctives to it, leading to the Acts 29 we know today.

I don’t know much (and can’t find much) on Nicholas, who is now deceased. Was he an advocate of the kind of authoritarian culture that Driscoll became infamous for?

I guess I should just wait to read your friend’s article.

Thanks for your points to clarify and expand on what I’d stated, Mr. H. Brain not exactly firing on all cylinders this late at night.

I’ll have to wait for my friend’s article, too, for details. But, from what I recall from different sources, I do not think David Nicholas was into authoritarian culture, but instead was generally supportive of emerging ministry back in the day when it was still relatively young and unformed, in the pre-Emergent and pre-Resurgence era. From my studies in 2014 on Mars Hill, et al, it seems like there have been intentional efforts in the pro-Driscoll camp to obscure Nicholas’ contributions in co-founding the network and make it sound like it was all Mark Driscoll.

P.S. FWIW, the Resurgence/Neo-Puritan/Neo-Calvinist/YRR movement definitely has an authoritarian systems bent. And although the Emergent/Progressive movement didn’t go in quite that direction, it still has (in my opinion) been co-opted by charismatic individuals with an autocratic bent (highly influential with little/no apparent true accountability). I find it odd and ironic that the former demonstrate control via centralization, while the latter via decentralization. Just goes to show, I guess, that many paradigms can end up with practices of control, just as different kinds of systems can when controlling people are involved.

I think the reason MC asked people who felt they had been hurt or wronged to contact the elders was that Karen has made it very clear she does not want TVC to contact her. She has asked them to cease all communication with her. He made it clear that the aggrieved parties could set the ground rules for the meeting.

There was no reason for him to mention her by name in this sermon. People who have been following this case know exactly who is meant and to whom he was apologizing–and people who will watch this sermon in the future don’t need to know her name. There is no reason for her name to be permanently Google-linked to this.

I understand if she doesn’t want to meet with him or other elders, but I think she can consider that she has been apologized to.

Churner wrote:

There is obviously a lot of heart change that still needs to take place before Matt Chandler and the other elders fully get what they did wrong. I hope they really do humble themselves to listen to those they’ve harmed and to God.
…. he clearly didn’t want to give any credit for his change of tune to bloggers,

Yes. I noticed that he didn’t mention the pressure from bloggers as one of the reasons for TVC’s change of tack. That disappoints me, and confirms to me that the TVC leaders still have a long way to go in making the paradigm shift that is needed.

Jeff S wrote:

it’s clear to me MC and TVC DON’T get it. They should, but there is something fundamentally wrong with how they view the world that they couldn’t immediately detect that what they did to Karen was wrong and foul. All they know now, even in Karen’s situation it seems, is that they blew it.

And coming from that perspective, stepping back and saying “help me understand” is really all I can expect from them. Because their perspective is so warped they need to hear. Now are they really willing to listen? And will anyone actually take them up on their invitation? Who knows- it would certainly be a brave person who would go and speak to anyone at that church. But by God’s grace it could happen- some people might share their stories, and the church might actually listen.

What I would tell Matt Chandler is to just start reading abuse survivor stories. Get to know them. Maybe not even people at his church- just know what it’s like. Because knowing their stories is the key to empathizing. The stories are out there and there are blogs filled with them.

So yeah, I may be naive, but I think this is the best first step we could ask of someone who has been living in an echo chamber so long he doesn’t even see what is obviously evil right away. The only way is to start listening to different voices, and if he wasn’t blowing smoke, that’s exactly what he’s asked for.

^ That. Exactly that. Thanks Jeff S! 🙂

Churner wrote:

They also clearly need to get counsel to understand how abusers operate.

Oh yeah !

They need to direct and madate that Jordan Root attends daily treatment from a highly skilled forensic mental health person or program, to address his perverted sexual addiction. .

They need to stop Jordan Root from attending any event at the church, and tell him to listen to the services on-line. They can roster canny and wise adults to sit with Jordan during each service that he hears online, to provide Jordan with ‘fellowship’. That is the only way Jordan could be safetly handled by the church and it would ensure that Jordan is made to realise that he is NOT a member in good standing at the church.

They also, IMO, should tell Jordan Root and the entire TVC community that Jordan Roots is NOT to be treated as a believer at this point in time. As per 1 Cor. 5:9-13 and Jordan’s longstanding hiding of his heinous sin while passing himself off as a believer, and his only ‘confessing’ anything after he was pressed very strongly by first Karen and then SIM.

They need to re-vise their whole policy of church discipline to take into account 1 Corinthians 5. Any church that thinks Matthew 18 is the full box and dice on church discipline, is very wrong-headed.

Here is the Whopper tha Matt Chandler spoke:

29:00 “There have been a couple of cases where our counsel was not heeded and we began to act in a way that was controlling.”

That is a point blank lie. There are a lot more than ‘a couple of cases’.

Another thing that I keep noticing as I watch and re-watch the five points of “Will you forgive us…? ” is how often Matt Chanler has his left hand in his pocket.

I don’t know about you, but to me that body language signifies insousciance and larrikanism: an uncaring, blow-it-off attitude. It’s quite incongruent with the seeming sincerity and humlity of his words.

And Matt Chandler, if you are reading this, please don’t think that you just need to go back and practice your ‘genuineness’ a bit more. Unless your heart is right, it won’t work. The body language will betray you, somehow or other the disingenuousness will show through…

@ Barbara Roberts:
It is telling that people find it sincere he showed up in “person” instead of “broadcasting”.

it is hard to get people to understand that the distance between the person on stage and screen teaching them about Jesus and from themselves is a huge part of the problem.

So the great leader is given credit for coming in person. That is a big deal to them: cult of personality.

Mr.H wrote:

So if the elders are the problem, why is Chandler encouraging people to approach the elders to help fix the problem?

Because, IMO, the whole purpose for the apology was to attempt to stop what I imagine was a growing outcry inside The Village and also to provide the necessary foundation for the “move on” and “why can’t you forgive like Jesus” objections we are hearing. The point clearly was not to apologize for anything substantive.

@ Barbara Roberts:
I did not see one at that point, but I did see one before that, IIR around the log/speck discussion. I can’t watch much of the hyper movements and wild gesticulation which is vertigo-inducing. However when he was making the point that he had heard from covenant members “months ago” he does a minimizing wave of the hand. And I think that he knows that is not what happened. That whole “own” part strikes me as fake because he doesn’t actually own what the ELDERS actually dd.

Barbara Roberts wrote:

29:00 “There have been a couple of cases where our counsel was not heeded and we began to act in a way that was controlling.”

What jumps out at me is the included justification for their controlling behavior. There was no reason for them to be controlling in the first place when they told her what to do and which she resisted. That is where he totally either missed it or evaded it or justified it implicitly. Given their doctrine and view of women, I’m saying he was justifying it, and it think it was a leak of the truth.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I think the best way to demonstrate the sincererity of the apology would be the mass resignation of all the elders and church leaders (starting with MC) involved in this institutional abuse.

now that is something I could give an AMEN to!

lydia wrote:

@ Barbara Roberts:
It is telling that people find it sincere he showed up in “person” instead of “broadcasting”.
it is hard to get people to understand that the distance between the person on stage and screen teaching them about Jesus and from themselves is a huge part of the problem.
So the great leader is given credit for coming in person. That is a big deal to them: cult of personality.

That is because they all want to be Matt Chandler. He is an American Evangelical Idol to some folks.

Gram3 wrote:

There was no reason for them to be controlling in the first place when they told her what to do and which she resisted. That is where he totally either missed it or evaded it or justified it implicitly. Given their doctrine and view of women, I’m saying he was justifying it, and it think it was a leak of the truth.

They are so steeped in their doctrinal views, which include the importance of their leading and their maleness, that they don’t see that they are like blind men leading the blind.

