John Piper Chimes in on Mark Driscoll, Who Must Believe the Grass is Greener in Phoenix Than in Seattle

"A Colossal Satanic Victory… He (God) permitted a tactical defeat for the gospel."

John Piper – TGC interview

Screen Shot 2015-07-09 at 8.01.36 AMMark Driscoll – Screen Shot

Two years ago Mark Driscoll made a big announcement — that he was planning to launch a church in Phoenix under the Mars Hill 'brand'.  Here is how the news was shared:

Screen Shot 2015-08-05 at 8.41.04 PM

Mars Hill Phoenix rose and fell in very short order, closing its doors last September. Around that time Warren Throckmorton reported that some at the defunct church were starting a new work to be called Phoenix Bible Church.  Here is how that announcement was made:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/09/23/mars-hill-phoenix-becomes-phoenix-bible-church/

We haven't kept up with this 'new work' in Arizona, but Mark Driscoll and his family finally made their intentions known in a July 27th post on Pastor Mark's website (see screen shot below).  They have relocated to the 'greener' pastures of Phoenix.

http://markdriscoll.org/driscoll-family-update/

Ironically, two weeks before this announcement we published a post entitled Pastor Mark Driscoll – Phoenix Rising?  There had been some speculation about him and his family moving to Phoenix, and finally they have confirmed it.  Looks like Driscoll plans to rebuild his ministry from the ashes in the city named for that miraculous phenonemon.  It will be interesting to see with whom he has this 'new adventure', and we will do our best to keep you informed.

Meanwhile, a few days after Mark Driscoll's July 27th announcement, The Gospel Coalition posted a video of John Piper being interviewed by a Vancouver pastor named Norm Funk.  Take a look…

The Gospel Coalition has provided a transcript of the brief conversation between John Piper and Norman Funk.

Here are our initial reactions to this interview. 

– The log and the speck analogy at the 3:18 mark DOES NOT WORK when it comes to Mark 'pottymouth' Driscoll.  Piper's initial comment was extremely disappointing.

– John Piper's second point – that God has historically been willing to use people to speak gospel truth who have motives and attitudes that are defective – comes across as a defense of Mark Driscoll's extremely poor behavior.

– Piper's third remark 'don't throw the baby of truth out with the bathwater of sin' is a callous response to what happened on Mark's Hill.  Where is his compassion for those whom Mark Driscoll ran over with the Mars Hill bus? 

– Piper describes the failure of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill a tactical defeat of not only Christianity but of Reformed Theology and Complementarianism.  He mentions these several times.  He goes on to call it a Colossal Satanic Victory.  Then Piper brings up the tactical defeat of Christianity in the Middle East.  This comparison just doesn't work for us.

– Finally, John Piper says to walk away from the organized church due to the failure of Mars Hill is to walk away from Jesus.  This remark alone indicates to us that the Neo-Cal crowd is extremely fearful of losing control of their flock.  And they should be!

If John Piper and other Calvinista leaders had been more serious early on about confronting Mark Driscoll with his sin, then the collapse of Mars Hill Church could possibly have been avoided.  Instead, we have Piper tiptoeing through the tulips with Driscoll

In the aftermath of the Mars Hill implosion, it appears that John Piper and other Neo-Cal leaders did not confront 'Pastor' Mark Driscoll, as the Bible clearly instructs.  Thoughts?

Comments

John Piper Chimes in on Mark Driscoll, Who Must Believe the Grass is Greener in Phoenix Than in Seattle — 310 Comments

  1. Ok, I think Bishop Piper is at least partially correct – Driscoll’s behavior is a very public example of the power trips Complementarianism (sp?) can give…

  2. Not sure who the other Mitch is on the last thread so had to ad original to my name. I believe I was the only Mitch here for a while.

    Piper's comments are typical for his crowd. They will never admit there was a problem or that they made a mistake endorsing MD. Much of the damage could have been avoided but since his doctrine was so pure why question how that doctrine revealed itself in action.

  3. Ugh, I want to watch the video so I can leave a good comment. But, I can’t stand the way he talks like he’s always wearing vibrating underwear.

    Wenatchee the Hatchet’s blog had an excellent point, while Piper is saying it’s such a tragic defeat for Reformed theology, plenty of NAPARC members were criticizing him plenty and are happy to see Driscoll go too:

    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2015/08/john-piper-on-debacle-in-seattle-but-if.html

    It just goes to show, it’s not Reformed that he’s saying is the true gospel, it’s his personal opinions as supported by his ideological clique. Not Calvinism, but DesiringGodism. So here’s to you, Johnny Boy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNyyqNC4Y8I

    Now I understand if this isn’t the preferred music of TWW posters, and me neither, but the first line of the first verse is too fitting.

  4. Stan wrote:

    Ugh, I want to watch the video so I can leave a good comment.

    If I have to listen to Piper, then I'll have to sit this one out.

  5. Yeah, I can’t bring myself to listen to the full video either. Your quote suggests that he holds Christianity, reformed theology and complementarianism at the same level of core truth, which is scary.

    From what I’ve seen, Driscoll never repented of his theology, just his pastoral interpretation – so it won’t be surprising if (when) he makes a return that nothing much has changed.

    Piper’s scriptural defences of Driscoll are abysmal!

  6. Velour wrote:

    When I see John Piper the saying comes to mind, “There’s no fool like an old fool.”

    Velour, I like this quote by Abraham Lincoln,

    ‘Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt’.

  7. “tactical defeat of not only Christianity but of Reformed theology and complementariansim.”
    I never thought I’d say this, but I hope Piper is 2/3 right!

  8. rhondajeannie wrote:

    Velour wrote:

    When I see John Piper the saying comes to mind, “There’s no fool like an old fool.”

    Velour, I like this quote by Abraham Lincoln,

    ‘Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt’.

    Spot on!

  9. OP:

    Piper describes the failure of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill a tactical defeat of … Complementarianism. He mentions these several times. He goes on to call it a Colossal Satanic Victory.

    I am so, so very sorry to hear that. /sarcasm 🙄

  10. Daisy wrote:

    Piper describes the failure of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill a tactical defeat of … Complementarianism. He mentions these several times. He goes on to call it a Colossal Satanic Victory.

    More likely this tactical defeat is Jesus taking away the candlesticks as He promised He would do in Revelations 2:5.

  11. And they complain about how the snowbirds drive in Phoenix. They ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait until Mark Driscoll gets his bus revved up. He’ll show them what Real Manly Driving is all about.

  12. Deb wrote:

    Piper’s third remark…is a callous response to what happened on Mark’s Hill. Where is his compassion for those whom Mark Driscoll ran over with the Mars Hill bus?

    Piper could have spoken up many times, and essentially made sure the keys to the bus were taken away from the reckless hit-and-run driver. Instead, Piper maintained his silence, which gave tacit public approval, and lent credibility, to Driscoll’s reign. Piper is culpable for what happened, and his wishy-washy interview is a sham.

  13. John Piper consistently used the wrong “d” word – “defective” to describe Mark Driscoll instead of the appropriate word DESTRUCTIVE. Mark Driscoll has been DESTRUCTIVE in the lives of countless Christians (the firing/excommunication/shunning of a godly Christian elder like Paul Petry and his family for Mr. Petry’s opposing the consolidation of Driscoll’s power; the firing/excommunication/shunning of Bent Meyer; the excommunications/shunnings of countless others).

    Piper has been drinking his own Kool-Aid, unwilling to admit that Reformed Theology is wrong and destructive and that is what people are rejecting.

  14. Velour wrote:

    When I see John Piper the saying comes to mind, “There’s no fool like an old fool.”

    That’s a tad mean, but I’m afraid contains more than an element of truth. I wonder if retirement should mean just that when a man is beyond middle age.

    I once went to a day conference for full-time pastors in England. I shouldn’t really have been there, as I wasn’t strictly speaking a pastor, and I’ve never been full-time! It struck how these men, and I have no doubt good men, seemed at times so out of touch with the everyday world outside that you encounter at work. They may understand some of its problems they meet in pastoral counselling, but a lifetime of being a minister can lead to living in a kind of Christian ghetto, albeit unintentionally. An occupational hazard.

    I listened to John Piper a few days ago for the first time. He wasn’t the ogre some people paint him to be, he was clear, and biblical. This won’t help much, but something though really grated. I like preachers to be straight-talking, but with him there was a kind of über/over-authoritian element. I can’t quite put my finger on it, something wasn’t right and it surprised me as I have read a few of his sermons from earlier years and found them good.

    I never really was in Derek Prince’s constituency, but have also listened to him a couple of times as an old man who still had his faculties. It is interesting to see the wisdom old age and a life’s worth of experience can bring. The mellowing with age that we should honour (which we should do for the elderly anyway). So I wouldn’t write-off anyone because of age, but there must come a time to let go and be quiet.

  15. Nancy2 wrote:

    “tactical defeat of not only Christianity but of Reformed theology and complementariansim.”
    I never thought I’d say this, but I hope Piper is 2/3 right!

    It may be premature to hope this, but in any conflict there is the one tactical defeat that turns the tide and is revealed as a strategic moment later on.

    While I don’t like calvinist theology, I don’t want to see it utterly defeated, but as to defeating Driscoll’s and Piper’s theology (Piper: “I love Driscoll’s theology”), yesterday is at least a few years too late.

    I don’t want Christianity defeated, but Driscoll and Piper and a whole lot of other people will probably be quite surprised to see what a win for Christianity looks like. After all, the first win for Christianity happened on a hill outside Jerusalem on a spring weekend about 2000 years ago.

  16. Less frivolously, several commentors on Warren Throckmorton’s post (warrenthrockmorton/2015/08/01/an’ a’ tha’) make a very good point.

    While there is a difference between leaving a church temporarily and declaring oneself permanently Done with church, the issue here is that Driskle himself walked away from church, and at a very specific point in his life: when he was under church discipline for behaviour for which he was unambiguously responsible.

    Which is worse: to walk away from church permanently, but honestly? Or to declare your lifelong commitment to church whilst walking away from church temporarily just for those times when church stops giving you what you want?

  17. Gus wrote:

    …a whole lot of … people will probably be quite surprised to see what a win for Christianity looks like.

    Great point, Gus – this cannot be said too often.

  18. The more I read the entries about Driscoll and company, the more parallels I see between them and the Crossroads/Boston/International Churches of Christ movement that I came out of. The leader of the ICOC, Kip McKean, did something similar. He resigned as leader of the ICOC, and then started the International Christian Church, which is an attempt to re-start the movement he was part of. Is there a playbook that all these leaders work from?

  19. “Seattle is small potatoes. North Africa, that’s pretty big.”

    Apparently Piper is the general, and in his infinite wisdom, Seattle is small potatoes.

    Seattle is people, John. North Africa is people. What’s the difference? No matter how you boil it down, in addressing those affected by Mark Driscoll, you told them they don’t matter.

    I knew I shouldn’t have read this transcript.

  20. I managed to listen to the entire video. In the last seconds JP came out with something really crazy. He’s talking about “The Church” meaning the organized, visible church and how important it is. Then he says that Jesus died for “The Church.” Does that man really believe that Jesus died for the organized church?!?!?

  21. @ Tina:

    I think that’s a fairly common move in the corporate world – a CEO gets voted off the board of a company he founded or co-founded and then goes off to set up a new venture that has a lot of the DNA of the old, in a new location with new people.

    I think readers of TWW would probably agree that this isn’t a model that should apply to a Christian ministry.

  22. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I managed to listen to the entire video. In the last seconds JP came out with something really crazy. He’s talking about “The Church” meaning the organized, visible church and how important it is. Then he says that Jesus died for “The Church.” Does that man really believe that Jesus died for the organized church?!?!?

    Just watched, and that’s what I got. Jesus didn’t die for you and me, he died for the organized churched……( Not us who are now ” None” or ” Done” because we are no longer in the fold ?”

  23. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    I managed to listen to the entire video. In the last seconds JP came out with something really crazy. He’s talking about “The Church” meaning the organized, visible church and how important it is. Then he says that Jesus died for “The Church.” Does that man really believe that Jesus died for the organized church?!?!?