Barbara Roberts wrote:

What that kind of childhood often produces is the person grows up into adulthood thinking that they “KNOW” all about domestic abuse so they are an expert in it and don’t need to learn any more. These kknds of people can be very cutting and cruel to those who are suffering domestic abuse. They can patronize, give terrible advice, and pressure the vcitims to stay and suffer longer than they otherwise might.

Think also of CJ Mahaney (alcoholic father) and I wonder about Piper who says his father was never around.

@ Barbara Roberts:

I do not think that somebody has to understand the dynamics of abuse in order to have feelings and opinions about it. Now a therapist would certainly have to get into the dynamics thing, but as to an individual thinking that ‘one ought to stay because that is how my mama did’ or on the other hand ‘nobody should have to live like that because I saw what it did to my mama’ that does not require therapy- level understanding of the dynamics of abuse to have an opinion.

There was some mess in my family of origin. The children of that family formed opinions early on about the rightness or wrongness of certain behaviors. That is what I am saying about MC. I see no way that he would grow up in a troubled situation and be opinion free until such time as he ‘understood the dynamics.’

Let me take this a step further. There may be a tendency out there among some people to want to control other people’s ‘understanding’ of things while setting aside the individual’s own coping mechanisms because they do not fit some current pattern of thinking in some area. I would have to see an awful impressive string of letters after somebody’s name before I thought that was a good idea. Abuse counseling does not need to be a cottage industry, that is what I am saying.

Gram3 wrote:

I did not see one at that point, but I did see one before that, IIR around the log/speck discussion. I can’t watch much of the hyper movements and wild gesticulation which is vertigo-inducing. However when he was making the point that he had heard from covenant members “months ago” he does a minimizing wave of the hand. And I think that he knows that is not what happened. That whole “own” part strikes me as fake because he doesn’t actually own what the ELDERS actually dd.

Thanks, I look for those bits – after I’ve had a sleep. It’s after 1 am here.

@ Bridget:
Sorry Bridget, I should have made myself more clear.

When I refer to male privilege, I’m referrring to it in the sense that professional in the domestic abuse sector refer to it, and feminists.
In other words, by ‘male privilege’ I mean the automatic assumption that men, merely on the basis of their gender, not by merit, are to receive and accorded privileges that women are not accorded.

The majority of people in society accept male privilege without even being aware of it. And the vast majoriy of men enjoy it without being aware of how especially privileged they are.

Nancy wrote:

I do not think that somebody has to understand the dynamics of abuse in order to have feelings and opinions about it. Now a therapist would certainly have to get into the dynamics thing, but as to an individual thinking that ‘one ought to stay because that is how my mama did’ or on the other hand ‘nobody should have to live like that because I saw what it did to my mama’ that does not require therapy- level understanding of the dynamics of abuse to have an opinion.

Much agreement here Nancy. It’s like saying that because one doesn’t know the proper procedure for installing a canister of Zyklon-B for widest dispersal in the fake shower rooms, or the most efficient way of getting the bodies to the crematoriums afterwards, one cannot know the enormity of wrong that went on at Auschwitz.

Barbara Roberts wrote:

The majority of people in society accept male privilege without even being aware of it. And the vast majoriy of men enjoy it without being aware of how especially privileged they are.

Most definitely!

@ brad/futuristguy:

P.S. I’d meant to add boldface emphasis to the first bullet point:

* What if the Elders mess up and they lose a lawsuit for, say, harassment or defamation of a former member? And staff and Covenant Members had followed the Elders’ directives in how that person was allegedly (mis)treated? Does everyone who is legally bound to the corporation share in the culpability and liability? Are they off the hook because they were just following orders?

Barbara Roberts wrote:

In my observation and experience of hearing from MANY survivors of domestic abuse, the fact that a person grew up in a household where their mother was abused by their father does not necessarily give that person understanding of the real dynamics of domestic abuse.

Malcolm Gladwell’s book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants has an interesting story about the guy who “discovered” the treatment/cure for childhood leukemia. He had suffered a horrendous childhood. Gladwell seems to think this was of benefit because the result was it destroyed his empathy toward the suffering of others. Therefore, he was able to basically ignore the pain of the children receiving his experimental treatments…all for the greater good of medicine.

muzjik wrote:

Gladwell seems to think this was of benefit because the result was it destroyed his empathy toward the suffering of others.

I read that book-excellent I thought. I do think that the horrendous childhood destroyed some of the fear of suffering (pain) in the physician. But he was a ruthless enemy of death. Look at the descriptions of the transfusions. His patients were dying–bleeding out. That is entirely different from somebody doing experiments where imminent death is not a present reality. There was no way for those children to escape suffering with or without treatment. The only hope was that they and others with the same condition might escape death. Today many live because of treatments for leukemia.

You should read about some of the former complications of radiation treatment for cancer before established guidelines were developed, by trial and error partly, for dose management. And of course we know that historically it was the actual battlefield that gave us surgical progress is various areas. The history of medicine is like this. The physician does not need to cry, he needs to persevere. He needs to get beyond himself and do what needs to be done. What ‘caring’ looks like in a white coat is ‘doing the right thing.’ Nobody said it was easy.

Sharon wrote:

I understand if she doesn’t want to meet with him or other elders, but I think she can consider that she has been apologized to.

When I said this, I meant that if Karen wants to consider MC’s comments an admission of wrong done to her, even if MC didn’t mention her by name, I think she is entirely justified in doing so. I didn’t say she *should* consider herself apologized to. I meant she could claim it if she wanted to.

Bridget wrote:

I see your point, BUT how often do you see people who are in that place of privilege able to see that they are even in it? It should not be considered a place of privilege at all; for anyone to want; or for others to look up to as if it is a privileged place. That is not what I see in scripture. I see functions filled by men and women with gifts; not offices, levels on ladders, or places of privilege given to those with education and money (though I’m not against those things, they just don’t guarantee a right heart attitude).

I agree. There are many who want to go along with some form of comp lite thinking that if only people who have leadership would think differently. I hear the same thing about controlling elders: If only they were nice. If only we find the right kind of ruling elders. It just does not work that way. Tell a person they have a prominence, put them there and over time an entitlement seeps in. It is the nature of the beast. The Body was NOT to operate like that at all.

When it comes to this view, one of my favorite passages is Luke 8. Here we have Jesus gallivanting all over the region with women. Some single, some married. Some are financially supporting the men because they have means. This means little in our 21st Century world but it was scandalous in the 1st Century. Jesus sending a message by allowing this to happen? I think so.

This does not support the model most have been taught, does it?

Barbara Roberts wrote:

In my observation and experience of hearing from MANY survivors of domestic abuse, the fact that a person grew up in a household where their mother was abused by their father does not necessarily give that person understanding of the real dynamics of domestic abuse.

That is true of my mother. She grew up in a family where her father was an alcoholic and sometimes beat her and her mom (my grandmother) up.

Further, her mother role-modeled codependent behavior before my mother. Instead of changing her situation, she (my grandmother) stayed with the abuser (my grandfather).

She even told my mom several times, “I made my bed, now I must lie in it.” She was saying, I guess, that Christian women cannot divorce a man, even if he is abusive.

So my mother grew up very codependent as a result of that and one or two other reasons I won’t get into here. She in turn brought me up to be that way too, and it caused her problems in her life, and additional problems for me.

I used to wonder why my mother lacked boundaries, why she allowed people to walk all over her (my father would emotionally abuse her at times).

It wasn’t until after she died and I read books by psychiatrists, both Christian and Non, about domestic violence and other things, that I was able to understand her behavior and was able to break free from some of this garbage myself.