    They’re starting to believe their own lies. This is the same Fundy BS I thought I left behind when I left Tom and Greg “Peeping Tom” Neal’s Bankruptcy Palace years ago.

  24. 1. Piper has claimed tornadoes and bridge collapses were caused by God to have people repent. There was no mention of Satan in those instances. Now, when its one of his boys, its Satan.

    2. If I remember correctly, Johna Petry wrote Piper and asked for his help. Dead silence for the guy who can’t seem to pipe down about other issues. Piper has also supported CJ Mahaney never once throwing a bone to victims of these tragic leaders. Piper does not care about victims.

    3.Piper has made his interpretation of all events gospel™ and there are plenty of young, stupid men out there who will run around quoting this word for word.

    4. I know of one pastor in my area who made a big public “to do” about how absolutely broken up he was by Piper’s retirement. He couldn’t imagine a world without Piper. It is nonsense like that and nonsense like this in the post that makes me realize just how many of these young guys cannot introspect worth a dime.

    5. You bet it was defeat for complementarianism. TWW has had Driscoll’s antics in our scopes from the very beginning of this blog. If women are not supposed to judge leaders and supposed to leave it up to the men, what does this say about the men like Piper? He, along with a long list of celeb pastors and seminary Presidents and theologians along with a healthy group within TGC have shown that they have very little discernment.

    6. And of course, if a victim is hurting and walks away from the church, it is the victims fault because they should know they are walking away from Jesus. This is the ultimate statement of bull****. Piper will not admit they are running from men like him, Driscoll, Mahaney, etc. They are the problem and they are the modern day Pharisees.

    Rant now ends while I get a second cup of coffee.

  25. I read the transcript and was struck by several things in this interview, the purpose of which was stated by the interviewer to be to encourage people who have been deeply impacted by what happened and who are struggling to trust the church. 1)lack of any expression of *compassion* for those whose faith was damaged by Driscoll. Jesus, in contrast, said that stumbling was inevitable but woe to him through whom stumbling comes. Jesus does not give the perps a pass and call them merely “defective” on the same level as all of us. (Piper employed sin-leveling.) All of us are defective; not all of us are wolves. Defective sheep and wolves should be addressed differently. Again, Jesus, distinguishes the false prophets: “You shall know them by their fruit.” He tells us with respect to them to “Beware” that kind of man. 2) Though Scripture records Paul rejoicing that the gospel is being preached even through impure motives, he does not take the line that there is no need to call down a leader. He calls out Peter publicly (no Matt 18 I guess for Peter’s public sin). He warns the Ephesian elders to be aware that wolves will arise from their own ranks. He calls out other trouble-makers by name in the epistles, warning people about them. 3) Piper’s response is all about ideas. The real gospel (I am going to use the word. I realize I’ve developed an aversion to a perfectly beautiful word because of its misuse. ) is not a set of ideas or facts to be mentally assented to. It is the good news that a way has been made back to a restored relationship with our Maker, who loves us. I am circling back to point#1: there is no concern for real people expressed, only for ideas that took a beating. And that was the point of the interview: the damaged people. Piper offers no hope, no lifeline, to those so badly damaged that they want nothing to do with the organized church. He offers them only rebuke, and the fear-mongering that they have left Jesus. The lack of empathy is startling. You don’t beat beaten people. You tend to their wounds. He never does articulate what he thinks Driscoll needs rebuke for. He laments a defeat for a movement. The lack of pastoral concern for those damaged is just shocking. People who have been so damaged by leaders in the church that they declare themselves “done” need TLC from other believers. They need gentle, loving outreach with no judgment. I wish that someone (not Piper), someone would say, “The organized church has harmed you in the most grievous way. We are so sorry. We grieve with you for the harm done. The one who has done this deserves the utmost rebuke. Tell us your story. We want to hear from you, learn from you, pray for you.” That’s what I’d like to hear from a church leader. And if it is a leader from the wolf’s “team” then I would also like to hear repentance: “We let you down, too. We overlooked grievous sin because _____________. And our failure to step in also contributed to the damage done to your soul. We accept full responsibility for that. (Yes, we love the person who did the damage too, but love looks different for different people. If one loves someone who is running over people with his bus and if one believes Jesus’s words about those who do such things, surely, the loving thing is to do everything in one’s power to get him out of the driver’s seat and stop the damage that he will be held accountable for. Then love sets about helping him to repentance. Love does not defend evil. Love does not forget that Jesus talked about “greater sins” and “greater condemnation.”) Paul spells out the different faces of love: 1 Thes 5:14 We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

  26. Abi Miah wrote:

    The lack of pastoral concern for those damaged is just shocking. People who have been so damaged by leaders in the church that they declare themselves “done” need TLC from other believers.

    It was just a “defect” from a small potatoes church, after all. I guess the pastoral advice would be “get over it!”

    /sarcasm

  27. It has been said by someone much wiser than me… “The church is the only organization that shoots it’s wounded”….

  28. Abi Miah wrote:

    And that was the point of the interview: the damaged people. Piper offers no hope, no lifeline, to those so badly damaged that they want nothing to do with the organized church. He offers them only rebuke, and the fear-mongering that they have left Jesus. The lack of empathy is startling. You don’t beat beaten people. You tend to their wounds. He never does articulate what he thinks Driscoll needs rebuke for. He laments a defeat for a movement. The lack of pastoral concern for those damaged is just shocking. People who have been so damaged by leaders in the church that they declare themselves “done” need TLC from other believers. They need gentle, loving outreach with no judgment. I wish that someone (not Piper), someone would say, “The organized church has harmed you in the most grievous way. We are so sorry. We grieve with you for the harm done. The one who has done this deserves the utmost rebuke. Tell us your story. We want to hear from you, learn from you, pray for you.” That’s what I’d like to hear from a church leader. And if it is a leader from the wolf’s “team” then I would also like to hear repentance: “We let you down, too. We overlooked grievous sin because _____________. And our failure to step in also contributed to the damage done to your soul. We accept full responsibility for that. (Yes, we love the person who did the damage too, but love looks different for different people. If one loves someone who is running over people with his bus and if one believes Jesus’s words about those who do such things, surely, the loving thing is to do everything in one’s power to get him out of the driver’s seat and stop the damage that he will be held accountable for. Then love sets about helping him to repentance. Love does not defend evil. Love does not forget that Jesus talked about “greater sins” and “greater condemnation.”) Paul spells out the different faces of love: 1 Thes 5:14 We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

    This is lovely and so true.

    My honest question – can one wolf recognize their brother wolf as someone who is doing harm?

    While this is being discussed on Christian blogs, an article came across my fb stream yesterday from Piper. All I read was the heading “No President Obama.” Who knows, I may have agreed with what the article presented, but I couldn’t bring myself to read it because of Piper’s positions on women and wolves in his midst.

  29. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    In other news, England had marginally the better start to the fourth Test at Trent Bridge:
    bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/

    Yes, marginally better! They must enjoy it while it lasts: they are coming to my country in December.

    Looking forward to the new heaven and earth where it will be the official sport and all tests will be timeless.

  30. To preface my comments, let me say this. I do not know much about John Piper, bridges and tornadoes. I have no emotional investment in defending neo-calvinism, whatever that is. However, having listened to the questioner’s question and John’s response I can’t say that this man has no concern or compassion at all about those who were hurt by the leadership of the church. He seems to be trying to answer the question within the scope that it has been asked. I can’t say, as some of the rest of you, that this man is a “fool” an “old fool” based on what I heard here, or whatever terrible person he is, given comments here. One of the things that rather amazes me about this kind of forum is that it gives the opportunity for people to criticize in a way that seems to show or reveal that they themselves have the same pride and lack of humility that they are criticizing others of. So, now I have set myself up for those of you, in your upper balcony of correctness, to tell me to shut up and go away if I don’t like what is written here. I am no better than any of you, but I’ve said what I’ve said…and no, I’m not a fan of Mark D. nor am I comitted to any “organized” church” in my lifestyle.

  31. Tina wrote:

    The more I read the entries about Driscoll and company, the more parallels I see between them and the Crossroads/Boston/International Churches of Christ movement that I came out of. The leader of the ICOC, Kip McKean, did something similar. He resigned as leader of the ICOC, and then started the International Christian Church, which is an attempt to re-start the movement he was part of. Is there a playbook that all these leaders work from?

    Yes, that play book is called “$ and Power”.

  32. Piper is very good at dumbing down and desensitizing people to evil deeds. He has made a career of it with women taking abuse, etc. I would not want to be him. This video is just another despicable way to take the Lords Name in vain. To attribute or excuse horrible deeds to God that are not from Him.

    On another note, I believe Piper, retired, is the point man in dealing with the pushback on Driscoll that is going on. He has the least to lose and the most gravitas with tons of followers.

  33. JohnD wrote:

    Looking forward to the new heaven and earth where [cricket] will be the official sport and all tests will be timeless.

    A man after My own heart!

    Best regards,
    God

  34. Abi Miah wrote:

    the purpose of which was stated by the interviewer to be to encourage people who have been deeply impacted by what happened and who are struggling to trust the church

    So Piper completely missed this then?

    Or, he simply spoke out of the abundance of his heart and frkm that we can see that people aren’t a priority. Piper’s ideals and concepts of his form of Calvinism are the priority. In so doing, Piper presents God as being concerned with those same ideals and not the actual men and women He created in his image. Does Piper realize this?

  35. rhondajeannie wrote:

    More likely this tactical defeat is Jesus taking away the candlesticks as He promised He would do in Revelations 2:5.

    Yeah, it’s interesting Piper assumes stuff like complementarianism is true and under attack from Satan when the reality may be comp is FALSE and God is striking it down.

  36. JohnD wrote:

    Yes, marginally better! They must enjoy it while it lasts…

    Well, it may not last that long. We’re 99-3 at the time of typing, and a lot could happen this afternoon…

    From a cricketing neutral POV, the Ashes thus far haven’t been as good as the series against New Zealand earlier in the summer which, unfortunately, comprised only two Tests. In both of them, all three results were pretty much equally likely at the start of the fifth day, and both saw some very good cricket. Either way, if England can continue to improve, the Durban Test should be a decent contest!

  37. srs wrote:

    Ok, I think Bishop Piper is at least partially correct – Driscoll’s behavior is a very public example of the power trips Complementarianism (sp?) can give…

    Only Bishop?
    Not Fourth Person of the Trinity?

  38. Bridget wrote:

    Or, he simply spoke out of the abundance of his heart and frkm that we can see that people aren’t a priority. Piper’s ideals and concepts of his form of Calvinism are the priority. In so doing, Piper presents God as being concerned with those same ideals and not the actual men and women He created in his image. Does Piper realize this?

    Purity of Ideology, Comrade.
    Purity of Ideology.

    Especially since CALVIN Had God All Figured Out. Ha-Ruach only blows when and where and how CALVIN’s Institutes say it does.

  39. dee wrote:

    5. You bet it was defeat for complementarianism. TWW has had Driscoll’s antics in our scopes from the very beginning of this blog. If women are not supposed to judge leaders and supposed to leave it up to the men, what does this say about the men like Piper? He, along with a long list of celeb pastors and seminary Presidents and theologians along with a healthy group within TGC have shown that they have very little discernment.

    As I said on an older thread, Driscoll has apparently softened his tone about women.

    In some article on Christianity Today from about a month ago, he went on about how he now realizes that women should be allowed to have more leadership positions in the church.

    I said back then, when I posted a link to that on your blog, I think he’s seemingly switching his views on women because some of the crowd he’s cozying up to now – the Pentecostalish, Charismatic type crowd – allow for things such as women preachers.

    I guess he realizes he can’t go on to make a living at being a preacher among more women-friendly congregations, churches, preachers, and denominations if he keeps pushing the ultra-hard line Reformed gender complementarian view.

    Which in turn tells me that Driscoll is not maybe personally convicted about any of this theology but is only drive by greed and profit.

    Though I do suspect that he is actually pretty sexist.

  40. Bridget wrote:

    the purpose of which was stated by the interviewer to be to encourage people who have been deeply impacted by what happened and who are struggling to trust the church
    So Piper completely missed this then?

    No, Piper’s message to those impacted and hurt by what happened at Mars Hill is pretty clear from his comments (I read the transcript).

    It basically goes something like this: If you leave the church, you’re leaving Jesus. Jesus and the church go together. And he died for the church. So get back to church. If you don’t you’re not a Christian.

    That’s about it folks. No sympathy or compassion from the Pied Piper.

  41. Deb, Dee, Eagle, Everybody:

    Something that struck me when I was looking at another TWW article on Piper from about a year ago:

    Both Bee Jay Driscoll and Flutterhands Piper are Class-A Drama Queens who always have to be front-and-center onstage. With completely-different expressions of their Drama-Rama:
    .
    * Bee Jay’s Drama Queening is classic Hypermasculinity, all aggression cage-fighting and sexual prowess/appetite and Heroism (against Mr Machete which nobody can find any independent documentation) and throwing others under the bus by brute force. Hypermasculinity that wouldn’t look out-of-place on a Nuremberg Rally stage.

    * With some exceptions (such as “Watch it! She’s Got a Knife! But that OK, Piper has a COAT!”), Flutterhands Drama Queens in a stereotypically FEMALE manner — the fluttering hands, the lecturing voice over everything, literally a Nervous Nellie Church Lady. TERRIFIED of trivia like Muscular Women(TM). As Bee Jay is Hypermasculine, so Flutterhands is Feminine. No wonder he’s scared of women, his Superior Comp/Patrio Masculinity suffers in comparison. And he’s probably jealous as all hell of a REAL Manly Man like Bee Jay.

    So we got two Drama Queens — one Hypermasculine, one Metrosexual (with no sense of style) in a situation where There Can Be Only One.

  42. May wrote:

    It basically goes something like this: If you leave the church, you’re leaving Jesus. Jesus and the church go together. And he died for the church. So get back to church. If you don’t you’re not a Christian.

    Same attitude that built the Berlin Wall.

    That’s about it folks. No sympathy or compassion from the Pied Piper.

    Only Purity of Ideology.
    Citizen Robespierre and/or Comrade Pol Pot would be proud.

  43. Bridget wrote:

    Abi Miah wrote:
    the purpose of which was stated by the interviewer to be to encourage people who have been deeply impacted by what happened and who are struggling to trust the church
    So Piper completely missed this then?
    Or, he simply spoke out of the abundance of his heart and frkm that we can see that people aren’t a priority. Piper’s ideals and concepts of his form of Calvinism are the priority. In so doing, Piper presents God as being concerned with those same ideals and not the actual men and women He created in his image. Does Piper realize this?

    I do think that this is one of the flaws in this ideology: ideas are more important than people. Are ideas/beliefs important, crucial even? Absolutely. Necessary, but not sufficient. It’s not enough to have correct abstract beliefs; if those beliefs are not applied by a life lived out in love, they are no longer the Gospel. James 2: 19 You believe that God is one. [You have the correct belief about God.]You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. [Oops. The devil could pass the exam if it is only about ideas.] The apostle John brings it home: 1 John 2:9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. 10 Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. 4:7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 4:19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.” It is really hard for me to understand people who know that their leader is egregiously deficient of love (e.g. consistently bullies people, is narcissistic etc.) and yet follow him because of the ideas he preaches from the pulpit. If his life is not one of love, I don’t see how it is not a false prophet, however theologically correct the sermons. And while saying this, of course I acknowledge that I am deficient in love as is everyone reading this. But there are clear degrees of it. A person with a habitual pattern of lack of empathy and trampling on others is different than a garden-variety person who loves well most of the time and is deficient at other times and repents of that deficiency when it is brought to her or his attention.

  44. Daisy wrote:

    I guess he realizes he can’t go on to make a living at being a preacher among more women-friendly congregations, churches, preachers, and denominations if he keeps pushing the ultra-hard line Reformed gender complementarian view.

    Which in turn tells me that Driscoll is not maybe personally convicted about any of this theology but is only drive by greed and profit.

    Isn’t Bee Jay being called to Plant a (Mega?)Church in Phoenix?

    Phoenix as in lotsa retirees? Many of who are pretty well off financially?

    (I drove through Phoenix years ago; square mile after square mile of Gated Retirement Communities. Like a cross between Irvine and Liesure World.)

  45. Bridget wrote:

    Abi Miah wrote:

    the purpose of which was stated by the interviewer to be to encourage people who have been deeply impacted by what happened and who are struggling to trust the church

    So Piper completely missed this then?

    Sounds in-character for Flutterhands.

    “Lucy, we may all be doomed but you’re going out in-character.”
    — I Love Lucy

  46. dee wrote:

    4. I know of one pastor in my area who made a big public “to do” about how absolutely broken up he was by Piper’s retirement. He couldn’t imagine a world without Piper.

    His God is dead?

  47. Deb –

    I guess someone needs to inform Driscoll that the grass is definitely not greener in Phoenix than in Seattle, since he doesn’t seem to grasp reality well 😉

  48. Why doesn’t Mr. Piper get as vocal about reaching out to the people who were hurt at MH? Why doesn’t he get vocal at all about them?

    I suspect it’s because they aren’t good communicators like Mr. Driscoll who can draw a crowd. not that he’d analyze it that way, but in reality I think that really is the reason he goes so public about Mr. Driscoll and is silent about everyone left behind.

  49. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Or, he simply spoke out of the abundance of his heart and frkm that we can see that people aren’t a priority. Piper’s ideals and concepts of his form of Calvinism are the priority. In so doing, Piper presents God as being concerned with those same ideals and not the actual men and women He created in his image. Does Piper realize this?
    Purity of Ideology, Comrade.
    Purity of Ideology.
    Especially since CALVIN Had God All Figured Out. Ha-Ruach only blows when and where and how CALVIN’s Institutes say it does.

    Citation needed. 😛

  50. Tim wrote:

    I suspect it’s because they aren’t good communicators like Mr. Driscoll who can draw a crowd.

    I believe the Apostle Paul had something to say about those who try to persuade with their speech.

  51. Abi Miah wrote:

    I do think that this is one of the flaws in this ideology: ideas are more important than people

    That’s kind of what the Pharisees believed, and Jesus butted heads with them frequently.

  52. Tim wrote:

    I suspect it’s because they aren’t good communicators like Mr. Driscoll who can draw a crowd.

    i.e. Driscoll is a CELEBRITY(TM) and they are Nobodies.

    It’s like how Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian can get on Oprah, utter “two plus two equals five”, and everyone in America squees and faints over This Great Eternal Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything.

  53. Bridget wrote:

    Deb –

    I guess someone needs to inform Driscoll that the grass is definitely not greener in Phoenix than in Seattle, since he doesn’t seem to grasp reality well

    Oh, the grass is VERY green there. Sprinklers running round-the-clock throughtout all the Planned Communities and Golf Courses. It’s at the point the atmo in the Valley of the Sun is humid enough you can breathe through gills and the aquifers under the city are looking mighty drained.

  54. Tim wrote:

    And on the greener grass metaphor, my friend Laura Droege just posted a short and wise piece on the shortcomings of looking elsewhere for fulfillment: https://lauradroege.wordpress.com/2015/08/05/comparison

    Assuming facts not in evidence, your honor?
    Who said Driscoll is seeking fulfillment?
    Driscoll is seeking fame and fortune, and he needs an audience that hasn’t seen his schtick yet.
    Hence Phoenix, a large, mostly unchurched metro area with growth potential.

  55. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Isn’t Bee Jay being called to Plant a (Mega?)Church in Phoenix?
    Phoenix as in lotsa retirees? Many of who are pretty well off financially?
    (I drove through Phoenix years ago; square mile after square mile of Gated Retirement Communities. Like a cross between Irvine and Liesure World.)

    As a resident of the Phoenix area, I can say this. We do have some well-off retirees who live in gated communities. (One of my aunts is one of those, for example.) There are even gated mobile home parks. But there are also a lot of senior living communities which are definitely scraping to get to middle class. Like everywhere else, the elderly are across all income levels.

    And we do have a Leisure World here. It’s in Mesa, just off Power Road, just north of Southern Boulevard. It has a beeeeig (maybe 20 feet across) metal globe out front.

    Also, it appears that Phoenix Bible Church is still a going thing in downtown Phoenix (about 20 miles from where I sit). The former pastor of the Mars Hill franchise in Phoenix is still running the show, at least according to their website.

    It also occurred to me that perhaps Robert Morris might help Driscoll start a church with the Association of Related Churches. And, by the way, while I was traveling in the Northeast last month, I met a young woman who normally lives in the South and attends an ARC church. She was looking for a church to attend, and she referred to ARC as her denomination. 0_0 No, I didn’t say anything because I wasn’t sure how much I wanted to dump on an 18 year old about the hmmmm “nature” of ARC churches.

  56. Is it a victory for Satan or simply God shaking His Church removing what is not of Him? We all have choices to make in how we handle hurt in our lives. I agree with Piper–as a pastor–that rejecting the Church is not a good way to deal with hurt. But sometimes we need some distance to heal when deeply wounded. Jesus went after the hurting sheep. He did not sit up there condemning them for not attending his “church.”

    IMO, a truly pastoral and godly response to the MD and MHC implosion is to reach out to the hurting sheep. Be empathetic. Don’t offer another shame-based beating because they find it hard to trust the church after being burned by MHC/MD. How is that restorative? It is just reinforcing the problems that hurt and drove the sheep away in the first place.

    Finally, it is sad to see Christian leaders fall, of course. But God is much bigger that that leader. Is it a tactical defeat or a revealing of the truth that MD is a sinner? God can redeem even the worst of circumstances. Why not use this to teach about the One True God who is anything BUT a bully like even MD admitted he was?

  57. Mark wrote:

    Hence Phoenix, a large, mostly unchurched metro area with growth potential.

    Oh, as a resident, I would strongly dispute that. We have churches everywhere. In my neck of the woods, in addition to the overwhelming influence of the Mormon church (and yes, I’m aware people don’t think Mormons are Christian, but leave that aside for a moment), there are three megas within two miles of my house, which is NOTHING travel for Phoenix. We have a couple dozen megas in the Phoenix area, to say nothing of the many, many Catholic parishes, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc., etc., etc., here. We are hardly the unchurched desert here.

  58. mirele wrote:

    Also, it appears that Phoenix Bible Church is still a going thing in downtown Phoenix (about 20 miles from where I sit). The former pastor of the Mars Hill franchise in Phoenix is still running the show, at least according to their website.

    SGM (aka SGC) has also had a church in the area for several decades now I believe. Plus there are many other churches. Phoenix is hardly an unchurched meca.

  59. Divorce Minister wrote:

    IMO, a truly pastoral and godly response to the MD and MHC implosion is to reach out to the hurting sheep. Be empathetic. Don’t offer another shame-based beating because they find it hard to trust the church after being burned by MHC/MD. How is that restorative? It is just reinforcing the problems that hurt and drove the sheep away in the first place.

    All very good points. I agree.

    A lot of Christian preachers treat folks who are dones, nones, or unchurched completely wrong.

    Chewing them out or shaming them for staying away from church is not going to win them back.

  60. In other news: close of play in the Fourth Test at Trent Bridge.

    England have edged the first day. Mainly because of the number of Australian batsmen who edged Stuart Broad, to slip.

  61. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    It does look like that. What sort of person thinks that some set of religious rules and instructions about how to be a man is necessary for people? Much less, who thinks that it is essential to ‘the gospel?’ Maybe it is people who think they need something like that themselves, coming from whatever level of strangeness they come from. And there is a noticeable level of strangeness in both these men-as you have said.

  62. The idea that leaving, or never being a part of, ‘the church’ is alienation from Christ is certainly not a new idea. We hear that from time to time from both sides of the Tiber. I don’t know what the orthodox think in this matter. I wonder what Piper would say to somebody who dragged themselves up from the ashes of Mars Hill and left the reformed movement and aligned themselves with a different christian tradition? I am thinking that Piper might re-word his comments to sound more like if somebody disagrees with him they have left Christ. Does Jesus know this? From what I have seen Piper is a lightweight when it comes to common sense.

  63. When Driscoll left his church, did he also leave Christ?

    Or is that a rule for “sheep only?”

    In our little corner of the world, we really believe that there are more serious believers outside the “church” than in. To some degree, like Elvis, “the Church has left the building.”