You are right, growing up in the abuse yourself, or one step away from it (as my case), is not a guarantee that the person will know the dynamics or know how to change it, unless they get professional help, or at least do what I did, and read books by professionals.

Lydia wrote:

People are PAYING for this abuse whether they realize it or not. They are PAYING for their leaders to treat them this way.

I once had to deal with a crooked Homeowners’ Association that did the same shtick. As we tried to unseat them, they kept jacking our “dues” and levying “penalties” to pay for their Lawyers. (They even tried the “Concern & Compassion” act on us, Moral Superiority Wagging Fingers and all.)

Nancy wrote:

You should read about some of the former complications of radiation treatment for cancer before established guidelines were developed, by trial and error partly, for dose management….What ‘caring’ looks like in a white coat is ‘doing the right thing.’ Nobody said it was easy.

I think you missed my point. I wasn’t minimizing or discounting the achievements of cancer-treatment researchers.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Don’t get me started with HOA’s. Admirals in rowboats who finally have some power.

Lydia wrote:

When it comes to this view, one of my favorite passages is Luke 8. Here we have Jesus gallivanting all over the region with women. Some single, some married. Some are financially supporting the men because they have means. This means little in our 21st Century world but it was scandalous in the 1st Century. Jesus sending a message by allowing this to happen? I think so.

I had a similar thought this morning…and no where did Jesus require or the gospel writers make sure we are aware that these woman were acting with permission and under the authority of their husbands/spiritual heads/God-ordained coverings.

@ Lydia:

I could tell you a story about one. My folks used to live in a neighborhood with a HOA.

The HOA kept sending threatening letters over a year about the same thing.

This, despite the fact my father corrected them all three times, and with copies of the paper work showing them they approved of the very thing they were complaining about on my parent’s property (a screen in patio that the previous owner had hired a professional to build).

@ muzjik:
Yeah. I doubt Chuza was thrilled about it. He had high position with Herod.

Barbara Roberts wrote:

Some children come to this understanding in childhood or teen years, but not all do. And it is most unlikely that someone like Matt Chandler would have, because his mother was in the fog herself so she couldn’t help her children come out of the fog.

I only know about Matt Chandler’s relationship with his mother and the dynamics that played out between them from what he communicated in the video that was posted of him talking about his childhood home life, but I didn’t see a spark of compassion or empathy from him for his mother. He seemed more disgusted by her than anything.

Churner wrote:

I only know about Matt Chandler’s relationship with his mother and the dynamics that played out between them from what he communicated in the video that was posted of him talking about his childhood home life, but I didn’t see a spark of compassion or empathy from him for his mother. He seemed more disgusted by her than anything.

BINGO!

muzjik wrote:

Gladwell seems to think this was of benefit because the result was it destroyed his empathy toward the suffering of others. Therefore, he was able to basically ignore the pain of the children receiving his experimental treatments…all for the greater good of medicine.

I haven’t read that book by Malcoml Gladwell, tho I have read “Blink” which is brilliant — and highly recommended for victims of abuse because it helps us validate and strenghten our intuition (gut feeling) which is the place where we first register Red Flags and Warning Signs that we might be dealing with an abusive person.

The story of the medical researcher who worked on treatments for lukaemia . . . good for him, and I can see that perhaps a traumatic childhood might have enabled him to cope with the trauma of the lukaemia patients he was dealing with.

But (and I’m sure all of us at TWW know this) the case of Matt Chandler is not like that. It may be that his domestic violence exposure in childhood has left him with character and empathy deficits in adulthood, but what is certain is that, unlike the lukaemia doctor— MC has NOT demonstrated genuine and proper care for his congregation.

Bridget wrote:

and I wonder about Piper who says his father was never around.

There used to be a video online of Mark Driscoll interviewing John Piper about his family influences that sheds much light on his issues with women. He enthuses about his mother, who didn’t read except for the Bible and did all the work of the household, yet fell into glad adoration of his father when he came home after traveling for evangelistic meetings. When the topic turns to his own wife, Piper is extremely uncomfortable and struggles to say anything positive. I watched this back when I had a high regard for Piper, and it was very disturbing and left little doubt in my mind about the root of the problems in his own marriage.

Churner wrote:

When the topic turns to his own wife, Piper is extremely uncomfortable and struggles to say anything positive. I watched this back when I had a high regard for Piper, and it was very disturbing and left little doubt in my mind about the root of the problems in his own marriage.

Yes, I think there may be some truth in Piper’s weirdness being due to an odd childhood. Certainly he has pushed his own warped view of relationships on so many people, and it is very sad that someone with so much baggage defines what a healthy relationship supposedly looks like. He has no idea what one might look like, so he comes up with a formula that he thinks will make everything OK. Actually it removes the foundation of mutual respect that undergirds every healthy relationship. He needs to recant, and failing that, to retire. He has done so much harm when he could have done so much good.

I’ve been reading the Discipline Guidelines along with some other Village documents. The ELDERS did not follow their own “guidelines” because Karen had committed no sin, and she had also committed in the Membership Covenant to obey Scripture above all else. The ELDERS were just making up stuff because she refused to be bound by their arbitrary rules. Then she refused to be swayed by their childish petulance.

The documents tell the story, and Chandler has never yet said what her “sin” was nor why they deemed her worthy of the final step in their own discipline guidelines. It is just like any other power religion, except it is overlaid on the Christian faith which gives it plausibility to some people.

I do not think the ELDERS are capable of real repentance for their sin against Karen. They certainly have not name their own sin, so according to their own discipline procedures, they may not be Christians. I’m not saying that they are not, but rather that that conclusion follows if their own guidelines and theology is applied to them. Obviously, I think their legalistic religion is totally wrong, and I hope that they turn back to Jesus instead of their idols and heroes.

Gram3 wrote:

I hope that they turn back to Jesus instead of their idols and heroes.

Yes.

Gram3 wrote:

Yes, I think there may be some truth in Piper’s weirdness being due to an odd childhood.

In some discussion I listened to, Piper states something along the lines that being primarily raised by women (mother, sister, grandmother) had the most profound impact of anything in his life. That’s not a direct quote, but it’s been a while since I heard it and don’t know where on his website to find it again. I believe it was one of his conferences that focused on male leadership. I think that much of the sin that passes as strong male leadership is tied to messed up past experiences with women that these men have never worked through. Tragic

@ Mara:

Excellent post! Thank you for sharing, Mara. I look forward to further exploring your blog.

Churner wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Yes, I think there may be some truth in Piper’s weirdness being due to an odd childhood.

In some discussion I listened to, Piper states something along the lines that being primarily raised by women (mother, sister, grandmother) had the most profound impact of anything in his life.

As in Mommy, Sis, and Grandma carried his testicles around in their purses and this is the hypermasculine reaction to it? PROVING to himself that he’s Really A MAN?

I think that much of the sin that passes as strong male leadership is tied to messed up past experiences with women that these men have never worked through. Tragic

I get the same vibe from a lot of the MRA/Manosphere types (“RAWR!”). Like they got burned real bad by women in their pasts and are getting even for it, taking it out on anything without a Y Chromosome.

I get this vibe because I’ve been burned bad by women in MY past, but my reaction was more withdrawal (avoiding women so I couldn’t get hurt that bad again) instead of hostility (“PAYBACK TIME! RAWR!”).

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I think that much of the sin that passes as strong male leadership is tied to messed up past experiences with women that these men have never worked through.

In my experience, all of these messed up men in church leadership had horrible relationships (or non-existent) with their own fathers. (Mark Driscoll and Matt Chandler included.)