  64. @ Ken:

    “I listened to John Piper a few days ago for the first time. He wasn’t the ogre some people paint him to be, he was clear, and biblical.”
    ++++++++++

    biblical schmiblical…. what’s biblical to some is “Unbiblical” to many others, and pure horsesh## (ed.) yet many others still — all of whom believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again.

    of course Peeper didn’t come across as an ogre. he’s 5’4, spindly, & smiley, for gumballs’ sake. but he still eats people and is frightening and cruel (in a sweet, flowery kind of way).

    actually what’s frightening is the ridiculous influence he has over people who don’t recognize the people-eating things that come out of his mouth. he announces things from the ideological heights, ensconced from the experiential realities of his pronouncements; the portion of his audience who are objectivity-challenged carry out his pronouncements at ground level. He’s completely removed from it.

    of course his calculated silence instead of pronouncements is just as influential and just as destructive.

    (gah dam# (ed.)what a pathetic sub culture this is)
    ———-

    “This won’t help much, but something though really grated. I like preachers to be straight-talking, but with him there was a kind of über/over-authoritian element. I can’t quite put my finger on it, something wasn’t right and it surprised me as I have read a few of his sermons from earlier years and found them good.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++

    a perfect example. the fact that you recognize something amiss is good.

  65. Driscoll in Phoenix:

    I am not so sure that Driscoll will have much to do with the former MHC there as he pulled their funding very early and let them be one of the first campuses to collapse. Tim Birdwell, et al had to work hard to put Phoenix Bible together on their own. Downtown Phoenix is also nothing like downtown Seattle. There isn’t a hip, vibrant nightlife. People commute to downtown Phoenix, then go home. I have heard that the more run down neighborhoods in that area will not be appealing to a man with a millionaire lifestyle.
    .
    I also predict PBC won’t be nearly Pentecostal/Charismatic (P/C))enough for the New Improved Driscoll. Driscoll wants money. He needs a church that teaches the tithe and the first fruits offerings. To that end, let’s look at the three churches in the greater Phoenix area he is rumored to be creating ties with:
    .
    Gateway Scottsdale – P/C plant of Gateway Sourhlake. GW Scottsdale gets to preach their own sermons but uses all the GW fund raising pressure and sits firmly under the GW umbrella. Robert Morris claims to be “re-evangelizing” Mark and there are rumors that GW may help kick in some money to help fund a new plant for Mark. Gateway gave Mark his first speaking gig after his resignation.
    .
    City of Grace Church – This is rumored to be a Mark friendly church. City of Grace run by Terry and Judith Crist, is heavily Pentecostal. They are an official member of “The Hillsong Family” and consider Brian Houston their Bishop and Head Pastor. CGC uses Robert Morris of Gateway to teach their tithing heresy so they also have GW ties. Hillsong gsve Driscoll his largest post-resignation speaking gig despite a lot of protest. Why did Hillsong risk taking more heat? Because Mark 2.0 can’t be launched until he has said he has reconciled with those he hurt. The interview claimed this to be so. Mark can now move on. The science is settled.
    .
    Central Christian of Arizona – This is also rumored to be a Mark friendly church. He was apparently seen on campus. The church is run by the Jernigan dynasty. I was told CCA has Charismatic leanings and they do push the full 10% tithe. CCA also have ties to Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek as does GW.
    .
    Driscoll is going to want to run his own church. He already has the visible and ongoing support of the Gateway/Hillsong giga-brands. Take a look at Charisma News Magazine’s new sympathetic treatment of Driscoll. http://www.charismanews.com/search?searchword=mark%20driscoll&searchphrase=all Prior to the Hillsong Conference Charisma only ran stories chronicling MD’s misdeeds and MHC’s decline. After the big Pentecostal Hillsong Conference? Voila! On July 29th the headline “A Tearful Mark Driscoll Said God Convicted Him of Sinning Against Joel Osteen”. A week later on Aug 5th, “5 Lessons We Can Learn From Mark Driscoll Controversy”. If you read that one it is all about how we must not judge him as he made a few mistakes like all of us did in our boisterous youth. The lion’s share of that article criticizes those who dare to ask questions.
    .
    Charisma News is a the leading magazine for all Word Faith, NAR, Pentecostals, Charismatics, Toronto Blessing churches and their ilk. Why is founder and Publisher Stephen Strang “suddenly” bestowing sympathetic and supportive praise upon a non-Charismatic who has caused so much harm to his own sheep? Let’s see, recently Strang was bestowed an Honorary Doctorate by Robert Morris from his recently purchased Pentecostal school The King’s University. now “DOCTOR Strang” sits on the Board of Trustees of that school. Strang is paid to fly out to gorgeous resorts in Dallas and Southern California. He gets to attend posh ceremonies at the Sultan of Brunei’s Hotel and even more posh galas where he gets to mingle with celebrities galore. Doctor Strang now gets to rub elbows and socialize with the multi millionaire elite.
    .
    This is not for nothing. Driscoll IS going to be rebranded under the P/C umbrella. One can only imagine how many more headlines Strang will be bestowing upon the new poster boy for Charismania. I imagine Mark’s next book, which will be toured at all the big P/C churches, will chronicle Driscoll’s journey into P/C. For this blog, that should represent some interesting moments. Following the Foursquare Pentecostalism Movement means Mark will no longer be superior to women. I can’t wait to read his first post on Aimee Semple McPherson. I am pretty sure we can start calling him Elmer Driscoll.

  66. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Deb, Dee, Eagle, Everybody:
    Something that struck me when I was looking at another TWW article on Piper from about a year ago:
    Both Bee Jay Driscoll and Flutterhands Piper are Class-A Drama Queens who always have to be front-and-center onstage. With completely-different expressions of their Drama-Rama:
    .
    * Bee Jay’s Drama Queening is classic Hypermasculinity, all aggression cage-fighting and sexual prowess/appetite and Heroism (against Mr Machete which nobody can find any independent documentation) and throwing others under the bus by brute force. Hypermasculinity that wouldn’t look out-of-place on a Nuremberg Rally stage.
    * With some exceptions (such as “Watch it! She’s Got a Knife! But that OK, Piper has a COAT!”), Flutterhands Drama Queens in a stereotypically FEMALE manner — the fluttering hands, the lecturing voice over everything, literally a Nervous Nellie Church Lady. TERRIFIED of trivia like Muscular Women(TM). As Bee Jay is Hypermasculine, so Flutterhands is Feminine. No wonder he’s scared of women, his Superior Comp/Patrio Masculinity suffers in comparison. And he’s probably jealous as all hell of a REAL Manly Man like Bee Jay.
    So we got two Drama Queens — one Hypermasculine, one Metrosexual (with no sense of style) in a situation where There Can Be Only One.

    HUG – You are on fire today! I am starting to wonder if Driscoll’s tale about the machete wielder wasn’t referring to a verbal machete, For the record, where were you HUG on that night between the hours of 1:00am and 3:30am?

  67. LT wrote:

    For the record, where were you HUG on that night between the hours of 1:00am and 3:30am?

    At that time of night, crashed out in my bedroom.

  68. GSD wrote:

    When Driscoll left his church, did he also leave Christ?

    We are all meant to sit in the pews and shut up. Pastors are “called” to new churches. We, on the other hand, have been tempted by Satan to leave.

  69. Patti wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    ‘Got to be one of my favorite comments of yours, HUG! The whole thing.

    But ” . . . Piper has a COAT!” is going to stick with me forever.

    Comes from an actual comment thread, either here or at Spiritual Sounding Board, where Piper claimed to do some sort of exorcism on a demon-possessed college coed. Whatever happened, he played up his own Heroics as much as possible, including her trying for him with a knife/mini-machete. Most everyone on the thread was highly skeptical the incident happened in the first place.

  70. Abi Miah wrote:

    ” It is really hard for me to understand people who know that their leader is egregiously deficient of love (e.g. consistently bullies people, is narcissistic etc.) and yet follow him because of the ideas he preaches from the pulpit.

    Obviously, the followers are getting something out of it; that’s why they put up with the A-hole in the first place. Personal advantage? Ego-boo? Lure of the Inner Ring? Belonging to a One True Way mass movement? Tabaqui the Jackal sucking up to Shere Khan for the crumbs from the tiger’s kill? Flattered that “I Am Right and Everyone Else is Wrong”?

  71. One of the things I find interesting is that JP, CJ Mahaney, and MD all have the same deficit of character – they are rigid, authoritarian leaders with severe anger management issues. People have genetally forgotten that JP was forced to step down from his church for awhile for issues similar to MD. JP doesn’t see or understand because deep down he embraces those traits as those of an effective leader. He can’t even see the wrongness of it because if people would accept and bow to his authority, he wouldn’t have to get angry. His locus of control is outside of himself on that issue. In short, he is a victim of others pushing his buttons. So he sympathizes with MD.

  72. Mark wrote:

    Who said Driscoll is seeking fulfillment?
    Driscoll is seeking fame and fortune, and he needs an audience that hasn’t seen his schtick yet.

    i.e. Seeking easy marks.

    “Four-one-nine just a game;
    You be the Mugu,
    I be the Masta!”
    — “I Go Chop You Dolla”, Nigerian pop song about a con man

  73. Here’s question for Lyds:

    Since you have experience with the inner workings of mega-biggies, how do they rake in their best cash flow? Is it by one-time collections in their packed houses? Tithing units as HUG calls them? Or a combo of both?

    I suspect that demographics have much to do with it. In other words, the people getting fleeced in these mega-biggies have to be at a disposable income level in order for it to work, the downstrata simply cannot supply the moolah on a consistent basis.

    RE: LT above on the Phoenix – Scottsdale connection:
    People with large incomes tend to have a sophistication level not consistent with fundagelical aims and designs. How then do men like Morris and Houston mine the gold in these exclusive enclaves?

  74. Velour wrote:

    John Piper consistently used the wrong “d” word – “defective” to describe Mark Driscoll instead of the appropriate word DESTRUCTIVE. Mark Driscoll has been DESTRUCTIVE in the lives of countless Christians (the firing/excommunication/shunning of a godly Christian elder like Paul Petry and his family for Mr. Petry’s opposing the consolidation of Driscoll’s power; the firing/excommunication/shunning of Bent Meyer; the excommunications/shunnings of countless others).

    Excellent point. Piper’s defense of Piper’s weakness when he should have been “leading” is weak. Piper owns Driscoll *and* Doug Wilson. He vouched for both of them. He co-signed their credibility loan. They defaulted. Time for Piper to man up.

  75. Muff Potter wrote:

    People with large incomes tend to have a sophistication level not consistent with fundagelical aims and designs.

    Not always Muff. Some are as doltish as they are dull and have simply bulldozed their way into the ranks of the Nouveau riche by brute force.

  76. @ Abi Miah:
    That’s a great summary. I don’t think that it is an accident that we saw the same mindset play out at The Village. As long as you hold the right doctrines, anything you do is implicitly OK. It means never having to say you got the doctrine *and* the practice wrong. It is about power and position. Driscoll made Piper look like an idiot, and Piper is trying to say, I guess, that Driscoll is to blame for Piper’s own failure to be a guardian of the church. Piper cares not for the little people, judging by what we have seen in the public sphere. He may be a decent person, but he is a terrible theologian and a worse leader.

  77. Rule of thumb 1: If the attempt to explain something away is longer and more convoluted than the something itself ever was, there’s probably something really wrong with both.

  78. Ron wrote:

    However, having listened to the questioner’s question and John’s response I can’t say that this man has no concern or compassion at all about those who were hurt by the leadership of the church. He seems to be trying to answer the question within the scope that it has been asked.

    If it looks like damage control instead of a forthright admission of his own failure to discern a false teacher in the church, then it probably is damage control. Where is any acknowledgement of the pain this man caused to so many people? Do you know how many have left Jesus, not the organized church, but Jesus because this man and his supporters like Piper said he was a great teacher of God’s word?

    Does what you see in the threads here really bother you more than what the “leaders” of the church do which besmirches the name of Jesus?

  79. LT wrote:

    Following the Foursquare Pentecostalism Movement means Mark will no longer be superior to women. I can’t wait to read his first post on Aimee Semple McPherson. I am pretty sure we can start calling him Elmer Driscoll.

    I’m not familiar with Foursquare. Is Gateway part of that? Also, which church is Grudem’s church in Phoenix? Grudem and Driscoll are tight as ticks. Or were.

  80. Gram3 wrote:

    Ron wrote:
    I can’t say that this man has no concern or compassion at all about those who were hurt by the leadership of the church.

    If it looks like damage control instead of a forthright admission of his [John Piper’s] own failure to discern a false teacher in the church, then it probably is damage control. Where is any acknowledgement of the pain this man caused to so many people? Do you know how many have left Jesus, not the organized church, but Jesus because this man and his supporters like Piper said he was a great teacher of God’s word?

    John Piper does know that people will be watching these interviews and it was his responsibility to boldly state that Mark Driscoll: a) has no business pastoring a church and isn’t Biblically qualified; and b) has to go to all of the people he harmed, as well in public forums, and ask for forgiveness and state that he was wrong.

  81. This just confirms what the advent of social media revealed several years ago – John Piper is a fool. That may sound harsh to some, but I am not saying that in a judgmental way. It is simply a self-evident fact.

  82. Divorce Minister wrote:

    I agree with Piper–as a pastor–that rejecting the Church is not a good way to deal with hurt.

    it really depends on how we define “church” doesn’t it?

  83. GSD wrote:

    When Driscoll left his church, did he also leave Christ?

    Or is that a rule for “sheep only?”

    In our little corner of the world, we really believe that there are more serious believers outside the “church” than in. To some degree, like Elvis, “the Church has left the building.”

    All the rules of these elite little men are for the sheep, not for the head honcho, err, shepherds. When they sin it’s not their fault, when we sin, it’s because we’re carnal, faithless.
    Agree many fine, sincere, faithful believers do not attend church. I honestly believe if Jesus were here today, he would be found teaching/preaching in the parks, the playgrounds,the riverside, the seashore, NOT in the pulpit.

  84. Ken wrote:

    I listened to John Piper a few days ago for the first time. He wasn’t the ogre some people paint him to be, he was clear, and biblical.

    He is extremely popular and something I have been trying to figure out for about 15 years since some family members went up to MN to study with him and work for him. They came back as zombies who did not think ANY of us knew the true Gospel. I got interested in Piper and started reading and listening to his stuff to figure it out. There is extreme flowery verbosity with passionate voice inflections and lots of waving of hands. He almost reminds of a variation of “Chancey Gardiner” in Being There. Although I do believe Piper puts on a veneer of passionate verbosity to suck people in. It is his shtick but in reality he is a shock jock. He just does not look like one. I thought him a false teacher way back when I heard his “Scream of the damned” in 2009. I was so done. At that point, he became a very scary false teacher to me.

    He really makes little sense when one strips all of the accouterments away and looks for real/basic content/substance. His stature and demeanor throw people off and give him an air of sincerity and harmlessness.

    His tweets over the last year really tell us more about him. And it is not good.

  85. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    Totally agree. The problem is people think it is a sin to say so but there are way too many young minds full of mush who hang on his every word for us not to speak up and point out what should be obvious.

  86. @ John:

    Problem for Piper is there is a video floating around out there somewhere with Piper saying that Driscoll repented and all is well with him. I think it was either 2009 or 2011. It is connected with Driscoll teaching at a DG conference.

  87. @ Ron:

    Since you are not part of the neo-cal movement, and are not familiar with the men being discussed, is it possible you don’t grasp what many people here are concerned about?

  88. On a different note, today has been the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

    Debate will always rage on whether or not more people (civilian or otherwise) would have died had the bombs not been dropped. We can never know what would have happened if. Indeed, more people probably died in the conventional fire-bombing of Tokyo than died in either of the atomic bombings. Nevertheless, Hiroshima has necessarily become an enduring symbol of the horrors of war, that should not be forgotten.

    In memoriam: Hiroshima, 6th August, 1945

  89. @ Ron:

    Ron, I know many guys who have followed him for years who think he is biblical and and practically Jesus Christ himself. I know guys who will stand in line in rain to touch his hand. So, I never know how to respond to such comments. I don’t think it is a matter of opinion because I do believe that rotten fruit is a big problem in Christendom when it comes to leaders. Some just don’t think it is rotten if the doctrine is correct.

  90. Lydia wrote:

    Ken wrote:
    I listened to John Piper a few days ago for the first time. He wasn’t the ogre some people paint him to be, he was clear, and biblical.
    He is extremely popular and something I have been trying to figure out for about 15 years since some family members went up to MN to study with him and work for him. They came back as zombies who did not think ANY of us knew the true Gospel. I got interested in Piper and started reading and listening to his stuff to figure it out. There is extreme flowery verbosity with passionate voice inflections and lots of waving of hands. He almost reminds of a variation of “Chancey Gardiner” in Being There. Although I do believe Piper puts on a veneer of passionate verbosity to suck people in.

    Close to my impression of Piper. He does not seem mean and nasty like Mohler or MacAthur, but he really does not have a very solid theological basis. Have you ever seen him do some exegesis? He can proof text! People think he is “Biblical”, but if you truly study scripture, how do you support his Christian hedonism or the two wills of God.
    I referenced this article\video in a previous thread. I think Bill M had a great take on it:

    Pastor Piper prattled a pack of pompous poppycock;
    A pack of pompous poppycok Pastor Piper prattled;
    If Pastor Piper prattled a pack of pompous poppycock,
    Where’s the pack of pompous poppycock Pastor Piper prattled?

  91. dee wrote:

    1. Piper has claimed tornadoes and bridge collapses were caused by God to have people repent. There was no mention of Satan in those instances. Now, when its one of his boys, its Satan.
    2. If I remember correctly, Johna Petry wrote Piper and asked for his help. Dead silence for the guy who can’t seem to pipe down about other issues. Piper has also supported CJ Mahaney never once throwing a bone to victims of these tragic leaders. Piper does not care about victims.
    3.Piper has made his interpretation of all events gospel™ and there are plenty of young, stupid men out there who will run around quoting this word for word.
    4. I know of one pastor in my area who made a big public “to do” about how absolutely broken up he was by Piper’s retirement. He couldn’t imagine a world without Piper. It is nonsense like that and nonsense like this in the post that makes me realize just how many of these young guys cannot introspect worth a dime.
    5. You bet it was defeat for complementarianism. TWW has had Driscoll’s antics in our scopes from the very beginning of this blog. If women are not supposed to judge leaders and supposed to leave it up to the men, what does this say about the men like Piper? He, along with a long list of celeb pastors and seminary Presidents and theologians along with a healthy group within TGC have shown that they have very little discernment.
    6. And of course, if a victim is hurting and walks away from the church, it is the victims fault because they should know they are walking away from Jesus. This is the ultimate statement of bull****. Piper will not admit they are running from men like him, Driscoll, Mahaney, etc. They are the problem and they are the modern day Pharisees.
    Rant now ends while I get a second cup of coffee.

    Couldn’t agree more.

  92. elastigirl wrote:

    biblical schmiblical…. what’s biblical to some is “Unbiblical” to many others, and pure horsesh## (ed.) yet many others still — all of whom believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again.

    of course Peeper didn’t come across as an ogre. he’s 5’4, spindly, & smiley, for gumballs’ sake. but he still eats people and is frightening and cruel (in a sweet, flowery kind of way).

    actually what’s frightening is the ridiculous influence he has over people who don’t recognize the people-eating things that come out of his mouth. he announces things from the ideological heights, ensconced from the experiential realities of his pronouncements; the portion of his audience who are objectivity-challenged carry out his pronouncements at ground level. He’s completely removed from it.

    of course his calculated silence instead of pronouncements is just as influential and just as destructive.

    Agree, I don’t think he is a mean guy. But what he says does hurt and destroy people. I think he is removed from it. He also is very much about the ideology. That is why he comes down hard on the Supreme Court, Greg Boyd, etc.; however saying negative things about Driscoll, Wilson, Mahaney, etc. is very problematic for him.
    Does he not come across as very insincere, in the article, when he says that he thought he had more influence but that he didn’t? Does anyone actually buy that. If he had decided to stand with the victims at Mars Hill, do you not think he could have made a marked difference considering his influence?

  93. Will M wrote:

    Does he not come across as very insincere, in the article, when he says that he thought he had more influence but that he didn’t?

    Hmm. What year was it when the Petry’s contacted Piper because he was known as a “mentor” to Driscoll? He would not “get involved”.

  94. Will M wrote:

    He does not seem mean and nasty like Mohler or MacAthur, but he really does not have a very solid theological basis.

    I have not followed him all that much, but what you have said is on the spot. From these videos here he seems personable and earnest and more than willing to try to help, but then he doesn’t–help, that is. He says nothing of any content, but the nothing that he says he says rather well. I do think that what is in his heart shows through, however, and what that seems to be is the system and the ideology but not the people. Even is his ideology (theology) were sound this neglect of compassion for the actual people that he was asked to say speak to-those hurt by the fiasco- looks cold hearted. It is weird to watch. All that warmth on the outside with that apparent cold on the inside–‘sumthin ain’t rite there.’

  95. Will M wrote:

    People think he is “Biblical”, but if you truly study scripture, how do you support his Christian hedonism or the two wills of God.
    I referenced this article\video in a previous thread.

    Thanks for reminding me! His Christian Hedonism goes way back and I remember not being able to wrap my head around it as many around me were absolutely smitten with it. The two wills was something we really debated later because it causes huge problems and makes God out to be a bait and switch monster.

    I really believe that Piper’s demeanor and passionate flowery verbosity keeps people from analyzing what he is really teaching….which is really nothing but cognitive dissonance. It is almost as if his goal is to keep people mesmerized and in confusion.

  96. Lydia wrote:

    It is almost as if his goal is to keep people mesmerized and in confusion.

    Lydia God is the God of order, Satan is the god of confusion.

  97. dee wrote:

    GSD wrote:

    When Driscoll left his church, did he also leave Christ?

    We are all meant to sit in the pews and shut up. Pastors are “called” to new churches. We, on the other hand, have been tempted by Satan to leave.

    Or…tempted by “Satin” (sic) or “Stan” (sic).

  98. @ okrapod:

    His dad, Bill Piper, was a traveling Bob Jones evangelist who later went to the SBC. He grew up in the world of making a living with “stage personas” and strict fundamentalism. Some of his tweets over the last 2 years are reminiscent of that world where careless women make men sin.

  99. I’m curious Will M wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Ken wrote:
    I listened to John Piper a few days ago for the first time. He wasn’t the ogre some people paint him to be, he was clear, and biblical.
    He is extremely popular and something I have been trying to figure out for about 15 years since some family members went up to MN to study with him and work for him. They came back as zombies who did not think ANY of us knew the true Gospel. I got interested in Piper and started reading and listening to his stuff to figure it out. There is extreme flowery verbosity with passionate voice inflections and lots of waving of hands. He almost reminds of a variation of “Chancey Gardiner” in Being There. Although I do believe Piper puts on a veneer of passionate verbosity to suck people in.
    Close to my impression of Piper. He does not seem mean and nasty like Mohler or MacAthur, but he really does not have a very solid theological basis. Have you ever seen him do some exegesis? He can proof text! People think he is “Biblical”, but if you truly study scripture, how do you support his Christian hedonism or the two wills of God.
    I referenced this article\video in a previous thread. I think Bill M had a great take on it:
    Pastor Piper prattled a pack of pompous poppycock;
    A pack of pompous poppycok Pastor Piper prattled;
    If Pastor Piper prattled a pack of pompous poppycock,
    Where’s the pack of pompous poppycock Pastor Piper prattled?

    What’s the feedback on John MacArthur? I’m not super comfortable with the idea of celebrity pastors in general, but he *seems* to be a better one. I listen to sermons when I work and he seems to me reasonable and humble. Am I wrong?

  100. @ Lydia:

    Stage persona is probably what I was seeing. And it may look so authentic if he started so young that it is a part of him now, or something like that. Pulpit presence, bedside manner and all that.

  101. @ Will M:

    “Does he not come across as very insincere, in the article, when he says that he thought he had more influence but that he didn’t? Does anyone actually buy that. If he had decided to stand with the victims at Mars Hill, do you not think he could have made a marked difference considering his influence?”
    +++++++++++++++

    the least he could have done is TRIED.