I wish I had more time here, but I will make one comment then run away and hide form y’all. I notice that there are certain people here who continually attack and bad mouth people’s doctrine, namely Reformed Doctrine. It just goes on and on ad naseum, calling them all kinds of names and telling how toxic and bad their doctrine is. Just a comment. Why don’t you talk about your doctrine, and how it is better, specifically, biblically, rather than all the negative comments. I understand the purpose of TWW is to expose abuse and egregious error, yes, I know that. But be specific with what you think is superior in YOUR beliefs.

@ Churner:

Thanks Churner.
My blog is inactive now due to busy personal life (wedding, funeral, parent in the hospital etc.) so you won’t find much new.

But I was once a regular here at TWW and other places and kept somewhat on top of the crazy goings on in modern Christianity.

These days it is just easier to link something I wrote in the past concerning these topics than to try to be anything-like-eloquent since my life and my mind are so scattered now.

@ Mara:

Looks like there is plenty of old stuff that is new to me. Hope your busy days continue to be sweet!

Bob M wrote:

here are certain people here who continually attack and bad mouth people’s doctrine, namely Reformed Doctrine. It just goes on and on ad naseum, calling them all kinds of names and telling how toxic and bad their doctrine is.

I imagine I’m one of those people. I don’t bad-mouth Reformed doctrine. I have been in Reformed churches. I talk about bad doctrines that people teach, including the ones that have been put on full display here in the Karen Hinkley epic failure of leadership. I understand that some things are difficult for you to read, and you think that people go on ad nauseum. Respectfully, it is something more than nausea that is induced by these unBiblical and harmful doctrines.

I believe that you would be more than nauseated if you were Karen Hinkley. Or me or some dear women I know, particularly one who is very dear to me. You don’t know my full story because I haven’t told it. And I know that you are going through an extremely difficult time, so please try to consider that others have been devastated by the doctrines that these men preach that are not Reformed at all. For me, it is not about Reformed/Arminian/Neither. It certainly is not about personalities. It is about what Jesus has taught us in his life and the written revelation we have been given which I take to be authoritative. It is about obeying God rather than men.

dee wrote:

However, the Duggars are IFB and are not NeoCalvinists although Matt Chandler is going to be speaking with them….see our post on Friday.

Because he is now an expert on dealing with sexual misconduct in the church . . . !?!?

Churner wrote:

Not sure if you include Piper in that category, but he adored his father, even though he traveled a lot.

He may have. But how do you have a relationship when your father is never around? It is easier to adore someone from afar than when you see all their warts. It sounds more like a romanticized ideal of a father then reality. His mother dealt day to day with reality. I know his father had interactions with Bob Jones Sr. I believe they lived in the same area for awhile. They were all fundamental Baptists. I’m sure his father was bigger than life to him.

Bob M wrote:

I wish I had more time here, but I will make one comment then run away and hide form y’all. I notice that there are certain people here who continually attack and bad mouth people’s doctrine, namely Reformed Doctrine. It just goes on and on ad naseum, calling them all kinds of names and telling how toxic and bad their doctrine is. Just a comment. Why don’t you talk about your doctrine, and how it is better, specifically, biblically, rather than all the negative comments. I understand the purpose of TWW is to expose abuse and egregious error, yes, I know that. But be specific with what you think is superior in YOUR beliefs.

I’m not one to debate doctrine but if I did I likely couldn’t come at it from the angle you suggest. If I criticize doctrine it is usually because I don’t think there should be doctrine for the specific area. In many of the big debates that have raged a thousand years, the importance escapes me, and the arguments for both sides seem to be a reach.

On more than one occasion I’ve run into someone who believes their specific issue or belief is crucial, reformed, calvin, arminian, eternal security, literal translation of Genesis, etc. Decades later I still don’t see the importance.

Bob M wrote:

Why don’t you talk about your doctrine, and how it is better, specifically, biblically, rather than all the negative comments. I understand the purpose of TWW is to expose abuse and egregious error, yes, I know that. But be specific with what you think is superior in YOUR beliefs.

Ummm, no, not like that. Most of us have long since stated our denominational affiliation or lack of it if we have wanted to, and anybody who wants to can look up ‘what the x believe’ -on line-for free. But there have been a few who have wanted to debate doctrine and that did not work out too well, mostly because it got way too complicated and way too contentious and way too ‘dogmatic.’ There was an orthodox fellow who wrote a lot of stuff. It was interesting, but eventually he was warned by the owner(s) of the blog for something or other and eventually either quit writing or was shut off-I don’t know which. About that same time there was a convert to the RCC who wanted to talk about how much better everything he believed was, got to be a bad attitude IMO but rather short on actual content. He was also warned more than once IIRC and he is now gone. He is gone not because he was catholic but because he had a bad attitude.

And, most of us who have been around a while have had ample opportunity to investigate various doctrines and dogmas and come to our own conclusions, or lack of them, and do not really want life to just deteriorate into once more around the mulberry bush regarding every idea that happens to attract somebody at the time. ‘I don’t see that in the bible’ is more than enough dismissal for some things.

dee wrote:

@ Bob M:

A you know, Wade Burleson who does sermons for Church is more Reformed in his theology although he believes that women can be church leaders and does not like covenants.

I eat dinner many Sundays with a friend who is a 5 point Calvinist but he is respectful of me and is not a fan of the Neo Calvinists-particularly John Piper, Wayne Grudem, etc. My main concerns are with the Neo-Calvinists who seem to have answers for everything. Their theology mimics a math textbook. I do not feel that way about many of those who are classically Reformed. I was a member of a Christian Reformed Church on the Navajo Reservation and taught middle school Sunday school there.

We have written about other groups and pastors who are not Calvinists. The ARC is one, Ed Young Jr, Benny HInn, and others. We are equal opportunity offenders. I hate abuse, whoever and wherever I see it.

Someone questioned my concerns about Mike Huckabee who I wrote about a few years back. I used to be a supporter of his but i am no longer, primarily due to his belief that prisoners who become Christians should get a break on the prison sentences. I told this person that if I was not willing to critique those I support, then I am doing exactly what the other groups are doing.

This blog is open to people who do not like certain theological constructs. However, the YRR is the group that has been capturing the attention of the Christian world over the last few years and that is precisely what they want-attention. Therefore, unfortunately, many of the stories will be about those who are making the news.

However, the Duggars are IFB and are not NeoCalvinists although Matt Chandler is going to be speaking with them….see our post on Friday.

I try not to shut anyone down as they express their thoughts. All of us, myself included, must be ready to stand the courage of our convictions. If we can’t take it from one another, then how are we going to take if from those who are openly hostile to the faith?

You have been perfectly fair. I have not seen you be openly scornful, except in cases where it is warranted. TVC needs exposed. For how it treated Karen Hinckley. And the horrendous Membership Covenants. But I don’t think it is because they are Calvinists. And I have seen you distinguish that. It is others who seem to have a chip on their shoulder, and are very negative about doctrine, but just don’t present their alternative. That is what I want to see. What is the alternative that is “biblical.” I sat in Seminary for 6 years with professors who said we are Calvinists, we are Biblicists. We are not Arminian, we hold to the Bible alone. But when they clearly laid out their doctrine, they did fit pretty clearly into one of those camps. They did not want to be aligned with it, though.

So, my straight question is, what is your alternative that is superior? Don’t just bad mouth, and there is a lot of it, but present a cogent discussion of what is superior in your doctrine.

Nancy wrote:

Bob M wrote:

Why don’t you talk about your doctrine, and how it is better, specifically, biblically, rather than all the negative comments. I understand the purpose of TWW is to expose abuse and egregious error, yes, I know that. But be specific with what you think is superior in YOUR beliefs.