  102. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Will M:

    “Does he not come across as very insincere, in the article, when he says that he thought he had more influence but that he didn’t? Does anyone actually buy that. If he had decided to stand with the victims at Mars Hill, do you not think he could have made a marked difference considering his influence?”
    +++++++++++++++

    the least he could have done is TRIED.

    Dr. Paul Tripp, who was sought out by the Mars Hill Board and became a Board member who resigned was bold about Mars Hill: Deal with your sin or die as a church. Tripp said of Mars Hill:
    ““I am not worried at all at burning my integrity for the real deal, but I won’t burn it for something that’s not the real deal. I don’t think even now that there is the recognition of the depth of what Mars Hill Church and Mark is actually dealing with. This is without a doubt, the most abusive, coercive ministry culture I’ve ever been involved with.”

    http://www.religionnews.com/2014/08/28/step-full-text-mars-hill-pastors-letter-mark-driscoll/

  103. Lydia wrote:

    Some of his tweets over the last 2 years are reminiscent of that world where careless women make men sin.

    We have a case of ‘careless’ woman right now-today. True case. Office romance, dirty pics via e-mail, discovery by wife and now copies of the pics have gone to the pastor and asap to the lawyer. I have not heard if copies are ready to go to their employer if he contests the divorce, just have to wait and see.

    She did not make him sin, but men should never get up with ‘careless’ women.

  104. LT wrote:

    City of Grace Church – This is rumored to be a Mark friendly church. City of Grace run by Terry and Judith Crist, is heavily Pentecostal. They are an official member of “The Hillsong Family” and consider Brian Houston their Bishop and Head Pastor. CGC uses Robert Morris of Gateway to teach their tithing heresy so they also have GW ties. Hillsong gsve Driscoll his largest post-resignation speaking gig despite a lot of protest. Why did Hillsong risk taking more heat? Because Mark 2.0 can’t be launched until he has said he has reconciled with those he hurt. The interview claimed this to be so. Mark can now move on. The science is settled.

    I drive by the Mesa outlet when I go to work as the campus is 2 miles from my house.

    Central Christian of Arizona – This is also rumored to be a Mark friendly church. He was apparently seen on campus. The church is run by the Jernigan dynasty. I was told CCA has Charismatic leanings and they do push the full 10% tithe. CCA also have ties to Bill Hybels’ Willow Creek as does GW.

    This is even closer to home than City of Grace. Never been there. (He’s been there?) Heuuuuuge parking lots put me off. Today and tomorrow they’re running some sort of Willow Creek Global something or other pseudo business thing that costs $200/head to attend. Nope. I should drive by tomorrow after the thing kicks off to see what kind of attendance they have…

    The third mega near me is Living Word Bible Church. It’s actually more Word/Faith oriented and they have all the first tier people (like Creflo Dollar) through every year. Never been there either. I’m probably still on their list for when I turned them in for endorsing a local candidate in violation of their 501(c)3 tax exemption. *smirk*

    I’m not even going to guess where Driscoll is going to end up.

  105. @ okrapod:
    If men are so incapable of controlling their libidos, they should not be in “headship” over women (as comps teach). They want it both ways:

    1. men should control women (with implicit belief that there is something inherently flawed with the female gender)
    but
    2. Men are easily controlled and swayed by attractive women

  106. Will M wrote:

    Does he not come across as very insincere, in the article, when he says that he thought he had more influence but that he didn’t?

    I think it was a pro forma response in a staged event to get the Driscoll Matter behind him, or attempt to do so. Yes, he definitely could have found a mic somewhere or a blog or a twitter account to voice his concerns. He frets on Twitter over couples down by the river but not a peep about Driscoll’s destruction of at least hundreds, if not thousands. Not even an admission that he was wrong in his assessment of Driscoll. Piper will not man up, and I suspect it is because Piper is all about Piper’s glory which he has confused with God’s glory. Bill M is totally right about Piper Poppycock.

  107. Gram3 wrote:

    LT wrote:
    Following the Foursquare Pentecostalism Movement means Mark will no longer be superior to women. I can’t wait to read his first post on Aimee Semple McPherson. I am pretty sure we can start calling him Elmer Driscoll.
    I’m not familiar with Foursquare. Is Gateway part of that? Also, which church is Grudem’s church in Phoenix? Grudem and Driscoll are tight as ticks. Or were.

    Technically Gateway bills themselves as ARC. However, if you look at their Apostolic elders, their history and practices and their acquisition and proliferation of the Foursquare King’s University, they are Foursquare in all things substantive. Through King’s they are trying to export Foursquare all over the world. Foursquare was developed by Aimee Semple McPherson in the 1920’s. It does not go back to the Church of Corinth as Gateway teaches. McPherson revolutionized religion by turning it into spectacular entertainment that was accessible to all. She built the big Angelus Temple in Echo Park (Los Angeles) and claims to have had millions of followers. GW Apostolic Elder, founder of King’s College, and co-founder of Gateway, Jack Hayford, is currently one of the most famous Foursquare figures.

    In the 1920’s McPherson employed hundreds of musicians and singers, created elaborate sets, gave extremely theatrical illustrated sermons, “evangelized” at speakeasies and bars, and moved to Hollywood where she pioneered Christian broadcasting. She couldn’t agree on a major studio contract but made short films as an independent actress playing herself. Upton Sinclair wrote about her in the book the movie “There Will Be Blood” is based on. Paul Dano played a Foursquare guy in that movie. Sister Sharon in Elmer Gantry is also based on McPherson’s early years when she worked the tent revivals, prior to her high life in LA. Aimee also brought high fashion to religion with her high end furs and luxurious wardrobe and trendy styles and accessories.

    She sold out revivals everywhere. However, when her glamor waned she was accused of staging her own 5 week kidnapping and ransom in order to put her back in the limelight – which it did. She was also married three times, allegedly had numerous affairs, including trysts with Milton Berle. She was institutionalized off and on, estranged from most her family at some point and in the end died prematurely by ingesting a half bottle of Seconal she had illegally obtained. Good thing she could cast out all those demons for cash.

    But one of her most important inventions? She kept all the weird stuff in a separate tent or room so it didn’t scare away the mainstream. People like Robert Morris and Jimmy Evans use that tactic to this day. Keep the exorcisms, speaking in tongues, writhing on floors, etc in a different room from the spectacular entertainment show. Smart churches know to bill their church as “non-denominational evangelical” if they want the big money and make it appear that way for first time visitors. A lot of the Empowered 21 guys are Foursquare. That City of Grace Church in Phoenix hides their Pentecostalism as well. They have a freaky Pentecostal past out of Tulsa, OK and Jackson, MS. I will be surprised if you can’t see the similarities between McPherson and the way places like Gateway and Hillsong are run. (Hillsong is AOG but the show business aspect is still there).

    As for Guudem…. I thought he was like Kenneth Copeland or Joyce Meyer where he makes all his coin through teaching, preaching and selling media verses having a church. Idk much about him outside of the blind devotion he inspires. Go Wayne Grudem.

  108. Will M wrote:

    Where’s the pack of pompous poppycock Pastor Piper prattled?

    And here I though I’d sit his one out because I couldn’t listen to Piper prattle.

    While I’m fairly new to this whole xtian celebrity culture, Piper first came up in an email from my son and not from reading here. It was the “one slap rule” Piper gave to women who suffer abuse. I was surprised at the time that he later tried to clarify what he said but it was still seriously messed up. We can all say something messed but in Piper’s case he still couldn’t get it right despite a lot of attention and a second try. I wrote him off at the time as a Nimrod. (Bugs Bunny sense of the word)

    Piper and Driscoll both peddle pompous popycock, unfortunately as Gram3 pointed out, it finds a home with their admirers. Is there an emoticon for head spinning? HUG refers to Piper as “Flutterhands Piper” and for some reason I’d always misread his comments as “Flutterhead Piper”.

  109. @ Lydia:

    Yes, that definition is critical. I use capital “Church” for good reason. A particular church–even a big one–isn’t the “CHURCH.” God’s people can be found in many places.

  110. @ LT:
    Thanks for that background. I think there are California and PacNW things like Foursquare and Calvary Chapel that I just haven’t come across. Probably like somebody from that area has trouble getting the culture of the SBC and how it has not always been this way.

    But, really. Uncle Miltie fell for her? I’m guessing anyone who came out of that mess might want to steer a hundred miles clear of a female pastor/evangelist, thinking that her femaleness was the explanation for her pathology.

  111. @ Gram3:

    I suppose he knew his influence meant nothing when he made a point to go Mahaney’s SGC in Louisville to prop up Mahaney?

  112. @ Beaux:
    John MacArthur is a total patriarchist. He believes women should not be allowed to work outside the home. He says that it’s okay for women to start teaching a women’s or children’s Sunday School class when she’s about 60, after she is past the age when all of the children she might have been biologically able to have would be grown.

  113. Lydia wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    I suppose he knew his influence meant nothing when he made a point to go Mahaney’s SGC in Louisville to prop up Mahaney?

    I’m pretty sure if Mahaney had listed to Piper, the whole thing at SGM would not have melted down. Piper was just trying to help fill in the “defective” parts of Mahaney’s ministry because the meltdown had absolutely nothing to do with theology. Nothing at all to do with the authoritarianism that Piper and Company push.

  114. Muff Potter wrote:

    RE: LT above on the Phoenix – Scottsdale connection:
    People with large incomes tend to have a sophistication level not consistent with fundagelical aims and designs. How then do men like Morris and Houston mine the gold in these exclusive enclaves?

    Sorry this won’t be a quick answer. Many of Houston’s members are working and middle class. Houston only makes a fraction of what Gateway does despite Hillsong being more famous and having far more campuses. Hillsong people go and give because they want to be a part of a world wide hipster movement. That and the music make them feel good. As for Morris, I don’t think education and income level guarantee discernment. Dentists and doctors tend to report more investment fleecing and financial scams than any other demographic. They are educated, wealthy and generally very skeptical by nature – still they succumb.

    In Texas, many successful people feel compelled to belong to a church. It’s part of their insurance that they will stay successful. Southlake is a Stepford Community. It is is called Perfect City, USA http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2007/september/southlake-welcome-to-perfect-city-usa Attending a big fancy church with a celebrity on staff (like Kari Jobe) ads to your personal prestige. All this drives up church attendance significantly.

    Next, you decide which church? Again, this is Texas where bigger is better. These megas are seen like country clubs. The rich and famous want to belong to the biggest and the best. Once you are a member then you want to become an esteemed member. You can’t even volunteer unless you tithe 10% of your gross. The average household income in Southlake is $226,000. Gateway draws the creme de la creme of Southlake so many households are significantly north of that. Robert claims to have 36,000 members, all of whom live in affluent communities. The math isn’t that difficult.

    At GW, the more you give, the higher up you move in circles. Big fish in Southlake will want to be the big fish at GW. Being a big donor has it’s rewards. Upon early business retirement, millionaires are rewarded with big 6 figure pastor jobs where they mostly just have to take mission trips to Europe and attend occasional staff chapel and run up the GW credit cards. Not too shabby for a few years of big giving. Lower level people see that and want it too, so they give till it hurts. GW makes sure to give away a lot of stuff too, so everyone wants to be part of the extravaganza. Volunteers are treated to red carpet events with paparazzi, extremely high end catering and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. They produce full color glossy magazine every single month – a different one at each campus – so you and your children are bound to be featured in a Gateway Life Magazine if you only give enough. The big givers get magazine covers. Rich, educated people want that.

    Indoctrination begins at birth to ensure the cycle continues. From toddler on up “The Blessed Life” tithing and extravagant giving program is taught and reinforced. The kids who give the most are given special recognition and even some very expensive prizes. Teams of marketing executives and media experts work around the clock to ensure your Stepford experience will meet your every need and expectation. Before you know it your church family is your only family. They consume your entire life. By the time you notice something is dreadfully wrong, you will have to upend your picture perfect life in order to leave. Who wants to do that? This is how Morris took in $114 MILLION from just five campuses in 2014.

    For people who just attend the weekend services, they are mostly drawn in by the entertainment and aren’t exposed to too much fungelicalism. The kids ministries are all designed as amusement parks and are called God’s Amazement Park. Every Sunday is run like a Nickelodeon Kid’s Choice award show with green slime and more Hostess cakes than you could ever imagine. More prizes too. Of course, kids want to go. GW just finished their big junior/senior high conference. The kids were lavished with free swag bags, t-shirts, books, the works plus literal tons of free really nice catered food. It’s like a Rio Carnivale there with the food, great rock music, dancing, laser show and more confetti cannons than at the Super Bowl. The pastors just talk about their smoking hot wives and act as professional comedians between music sets. Parents think “great my kids love church and Jesus” The kids think “great mom and dad are off my back and this youth pastor tells jokes and encourages us to check out the honies in this darkened room with no one watching plus free food and swag to boot”. Everyone’s needs are met….almost.

    Gateway has kept most of their weirder stuff off the main platform until more recently. This summer they did a big five week End Times series telling people that the Rapture will occur sometime between this September and May 2018 at the latest. If people start listening to what is said, we will see how it works out, long term. They are also doing Miracle Crusades each month in 2015, claiming hundreds of confirmed miracles. The stakes are being raised. Maybe the level of discernment will be too.
    .
    As for Scottsdale? That’s a horse of a different color. Preston Morrison of GW launched the GW Scottsdale campus in 2012. He got up to about 380 people pretty quickly, then stagnated and stagnated. With Cody Carnes and Kari Jobe moving to Scottsdale it has gone up a bit, but is way below GW high standards. They only have 10 paid staff for the whole campus, verses GW’s 550 staff for the 5 Texas campuses.

    Phoenix is “unchurched” for a reason. It is not a lack of churches. People are very outdoorsy there. They like their hiking, tennis, swimming, boating, wakeboarding, golf, etc. They need their weekends for that. They also drink a lot, therefore, they don’t want to be judged. As a culture they do not feel compelled to go to church the same way people in Texas do. That is why these churches have to hide any fungelical stuff. They need to focus on selling entertainment and instant community. Even then, the whole tithe thing is a harder sell outside of the South.

    Scottsdale Bible is the big boss in Scottsdale. While their manly man pastor may hire Mark Driscoll for one off-site conference, I am not sure how much yardage they will yield to Driscoll on the executive level. They know all the other pastors in Scottsdale and control a lot of opinion. Driscoll is a hothead who courts bad press. The other pastors don’t want him rocking their money boats with bad PR that calls their entire industry into question. Driscoll is an outsider. The Dallas Morning News is too afraid to publish bad articles about megas. I doubt the Phoenix papers will share that concern. If a Gateway Scottsdale WITH a Kari Jobe is floundering, with almost unlimited access to resources, how well is Mark Driscoll really going to do in that area? Only time will tell. He will need to change his wardrobe though.

  115. elastigirl wrote:

    awe, Deebs, ‘horsh#t’ isn’t a bad word.

    I stand in solidarity with you elastigirl. I think we need to get over — my poor virgin ears!!! syndrome, and the quicker the better

    elastigirl wrote:

    it’s a technical word.

    Amen! There are times when a colorful word used sparingly can add a kind of panache to your writing that is not achievable by other means and techniques.

  116. Gram3 wrote:

    @ LT:
    Thanks for that background. I think there are California and PacNW things like Foursquare and Calvary Chapel that I just haven’t come across. Probably like somebody from that area has trouble getting the culture of the SBC and how it has not always been this way.
    But, really. Uncle Miltie fell for her? I’m guessing anyone who came out of that mess might want to steer a hundred miles clear of a female pastor/evangelist, thinking that her femaleness was the explanation for her pathology.

    I am still stunned I knew something religious that you didn’t. You are a vault of knowledge Gram3. The International Church of Foursquare claims 8 million members. However, I think they are so fringe that many keep their adherence on the DL like Robert Morris. Despite Robert being one of them I had never once heard of it until Gateway bought Jack Hayford’s school, The King’s University, just a few years ago. If as a pastor, you have to hide your true beliefs, then you need to get out of that line of work.

    That’s why the Driscoll gig could be amusing. How does Mr. Northwest gel his current macho lumberjack hipster reformist identity into a Southern fried, tongue speaking, miracle crusade, revival throwing, tithe or die, poofy hair Pentecostal showman? I am not joking about the cover of Charisma Magazine. The P/C’s are preparing for his entry. Can you imagine how much cognitive dissonance he will be facing this year? I realize it’s all just “acting for dollars” but I think Driscoll did used to drink his own Kool-Aid at MHC. Seeing him on The View hocking Real Marriage is one thing. Seeing him on the set of Table Talk with Joni Lamb on Daystar, trading hair styling tips with Joseph Prince is another.

    Here’s the quick Uncle Miltie story. He leave McPherson with a great one-liner http://www.showbiz411.com/2012/11/18/kathie-lee-gifford-leaves-out-juicy-part-of-aimee-semple-mcpherson-life-uncle-miltie

  117. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Beaux:
    John MacArthur is a total patriarchist.

    And the comps/patriarchists show a shocking contempt for other men too. The first person to be ordered to be excommunicated and shunned at my former church just so happened to be a godly doctor (married for 40+ years to his wife, loving marriage, loving father to grown children) and a man who is a long-time personal friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s. The doctor’s “crime”? He disagreed in private with the way the pastors/elders were running the church and based it on Scripture. (My former pastor learned his hateful comp doctrine from John MacArthur and shows contempt for women and men! He expects all to obey.)

  118. Gram3 wrote:

    @ LT:
    Thanks for that background. I think there are California and PacNW things like Foursquare and Calvary Chapel that I just haven’t come across. Probably like somebody from that area has trouble getting the culture of the SBC and how it has not always been this way.
    But, really. Uncle Miltie fell for her? I’m guessing anyone who came out of that mess might want to steer a hundred miles clear of a female pastor/evangelist, thinking that her femaleness was the explanation for her pathology.

    BTW she had plenty of very strange men working all around her, and her son Rolf ran the empire for another 40 years after her untimely death. She had a lot of mental problems that I don’t think were gender related, other than providing her with the more female acceptable ruse of fainting anytime she received questions from the media or police that she had problems answering.

  119. @ Velour:
    Acts 5:29. “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

    I say God bless the good doctor!

  120. Nancy2 wrote:

    @ Velour:
    Acts 5:29. “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

    I say God bless the good doctor!

    Amen!

  121. LT wrote:

    They have a freaky Pentecostal past out of Tulsa, OK and Jackson, MS.

    I saw somewhere (here at TWW?) the Crists got their start at the Jackson College of Music (which apparently no longer exists). I wonder if it was during the time Lanny Wolfe was a huge big deal. The then-dean of JCM was/is no slouch, he was a magna cum laude grad of the law school of the University of Texas Law School and is currently heading up the United Pentecostal Church oneness pentecostal denomination. (That’d be David K. Bernard.)

    Never been to CoG, but I’ve driven by it literally hundreds of times over the last 15 years.

  122. LT wrote:

    Dentists and doctors tend to report more investment fleecing and financial scams than any other demographic. They are educated, wealthy and generally very skeptical by nature – still they succumb.

    You see this with Scientology as well. Chiropractors and dentists tend to get sucked in by management companies teaching L. Ron Hubbard and then get converted into Scientologists. It’s happening less often, but I know/know of a few ex-Scienos who are dentists.

  123. @ Will M:
    “Pastor Piper prattled a pack of pompous poppycock.”

    Piper says: “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.” He also says that God seeks to maximise his own glory. Piper then must say that God will maximise the number of people who can be “most satisfied in him”. However he does not, claiming rather that God has determined “in eternity past” who, through no choice of their own, but by God’s unchangeable decree, would receive salvation and who would not. So on Piper’s system God seeks to maximise his glory and then ensures that it cannot be maximised.

    He can’t have it both ways. Either God

  124. God wrote:

    A man after My own heart!
    Best regards,
    God

    Thank you. I am pleased to know that my thoughts are in tune with Yours. I will let Nick know that his are too.

  125. God wrote:

    A man after My own heart!

    I note Your use of an upper case “M” in the pronoun referring to Yourself. I have been butting heads with the elders of the church I attend over their insistence on upper case first letters in every pronoun referring to You. I guess I should now concede that point.

    There are other issues on which I am seriously at odds with the elders such as their insistence on incorporating “complementarianism” into the proposed new church constitution, along with “church discipline”, and a refusal to incorporate the belief that you have made it possible for all people to receive salvation. They seem not have been able to hear from you and have settled for Piper and Driscoll’s religion. May I refer them to you here to be set right?

    There is something else I have been wondering about: did you sovereignly determine (as Piper defines your sovereignty)that the name given to their doctrine of female subordination should incorporate the name of the heresy to which it closely relates?

  126. I wonder if Piper realises the extent of Complementarianism’s defeat with demise of Mars Hill.

    The Mars Hill Ballard building was bought by Quest Church earlier this year. Quest has roughly equal numbers of men and women as elders. One of the women is designated as a teaching pastor and another has responsibilty for global and local ministeries.

  127. JohnD wrote:

    your thoughts are God’s thoughts.

    So it would seem! He’s got really good hair, too, IMHO.

    Back on topic, play is just this minute underway at Trent Bridge; single to Joe Root, by all accounts a little fortunately off a decent delivery from Mitchell Johnson.

  128. @ JohnD:

    And Wood’s just got a hat-trick. Admittedly, that’s a hat-trick of runs rather than of wickets from consecutive balls… but as you quite rightly pointed out, an England cricket fan needs to make hay while the sun shines.

  129. @ JohnD:

    And Wood’s just got a hat-trick. Admittedly, that’s a hat-trick of runs rather than of wickets from consecutive deliveries… but as you quite rightly pointed out, an England cricket fan needs to make hay while the sun shines.

    (This comment may be a duplicate… not sure how this will work!)

  130. @ Nick Bulbeck:
    Nick speaking for us Aussies ‘down-under’, can you please refrain from discussing cricket on this blog, it is too painful and may trigger visions of what happened yesterday. We really need to keep on topic.

  131. Lydia wrote:

    Will M wrote:

    People think he is “Biblical”, but if you truly study scripture, how do you support his Christian hedonism or the two wills of God.
    I referenced this article\video in a previous thread.

    Thanks for reminding me! His Christian Hedonism goes way back and I remember not being able to wrap my head around it as many around me were absolutely smitten with it. The two wills was something we really debated later because it causes huge problems and makes God out to be a bait and switch monster.

    I really believe that Piper’s demeanor and passionate flowery verbosity keeps people from analyzing what he is really teaching….which is really nothing but cognitive dissonance. It is almost as if his goal is to keep people mesmerized and in confusion.

    I don’t know if that’s his goal, per se, but when you’re trying to sell a level of biblical literalism as biblical faithfulness, you’re going to have to use lots of flowery language to reconcile the conflict between a lot of passages.

    Fundies get around the conflicts by only preaching from a few select passages.

    None of them want to think that maybe their idea of biblical faithfulness is off.

  132. LT wrote:

    Dentists and doctors tend to report more investment fleecing and financial scams than any other demographic. They are educated, wealthy and generally very skeptical by nature – still they succumb.

    As to sentence #1 above, I don’t doubt it.

    As to sentence #2 above, no we are mostly not.

    It depends on what you mean by educated, but in my own educational experience nothing in my undergrad or med school years or PGY would qualify as how to turn out an ‘educated’ person. Lots of highly focused information in a relatively small area of life and some significant technical skills but that is about it.

    Some of us accumulate money but that has been a relatively recent phenomenon, and it does not begin to compare to some of the real wealth in my town from other sources. Back in my day we were not wealthy, usually not affluent, and sometimes barely making it. Maybe I am just jealous, but that is the truth in how things were/are. About like lawyers, some of whom are incredibly affluent but a lot are out raking the ground for what they can find.