Ummm, no, not like that. Most of us have long since stated our denominational affiliation or lack of it if we have wanted to, and anybody who wants to can look up ‘what the x believe’ -on line-for free. But there have been a few who have wanted to debate doctrine and that did not work out too well, mostly because it got way too complicated and way too contentious and way too ‘dogmatic.’ There was an orthodox fellow who wrote a lot of stuff. It was interesting, but eventually he was warned by the owner(s) of the blog for something or other and eventually either quit writing or was shut off-I don’t know which. About that same time there was a convert to the RCC who wanted to talk about how much better everything he believed was, got to be a bad attitude IMO but rather short on actual content. He was also warned more than once IIRC and he is now gone. He is gone not because he was catholic but because he had a bad attitude.

And, most of us who have been around a while have had ample opportunity to investigate various doctrines and dogmas and come to our own conclusions, or lack of them, and do not really want life to just deteriorate into once more around the mulberry bush regarding every idea that happens to attract somebody at the time. ‘I don’t see that in the bible’ is more than enough dismissal for some things.

I am not talking about that. I am not talking about trying to convert people. I have never tried to do that. I just get tired of people spouting off that Reformed or Calvinist doctrine is wrong, or evil and not telling me specifically what they see is bad. Now, if they want to say that the Complementarianism of Matt Chandler is bad, and how he handles women is toxic, and their Membership Covenants are evil, ok. There have been many who have laid out the case for Comp being wrong. I have read that here. I think, however, the fact that someone is a Calvinist does not make them toxic. If you say that, please back it up with logical statements that show me how their Calvinist doctrine makes them toxic. Not how their application of Membership Covenants are toxic. That is two different things. And lumping other Reformed people in with Driscoll and Mahaney because they are in TGC does not mean that they are like Driscoll or Mahaney. I may have a problem with someone supporting them, or rather, not exposing them and denouncing them (And as many of you know, I went to Piper and asked him why), but that does not mean they can be likened to them. I do appreciate Dee and her fairness. When she points our these men’s error, it is that they are not willing to denounce Mahaney, and therefore become complicit in not protecting victims. I agree with that. That is why I am doing what I am doing in my personal lie with regard to church and my family and my involvement(enough said about that, it is a huge upheaval.)

@ Nancy:

That is a pretty good summation! After what I experienced in the Non Calvinist seeker world I had to go back to the “Source” as best I could to try and figure all this out.(I was blessed to have been given a foundation as a child of soul competency and the Priesthood of believer)

The YRR in my neck of the woods only wanted to discuss doctrine and frame every convo with Sovereignty that led to authoritarianism. And I could not wrap my head around history and Reformed doctrine because I am somewhat of a history nut. It made little sense to me in practical application especially from the stand point of soul liberty/freedom of conscience.

And I think that is where I rest these days: Application of beliefs. That is most likely why I am constantly called a Pelagian. I came to the conclusion that most of evangelicalism leaves out the Israel/Jewish aspects of the cross and it sends us into all sorts of bad application or wrong focus on the entire point. IMO, Most CAl and Non Cal evangelicals have adopted more Augustine than Jesus when it comes to interpretation.

Most of us decry the Neo Cal approach to authoritariansim but we have to also be fair and admit most of Non Cal evangelicalism has been a culture war for the last 40 years that did not work.

I don’t think that is superior at all. Just a different view and one worth checking out. As I told someone last year who was quizzing me on this in a nefarious manner, I am all for the doctrines of Jesus Christ that make US- each individual believer- the most responsible for our actions/words/non actions. Where is comes down to it for me is sin is based upon actions/non actions/words. I realize that is heresy to some but what good does it do to believe “right” things but treat others with contempt as Karen was treated? As many were treated in the Non Cal seeker world?

@ Bob M:
Bob, to be honest, I think Pelagius has been given a bad name by his early detractors. the only thing we really know about him is what his detractors said about him. I only bring him up tongue in cheek because for many in the neo cal movement, calling you a Pelagian heretic was considered the worst insult ever. so I decided to see what I could find out about the “heretic”, Pelagius.

Based on what his detractors wrote about him, I found I agreed with him more than I did Augustine. :o)

Bob, as far as Calvinist theology being toxic, I would cite the doctrine of election. I cannot wrap my head around the idea of God, as we know Him through Christ, choosing to save some of us while choosing to send others to hell before we were ever born. I cannot conceive of myself sharing the Good News to someone, seeing their face light up with joy, and having to add, of course maybe Jesus didn’t die for YOUR salvation; you may have been selected out for destruction.

I think that God wants all to be saved, rejoices over ever repentant sinner, and accepts all who come to Him through Jesus.

This is my opinion and I don’t think it needs to be debated here but you asked what people find toxic and believe instead and this is my answer.

Bob M –

This –

@ Marsha:

@ Gram3:

and the way the sovereignty of God is presented as the overarching characteristic of God’s being.

Bridget wrote:

Bob M –
This –
@ Marsha:
@ Gram3:
and the way the sovereignty of God is presented as the overarching characteristic of God’s being.

It isn’t the sovereignty of God that is the problem, IMO. It is the implications which are drawn from a particular view of how God works his sovereignty. The fact is that we do not know how or why God does what he does. We know only what has been revealed, and that revelation is not exhaustive. And even if it were exhaustive, we do not have the capacity to process that complete revelation. Too many times we forget that we have very dim vision with significant astigmatism and a measure of macular degeneration, too.

Bob M wrote:

I can’t wrap my head around it either, but that is my understanding of Romans 9.

Certain verses of Romans 9 have been lifted totally out of their literary and historical contexts. Paul is discussing the topic of “What is God doing, who are his people, and what about Israel?” The verse a lot of people put a lot of weight on is Romans 9:22. But Paul is not making a statement of doctrine there but rather is employing a rhetorical device. The question Paul is addressing is not about individuals but rather God’s overall plan regarding the Jews and the Gentiles and who are the citizens/people of the New Kingdom of Christ.

In other words, some people build their soteriology around a misunderstanding of the entire argument Paul is making and without considering the context in which he was making it. The Jewish Christians wanted to know why God had seemingly turned his back on them. Paul is making a point about his sovereignty, but it is not about double predestination. It disturbs me that Paul is so often distorted because we refuse to use a standard grammatical-historical methodology and do so consistently. He was skilled in debate and rhetoric, yet we act as if he does not know how to formulate an argument or use rhetoric, which is a lost art in the classical sense.

Bridget wrote:

@ Gram3:
In think we are saying the same thing?

I don’t know. To me it does not make sense to say that God is not sovereign. But it doesn’t follow from his inherent sovereignty that he exercises that sovereignty in any particular way or even in the same way all the time. It means that he is non-contingent, and we are contingent. As contingent creatures, we have no *right* to question what he is doing, but we still have the right and responsibility to question those who claim to speak about what he is doing. For me, that’s about as far as I can go. I’m not a systematizer when it comes to theology.

Bridget wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
I don’t know. To me it does not make sense to say that God is not sovereign.
But that isn’t what I said. I said what you quoted which starts with “‘the way’ . . .”

Oh, I’m so sorry! I was careless and did not mean that you said that but was speaking generally about how I work through the question of sovereignty. I certainly see how what I said sounded very wrong, so please forgive the carelessness.

Bob M wrote:

dee wrote:
@ Bob M:
A you know, Wade Burleson who does sermons for Church is more Reformed in his theology although he believes that women can be church leaders and does not like covenants.
I eat dinner many Sundays with a friend who is a 5 point Calvinist but he is respectful of me and is not a fan of the Neo Calvinists-particularly John Piper, Wayne Grudem, etc. My main concerns are with the Neo-Calvinists who seem to have answers for everything. Their theology mimics a math textbook. I do not feel that way about many of those who are classically Reformed. I was a member of a Christian Reformed Church on the Navajo Reservation and taught middle school Sunday school there.
We have written about other groups and pastors who are not Calvinists. The ARC is one, Ed Young Jr, Benny HInn, and others. We are equal opportunity offenders. I hate abuse, whoever and wherever I see it.
Someone questioned my concerns about Mike Huckabee who I wrote about a few years back. I used to be a supporter of his but i am no longer, primarily due to his belief that prisoners who become Christians should get a break on the prison sentences. I told this person that if I was not willing to critique those I support, then I am doing exactly what the other groups are doing.
This blog is open to people who do not like certain theological constructs. However, the YRR is the group that has been capturing the attention of the Christian world over the last few years and that is precisely what they want-attention. Therefore, unfortunately, many of the stories will be about those who are making the news.
However, the Duggars are IFB and are not NeoCalvinists although Matt Chandler is going to be speaking with them….see our post on Friday.
I try not to shut anyone down as they express their thoughts. All of us, myself included, must be ready to stand the courage of our convictions. If we can’t take it from one another, then how are we going to take if from those who are openly hostile to the faith?
You have been perfectly fair. I have not seen you be openly scornful, except in cases where it is warranted. TVC needs exposed. For how it treated Karen Hinckley. And the horrendous Membership Covenants. But I don’t think it is because they are Calvinists. And I have seen you distinguish that. It is others who seem to have a chip on their shoulder, and are very negative about doctrine, but just don’t present their alternative. That is what I want to see. What is the alternative that is “biblical.” I sat in Seminary for 6 years with professors who said we are Calvinists, we are Biblicists. We are not Arminian, we hold to the Bible alone. But when they clearly laid out their doctrine, they did fit pretty clearly into one of those camps. They did not want to be aligned with it, though.
So, my straight question is, what is your alternative that is superior? Don’t just bad mouth, and there is a lot of it, but present a cogent discussion of what is superior in your doctrine.

Maybe there isn’t an alternative.

I’m also not in complete support of the view that people should not complain unless they have a solution. Sometimes there is not a solution, and it makes people feel better to vent.

@ Gram3:

Wasn’t upset or anything, just wanted to be clear on what I believed if you thought I said something different.

Daisy wrote:

Maybe there isn’t an alternative.

I’m also not in complete support of the view that people should not complain unless they have a solution. Sometimes there is not a solution, and it makes people feel better to vent.

Maybe there isn’t. I think there is. Daisy, I was on the opposite end of the spectrum for most of my Christian life, and I saw the hubris, arrogance, etc. By God’s grace, I intend not to ever be that. I know all the arguments for and against, and I don’t think for one moment that egalitarians or Arminians or those who only want to follow Jesus (commonly referred to as Biblicists) are yokels, or uninstructed or intellectually inferior. And I hope that I never come off that was in discussion. Please forgive me if I ever have.

Daisy, you make a good point about the toxic doctrine that everything that happens because God wills it. I don’t know where that doctrine comes from but it doesn’t make any sense to me. God hates sin, he doesn’t want us to sin and yet we do. How can it be that he wills our sinful behavior to happen? Isn’t it our choice?

And you are right, what a burden to lay on the abused! Having done so much volunteer and professional work with people in prison, I thought I could not be shocked any more. Then I read about the baby Brianna case where a six week old baby was raped and killed by her father and uncle while her mother watched. God did not will that and of course a six week old baby did nothing to deserve it. It is just as pernicious to turn to older victims and try to ‘discover’ what they did to cause physical or sexual abuse when the abuse is caused by the perpetrator exercising his own free will to do evil.

We can make something good follow crimes, examples would be scholarships, volunteering, and prevention programs in memory of the victim. But no amount of good works makes the crime any less horrible or means that it occurred to bring about those good works.

@ Bob M:
Do you think that people who reject Complementarianism and patriarchy are in rebellion against God’s design or are liberals or reject the authority of Scripture? Because that’s what they teach that we do. They say that women desiring to be treated as equal human beings is the same thing as “feminism” which is a word that carries a lot of freight.

I totally agree that abusive behavior is found in all along the Arminian/Calvinist spectrum. Been there and done that literally from one end to the other on that spectrum. Abusers will abuse, and they will justify it with the Bible.

@ Bridget:

This is the big problem I have with them. They were about control and conformity. And in some instances how they came about included violence.

Bob M wrote:

I refuse to be called an abuser because I am a Calvinist.

I don’t blame you. I am friends with comps who are not abusive and never really even refer to their beliefs in this area. They tend to function as egals, though which cracks me up. I mentioned on another thread, I regularly meet with a few dones, one of whom is a Calvinist.

But let us say that this doctrine has become invasive in much of evangelicalism over the last 10 years. My contention with it is that authoritariansim is pretty much inherent in the doctrine. The Reformers chose to stay within the church/state mentality and not allow freedom of conscience and we read many sad stories about those who went against the system. That mentality has been awakened in the newer Reformed movements. My old Presbyterian Seminary clients were more into social justice issues than Sovereignty issues.

Authoritarianism permeates the doctrine and need for such heirarchical systems.(I realize that Calvins says to be a nice authority in the Institutes but what else is knew? But authoritarianism and determinism fit quite nicely.

All of this is not to say the non Cals have not adopoted authoritarianism because they have in many cases! That is one reason I say that Reformed theology and structure is pretty much ingrained in most of evangelicalism to varying degrees these days.

@ Gram3:

Yes. It is about the whole Jew/Gentile dichotomy in that day and time at that place. But we can mine riches it from it today.

Even potter/clay analogies are not what most think. The potter’s clay did not always cooperate with the potter.

Eph 1:4,5

@ Tim:
Hmm, I can’t say I see how John 3:16 makes predestination bunk. Mind elaborating?

Albuquerque Blue wrote:

@ Tim:
Hmm, I can’t say I see how John 3:16 makes predestination bunk. Mind elaborating?

Maybe he was thinking of Limited Atonement or Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption or whatever it is called these days.

@ Marsha:

The idea that God willed someone’s suffering is hard for abuse survivors I’ve seen on other sites to deal with.

They also get told sometimes by some Calvinists that their suffering was for God’s glory. But then, that sounds like something some Arminians might say as well. Nobody really cares about theology when they’re hurting. They want comfort.

I looked up some more information about that baby you mentioned in your post, now I wish I had not. To say what the family did to that baby is horrific is a vast, vast, vast understatement.

It’s not just terrible that the baby was abused by her own family, but that the other family (grandparents and such) knew and did not do a thing to stop it or get the baby to help. The mind boggles.

I am one of those people who will stop and get involved if I see an injured animal in trouble, or a person who is lost / hurt / in trouble (I have done so before, I’ve helped strangers and animals).

If I stop for strangers and animals, I’d naturally help people I already know. I can’t grasp knowing an infant in my family is being abused and not do anything.

Very troubling story. I might go look at cute and funny pictures of LOL Cats to get that story off my mind.

Albuquerque Blue wrote:

Does John 3:16 really counter Calvinism? I just don’t see it.

I suppose it depends on the definition of “love” and “world” that the interpreter adopts. Calvinists say God loves the elect only, and “world” refers to people without distinction or all kinds of people rather than all people without exception. Non-Calvinists say God loves everything he has created good, including all humans, though they differ on the implications of that. In this case, to me it seems forced to make “world” have a meaning of “limited to the elect without distinction wherever they are” rather than just the usual meaning of world meaning everyone in the created sphere. IMO there would need to be a compelling reason to go beyond normal usage of “world.”

@ Gram3:
But as I understand it, that reinforces the concept of the elect because “whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” Billions of people have lived and died with no concept of the Christian God never getting a chance. That seems to reinforce that the elect are those lucky enough to be able to believe in God’s only begotten son, as I see it.

Albuquerque Blue wrote:

@ Gram3:
But as I understand it, that reinforces the concept of the elect because “whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” Billions of people have lived and died with no concept of the Christian God never getting a chance. That seems to reinforce that the elect are those lucky enough to be able to believe in God’s only begotten son, as I see it.

I see the issue of those who died without hearing about Christ as completely separate from the issue of whether God chose those would be saved and those who would be damned.

I can’t get behind the concept of God choosing who would hear about Christ and who wouldn’t, if that’s what you’re saying. That would negate mission work entirely. Christians would no longer have responsibility to go tell the Good News. The Great Commission and an abundance of Scripture fly in the face of that. II Peter 3:9 God does not will that any should perish but that all come to repentance. I Timothy 2:3-4 God our Savior desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

@ Bob M:

This is one where I think the filter really comes into play. The Epistles are written to professing believers and have to be read that way. OTOH, I would have to negate most of what Jesus did and said to believe that Ephesians is teaching determinism. There are too many instances of Jesus saying “repent and believe” to people (and other similar things) as if the human he is speaking to has the capacity to do it.

to me, it would mean Jesus was preaching a bait and switch knowing that the people he was talking to had no “ability” to respond unless they had been previously chosen. I find this hard to even begin to swallow.

Think of the rich young ruler who came and asked him what to do. the passage says, “Jesus looked at him and loved him”. Was the RYR simply not one of the elect? Why did Jesus “love” him but then consign him to damnation? Questions, questions!

@ Albuquerque Blue:

keep reading:

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Sounds like a choice to me. If not, then a bait and switch. And a bait and switch with a Nicodemus, religious leader!

( As in, you are being forced to believe you just don’t know it because you were chosen to believe before Adam even sinned)

BTW: The Jews had no concept of that sort of determinism. They were expected to be the light of the world with God’s guidance. They failed. So Jesus came.

The foundational concept for much of Calvinism is sovereignty, the sovereignty of God. However, most of the discussion I see reflects a misunderstanding of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the power or authority to do whatever one chooses to do in the sphere in which one is the sovereign. It is not that what one may desire occurs, but that one has the power should one choose to act on that desire.

In ancient times, the sovereign had the power of life and death over all of the subjects of the sovereign. But few such sovereigns exercised the power except in the instances of criminal acts or open rebellion.

Similarly, while I believe that God is sovereign, I also believe that he is loving, and exercises his sovereignty in a loving fashion. Hence, he loves us and gives us the choice to love him or not. Love that is forced from someone is not love at all. The voluntary love of another is more highly prized than the forced “love” of the automaton.

Thus, I am not a Calvinist and I reject TULIP, because it is the logical outgrowth of a misunderstanding of sovereignty and of the nature of God.

Albuquerque Blue wrote:

@ Gram3:
But as I understand it, that reinforces the concept of the elect because “whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” Billions of people have lived and died with no concept of the Christian God never getting a chance. That seems to reinforce that the elect are those lucky enough to be able to believe in God’s only begotten son, as I see it.

We don’t have enough information to say what happens to those who have never heard the Good News. God doesn’t tell us, so a conclusion would be either speculation or an inference from what we are told, and that inference may or may not be warranted. God is good, merciful, just, and holy. I don’t know how he works out what appear to us to be contradictory, but I trust in him, and I believe that Jesus is the only savior. I don’t expect to understand God and his ways, but some do expect to be able to explain God beyond what he has told us. What we see, we only see dimly.

Arce wrote:

The foundational concept for much of Calvinism is sovereignty, the sovereignty of God. However, most of the discussion I see reflects a misunderstanding of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the power or authority to do whatever one chooses to do in the sphere in which one is the sovereign. It is not that what one may desire occurs, but that one has the power should one choose to act on that desire.

In ancient times, the sovereign had the power of life and death over all of the subjects of the sovereign. But few such sovereigns exercised the power except in the instances of criminal acts or open rebellion.

Similarly, while I believe that God is sovereign, I also believe that he is loving, and exercises his sovereignty in a loving fashion. Hence, he loves us and gives us the choice to love him or not. Love that is forced from someone is not love at all. The voluntary love of another is more highly prized than the forced “love” of the automaton.

Thus, I am not a Calvinist and I reject TULIP, because it is the logical outgrowth of a misunderstanding of sovereignty and of the nature of God.

I do not define sovereignty by what I think it should mean, or what logic says it means. I define it by observing what the Bible says about God and how he acts as the Sovereign. Psalm 115:3 Our God is on the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.

Bob M wrote:

Our God is on the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.

I don’t think any of us is saying otherwise. At least I’m not.

Albuquerque Blue wrote:

Nifty, I appreciate reading all the different ways Christians believe their deity works. It’s so diverse and seems tied to whatever context a person or group wants to read it as.

I think it is a human thing to try to make sense of what we know or think we know, whether Christian or not.

@ Gram3:
Absolutely. It’s one of the reasons I ask questions here, there’s such a diversity of Christian opinion and belief here to learn what people believe.

Gram3 wrote:

And I don’t think it is only Calvinists who do this.

No. It’s not.

Bridget wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Bob M wrote:
Wow is all I can say.
Not sure what you mean by that. You put out some verses, and some of us answered with a different take. Isn’t that what you wanted someone to do?

I don’t get the wow either. It didn’t come across well to me though.

I have experienced people who have grown up their entire lives in one vein of thought regarding interpretation of scripture who were completely surprised to find that there are different interpretations that are just as valid. Right now their seems to be a lot of people who take one or two verses out of their intended context to make a point. I believe that the use of systematic theology books have propegated misuse of scripture in this area.

I was an Arminian from age 23 when I came to Christ until age 47. I read dozens of books, studied Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Church History, Hermeneutics, Logic, and came to my conclusions apart from the direction that those in my educational surroundings wanted me to.

@ Bob M:

That wasn’t directed at you as I obviously know nothing about you.

As I stated, it was my experience with some Christians. It was also a separate paragragh from my response about your “wow” response. Maybe I should have preempted the paragraph with “this is not directed at you, Bob.”

I didn’t know why you posted the wow response either. The conversation had widened to several people and several inquiries anyway. I don’t think the continued conversation was all about responding to you. But maybe I was wrong about that.

Bob M wrote:

I do not define sovereignty by what I think it should mean, or what logic says it means. I define it by observing what the Bible says about God and how he acts as the Sovereign. Psalm 115:3 Our God is on the heavens, he does whatever he pleases

I find Romans 5 to be compelling on this subject. I pay close attention to Romans because it is the last of the 7 epistles attributed to Paul himself rather than others writing in his name. His theology at this point is fully realized. Romans is his master work.

In the fifth chapter, starting at verse 12, he says that sin entered the world through one man, leading to condemnation for all. Several verses later he states that just as one man brought death to all, one man (Jesus) brought life to all through the cross. He specifically uses the term “all” and does so several times. He also uses the term “many” but seems to be using it synonymously with “all”.

He does not refer to the few or the elect.

Now Romans 10 goes even further. Paul says it is his prayer to God that the Jews would be saved. Why is he praying for salvation for them if the decision on whether they will be saved or not is a fait accompli? For that matter, why did Jesus model a prayer for us that has us praying for God’s will to be done on earth as in heaven? If his sovereignty means He does as he pleases and we have no say, what’s the point of praying in that way?

Later in the chapter Paul uses the terms “anyone” and “everyone” and “all” with regard to salvation.

Now Romans 10 and 11 get really interesting. I’d like to hear from those who have studied and pondered these two chapters extensively. At points it does seem to make the Calvinists’ points for them. It references the elect, and of God hardening the hearts of the Jews.

But whenever Paul refers to the elect, he seems to be talking about the Jews specifically, not the Gentiles. My interpretation without exhaustive study is God intended for his elect the Jews, whom he Foreknew, to be saved. But they didn’t believe because they were an obstinate people because he made them that way. So he opened up salvation to the rest of the world, in order to make the Jews jealous. And that’s good for us because now we are grafted in. It is Paul’s desire since the Jews are his people, that their envy of the Gentiles would lead them all to be saved ultimately.

Am I way off?

@ Albuquerque Blue:
A Post Script.
Calvinists get offended by this, but Calvinism honestly reminds me of Islam.

If Christianity is not offering something new and different from world religions such as Islam, and resembles world religions,
especially in troubling ways, IMO, that is a red flag.

Tim wrote:

Am I way off?

I don’t think so and I believe this is what Lydia and Gram3 were referring to here @ Gram3.

On another note, the first Bible study I ever attended as a new Christian (34 years ago) was on Romans. We went through Romans for 6 months. It was wonderful. The teacher went through it and reviewed what it meant based on what Paul was referring to in the Old Covenant and what it meant for Jew and Gentile Christians. The study was great because it gave an overview of the entire Old Testament at the same time. Not once do I ever remember hearing anything about individual salvation and/or election applied to the text.

@ Lydia:

If you mention humans have any say-so in anything, some Calvinists will start telling you that you are a Pelagian or a semi-pelagian.

I don’t see how someone being able to choose Christ of their own free will means they play a role in their salvation; far as I can tell, it does not.

There is nothing meritorious about accepting a gift or choosing to accept one (but Calvinists seem to think there is); it’s the gift-giver that does all the work.

Their Total Depravity gets into some things that I cannot agree with.

Maybe this is where they whip out “Common grace” as you were saying, but I think even unsaved people are capable of doing good deeds at times.

They act like this is not so, that unsaved persons will always do the most evil deeds possible.

I think even most atheists would be willing to save a kitten from a burning building, or assist an old, feeble, granny lady across a busy street, but Calvinists act like the atheist would just walk on by, or mug the granny lady.

You have (mostly Calvinist variety of) Christian online, on social media I’ve visited the last week, saying that Duggar or Root molesting children is not as bad as any other sins, like stealing a ball point pen from your local bank.

Because all sins are equally horrible, they believe. All of us are equally depraved, they think.

Not even the Bible teaches that all sins are equally horrible… but they run with that idea anyhow.

The Bible says any sin can send you to Hell (if you stumble at one point of the law, you stumble at them all, it says), but there are portions of Scripture where the Father and Jesus recognize some deeds are more horrible than others.

Lydia wrote:

There are too many instances of Jesus saying “repent and believe” to people (and other similar things) as if the human he is speaking to has the capacity to do it.
to me, it would mean Jesus was preaching a bait and switch knowing that the people he was talking to had no “ability” to respond unless they had been previously chosen. I find this hard to even begin to swallow.

I too noticed these points. Jesus believed people had the ability to choose for or against him. I don’t think Jesus would have gone through the motions if it were not so.

Bob M wrote:

I do not define sovereignty by what I think it should mean, or what logic says it means. I define it by observing what the Bible says about God and how he acts as the Sovereign. Psalm 115:3 Our God is on the heavens, he does whatever he pleases.

I don’t think the Calvinist understanding of sovereigty fits with other examples from Scripture, nor from observance of real life.

Albuquerque Blue wrote:

It’s so diverse and seems tied to whatever context a person or group wants to read it as.

For me, I can’t say that.

I wanted to know God as God really is, how God defines himself, not how I imagine him to be, or how I prefer him to be.

The Bible warns about idolatry. If I ignore or redefine parts of the Bible I don’t like because they don’t fit with my notion of how I think God should be, I have created a god of my own, which is something I don’t or did not want to do.

I spent a couple of years seriously pondering Calvinism, visiting Calvinist sites, and asking them questions about their beliefs, and I tried to reconcile their views with the Bible, but it didn’t work.

There were other portions of Scripture which contradicted or cancelled out some Calvinist / TULIP beliefs.

I don’t have definitive answers for some of the Calvinist clobber passages they like to bring up, but I know the clobber passages don’t fit with other verses / passages or fit with the over-riding character of God presented in the whole of Scriptures. (This is also true with gender complementarianism.)

Which is to say, I may not be able to come up with a satisfactory answer for every verse either, but, I don’t think the clobber passages mean what the Calvinists think they mean.

Bob M wrote:

I said wow because all I did was post a verse reference and got that much response. Wow, I am amazed at how much people think they know what I think, or how I interpret the Bible.

Why be so vague and mysterious?

Can you explain for us why you posted what you did, and what it meant to you, and the point (if any) you were trying to make?

Bob M wrote:

I was an Arminian from age 23 when I came to Christ until age 47. I read dozens of books, studied Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Church History, Hermeneutics, Logic, and came to my conclusions apart from the direction that those in my educational surroundings wanted me to.

And there are other believers in the same, or similar, situation or from similar backgrounds, who reached an entirely opposite belief set.

@ Daisy:
I’ve always thought Calvinism made sense if you looked at it’s chosen support but it had the side effect of making its interpretation of the Christian deity a horrible tyrant. It’s one way of looking at it, but it never seemed a happy way to me. I’ve had people close to me go the Messianic Christian route, with a return to a lot of “Judaic” practices influencing the way they live their Christianity. And they’re very different from Calvinists. I’ve also got some friends who are Christians in the vein of Bishop Spong and they’re very different from those as well.

Paul summarizes his argument in 11:33 through 12:8, but most people do not read entire sections of scripture. This is a similar error to the one made regarding 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul summarizes his argument which shows us the point of his argument. Same in 1 Timothy 2. We have to follow Paul’s entire argument and not lift portions of his argument out and say that they mean something outside of the entirety of the argument. That is not fair to Paul, and it can misrepresent what he is actually saying.

Jack wrote:

The church leadership and elders are expressing remorse for their actions. Remorse for following the letter of the law, and not the intent of their discipline rules. Whether the remorse is real and whether there will be repentance and real change can be debated, but I think this response is a good start and exactly what your blog would want.

Certainly you can evaluate the commenters here and the leadership at The Village however you like. The ELDERS have not really explained much of anything, not least of which is why they have extra-Biblical rules in the first place. Eliminate the wrong-headed rules and there would be no abuse resulting from the rules. But the ELDERS seem to be blind to that. Remorse can arise from consequences and not be repentance at all. We shall see if they repent of their anti-Gospel legalism or not. I suspect they will not because the legalism is what their system is built upon.

@ Tim:
Thank you for your answer Tim. I enjoy learning your perspective.

Concerning complementarianism, I would invite those interested to look at the website http://www.redeemerpampa.com.

Look at the menu across the top. Where it says “Resources”, click and under that you’ll see several subheadings including one that says “Men”. This contains readings for men on various subjects.

Notice there is no “Women” subheading. No resources for women, only men. This is by design. Acts 29 churches believe the man is to “pastor” his family. So whatever she is supposed to learn in order to grow as a Christian woman, it has to come through her husband.

dee wrote:

Right now, here is how it sounds to many. Your church wanted Karen to be reconciled to a child kiddie porn pervert. They are sorry that they weren’t nicer about it but they will be in the future.

Yes, that is how it’s coming across to a lot of people on other sites. I’ve read secular media cover the story and read the comments people leave below the reports.

There are Christians and NonChristians leaving their thoughts, and no matter how much the TVC tries to frame the situation as being about obedience to a church membership agreement, at the end of the day all most people are taking away from it is “church punishes woman for leaving husband once she discovers husband is pedophile,” and most people are very sympathetic towards the woman.

The rest are angered, sickened, or puzzled by the church on this.

It’s not going to do the “Jacks” or TVC much good to come here and leave snippy comments to us, because there is a bigger problem going on.

People who don’t visit this blog or who don’t know about it have already determined how they view the story, and they arrived there (with negative views of the church) from reading secular media coverage of it.