    As to skeptical, not in the way you may think. We are by nature and by training people who tend to trust our own thinking and our own judgment. We are mostly born that way, I imagine, and we are certainly trained that way, and that certainly goes with the job. But that is the exact opposite of the kind of skepticism that is required for survival off the job. One must be skeptical of one’s own knowledge and own thinking and own judgment to stay out of trouble. One must listen to the lawyer and the accountant and the malpractice insurer and such. The ability to add and subtract does not carry with it the assumption of some understanding of economics. It is not true that physicians hands are sterile and they don’t have to use forceps to get the cotton balls, and it is not true that addictive drugs are only addictive to non-physicians but harmless for docs (not that many do that-just an illustration.) But we physicians can be insufferably egotistical and we have a habit of stepping in potholes right much. We tend to be ripe for the picking for the clever person who does not have white coat phobia and who will wade right in there and defraud us. We are rarely a match for even the average con man.

    Everything I know about ‘real life’ I learned as a child at home or else during my years as an RN or else have learned the really hard way by making a lot of mistakes. But I can throw some folks under the bus with vocabulary and that will fool some of the people some of the time. But I was solidly competent in my particular field of work at the time. No more or less than that.

  133. @ GovPappy:
    I see the double predestination. Piper however is saying that God is most glorified (with the emphasis on “most”) when people are most satisfied in him. If God is about maximising his own glory, per Piper, then he should be predestining everyone to salvation, which in Piper’s scheme he could do but chooses not to.

    I understand that Piper says that God needs to consign people to hell to display the “glory” of his wrath. But that is a lesser form of glory that falls short of the glory he gets from people being satisfied in him.

  134. Ron wrote:

    To preface my comments, let me say this. I do not know much about John Piper, bridges and tornadoes. I have no emotional investment in defending neo-calvinism, whatever that is. However, having listened to the questioner’s question and John’s response I can’t say that this man has no concern or compassion at all about those who were hurt by the leadership of the church. He seems to be trying to answer the question within the scope that it has been asked. I can’t say, as some of the rest of you, that this man is a “fool” an “old fool” based on what I heard here, or whatever terrible person he is, given comments here. One of the things that rather amazes me about this kind of forum is that it gives the opportunity for people to criticize in a way that seems to show or reveal that they themselves have the same pride and lack of humility that they are criticizing others of. So, now I have set myself up for those of you, in your upper balcony of correctness, to tell me to shut up and go away if I don’t like what is written here. I am no better than any of you, but I’ve said what I’ve said…and no, I’m not a fan of Mark D. nor am I comitted to any “organized” church” in my lifestyle.

    The transcript of the conversation is available at the link provided in the post. The “scope” of the conversation is set by the interviewer who asks if Piper will address the people whose faith was impacted by the behavior of Mark Driscoll and other leadership. The interviewer specifically asks if Piper can encourage them, so that is pretty broad and would not limit any expression of compassion that Piper should want to make. Could you please quote the places in which you think Piper is showing compassion or concern for those people?

  135. Ron wrote:

    One of the things that rather amazes me about this kind of forum is that it gives the opportunity for people to criticize in a way that seems to show or reveal that they themselves have the same pride and lack of humility that they are criticizing others of. So, now I have set myself up for those of you, in your upper balcony of correctness, to tell me to shut up and go away if I don’t like what is written here.

    And yet, you judge our criticism before you do any research on why we frame this incident as we do. This reveals something about you, too, yes?

    Also, why do you presume “church discipline” for merely having a contrary opinion? A minimum of civility is asked for, that’s it. You will possibly not convince anyone of your points, but so what? Debate is healthy.

  136. @ Ron:
    Calling Seattle “small potatoes” does not sound like compassion to me.

    Sounds like “quit your whining, look at the big picture – you don’t really matter”. Their pain doesn’t seem to matter to him. The only thing his words indicate he cares about is how his doctrinal system looks to the world.

  137. Lydia wrote:

    There is extreme flowery verbosity with passionate voice inflections and lots of waving of hands.

    Yes, I didn’t require much of an anointing to spot that! Especially the hands. 🙂

    I wouldn’t to be too critical of someone I haven’t read all that much. I did notice a lengthy spiel, followed by ‘you can find this in Book so and so, verses …’. I prefer it the other way round. Quoatation first, then the exposition, then application as appropriate. If you don’t do it that way round, it looks as though you have thought about what you want to say, and then find the verses to back it up.

  138. GovPappy wrote:

    I don’t know if that’s his goal, per se, but when you’re trying to sell a level of biblical literalism as biblical faithfulness, you’re going to have to use lots of flowery language to reconcile the conflict between a lot of passages.

    Yes. Add to that the idea that the idea that some people cannot decide whether to totally reject the OT as not applicable to today, or try to keep part and leave the other part, or whether to try to keep as much as possible, or whether to try to proof text with it or just what to do with it.

    And they cannot agree as to whether to say about some NT things that was then and this is now and we don’t do that any more (veils, slavery, holy kisses), or whether to try to replicate first century life style as a way to live today, or whether to let somebody else do their thinking and avoid the whole issue, or whether to obfuscate with said flowery language and poor reasoning and worse scholarship.

    It is about the b-i-b-l-e and what it is or is not and what it’s purpose is or is not. That is the first question. For people who think that there is no truth outside the bible that means going back to holy kisses. For people who think there is no truth in the bible, given all the issues, that means finding something else for themselves. And in between there is a sea of confusion. There is no easy way to avoid making difficult decisions.

  139. @ rhondajeannie:

    The Ashes are by no means over. Day two has been as one-sided as day one, but in the other direction. England’s last six wickets all fell cheaply this morning and Australia’s openers are looking as impregnable as at Lords where, of course, they compiled a huge total and won by an unheard-of margin of over 400 runs.

  140. okrapod wrote:

    GovPappy wrote:

    I don’t know if that’s his goal, per se, but when you’re trying to sell a level of biblical literalism as biblical faithfulness, you’re going to have to use lots of flowery language to reconcile the conflict between a lot of passages.

    It is about the b-i-b-l-e and what it is or is not and what it’s purpose is or is not. That is the first question. For people who think that there is no truth outside the bible that means going back to holy kisses. For people who think there is no truth in the bible, given all the issues, that means finding something else for themselves. And in between there is a sea of confusion. There is no easy way to avoid making difficult decisions.

    Indeed – I’ve been driven to adjust my thinking of what the Bible is and what it’s for by things like its silence on many issues. Ultimately that doesn’t make things easier for me. I’m sure certain of my friends might say I’m taking the easy road by throwing scripture out, but that’s both untrue and missing the point of my struggle.

  141. JohnD wrote:

    Piper however is saying that God is most glorified (with the emphasis on “most”) when people are most satisfied in him.

    Oh how some of us analyzed that declaration— for years. This stems from his hedonism teaching. This is one reason I cannot stand Piper. He gets people way off track.

  142. GovPappy wrote:

    Indeed – I’ve been driven to adjust my thinking of what the Bible is and what it’s for by things like its silence on many issues.

    I have used the analogy of a pastry cookbook. There is real and essential chemistry in it, but it is not a chemistry textbook. If you expect to find a chemistry textbook, then you are going to want to throw it out as useless. And that would be tragic from my POV as a lover of good pastry concoctions.

  143. Gram3 wrote:

    GovPappy wrote:

    Indeed – I’ve been driven to adjust my thinking of what the Bible is and what it’s for by things like its silence on many issues.

    I have used the analogy of a pastry cookbook. There is real and essential chemistry in it, but it is not a chemistry textbook. If you expect to find a chemistry textbook, then you are going to want to throw it out as useless. And that would be tragic from my POV as a lover of good pastry concoctions.

    Now you and I are speaking the same language!

    That’s a good analogy. Trying to assess the purpose of scripture is not throwing it out, it’s attempting to use the tools God has given us in the way they were intended. Hardly apostate.

  144. @ Lydia:

    “I really believe that Piper’s demeanor and passionate flowery verbosity keeps people from analyzing what he is really teaching….which is really nothing but cognitive dissonance. It is almost as if his goal is to keep people mesmerized and in confusion.
    +++++++++++++++++

    yes, I have thought this, too. I would imagine it’s a very powerful feeling.

    am I misunderstanding things if I say that it kind of seems like he’s emulating God, according to his understanding of God — even playing God — in being enigmatic and confusing?

    the idea is that of course God will come across as enigmatic and confusing to us (the God/human differential), but it’s all a good thing and is wonderful because he gets glory from it. and what could be more right and wonderful about that. so, it gives Peeper license to go to these floaty, nonsensical places, thinking ‘i’m really tapping in to God FM now!’

    kind of like what happens if you stare at something (like a picture) for a long time. it starts to move and shift in your vision. when I was in college and wanting to find God better, one of the more silly things I did was stare at this picture of Jesus I had on my desk. I stared and stared, it started to get swirly, move around, change in form…. and I thought “HEY! I’m really tapping in NOW! It’s supernatural!!”

    I have the feeling Peeper stares at all this stuff so long that he comes up with these swirly things, believing it to be Everclear God.

  145. “A Colossal Satanic Victory… He (God) permitted a tactical defeat for the gospel.”
    (John Piper)

    The gates of Hell shall not prevail against the message and mission of the true Church! Satan can have his way in the rest of it. Why would God want to defeat His own purposes? After a while, the defense of God’s sovereignty in all things becomes a futile exercise – stinking thinking – by these modern day reformers.

  146. Stan wrote:

    he talks like he’s always wearing vibrating underwear.

    Thanks Stan for offering this vivid imagery. I will always think of this line when I hear the Pied Piper speak to his children.

  147. @ LT:

    Thanx for the info LT. It sounds like you are in the know about this stuff. The differences between Dallas and Scottsdale are striking. From what you’ve laid out, I’m thinking the great state of Texas and Morris would be a better fit for Mr. Driscoll*, his Paraguay so to speak.

    * so long as morris gets a substantial piece of the action. it will never be as good as the old days of the reich in seattle, but wtf, it’ll be better than nothing.

  148. Ken wrote:

    If you don’t do it that way round, it looks as though you have thought about what you want to say, and then find the verses to back it up.

    No offense there Ken, but I think you’re finally catching on.

  149. When I read about the interview, the idea that God allowed a tactical defeat elicited an eye roll. If these pastors would read the Bible, the whole thing, they might know that God doesn’t take kindly to pastors who oppress and abuse His people.

    If Piper thinks that the “opposition” is the cause of MD’s defeat, he might be confused about which team he is on. Calvin seemed to think this was entirely possible…

  150. “A Colossal Satanic Victory… He (God) permitted a tactical defeat for the gospel.” John Piper – TGC interview
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Let’s scrub off the over-spiritualizing shoe polish and call it what it was: ‘A colossal farce-debacle… human beings who had the power and influence to intervene chose laissez-faire towards crime and tragedy suffered by other human beings.’

    disgusting deflection to put responsibility on God for the personal & professional failures of MD, Peeper and Co. (the whole miserable lot o’ ya). And therefore by inference call it good.

  151. Lydia wrote:

    I got interested in Piper and started reading and listening to his stuff to figure it out. There is extreme flowery verbosity with passionate voice inflections and lots of waving of hands.

    Bene Gesserit Voice plus Jedi Mind Trick Gestures?

  152. Please pray. I live in Phoenix. I am reformed soteriologically. I think Christian Hedonism can be a helpful way of communicating the essence of the good news. And yet, I do not want Driscoll to be involved in full time ministry in Phoenix. I believe it will be detrimental to the cause of Christ in Phoenix. Is there any precedent for creating a petition that would ask the pastors in the city to warn people about Driscoll?

  153. Daisy wrote:

    Yeah, it’s interesting Piper assumes stuff like complementarianism is true and under attack from Satan when the reality may be comp is FALSE and God is striking it down.

    Couldn’t agree more. Who is it that wants more than 1/2 of all Christians to remain silent; God or Satan? It cannot be God because Jesus told us to ‘Go into all the world and preach the Gospel………..’ This is not gender specific.

  154. Ron wrote:

    One of the things that rather amazes me about this kind of forum is that it gives the opportunity for people to criticize in a way that seems to show or reveal that they themselves have the same pride and lack of humility that they are criticizing others of

    Well, gee. You don’t even mention any of the victims of abuse that we discuss here. That tells me all that I need to know about your comment. If you really had love for those who have been wounded, you would have said something, anything. You didn’t. Therefore, it is obvious that we stepped on a sacred cow. I wonder which one?

  155. Reformed wrote:

    . Is there any precedent for creating a petition that would ask the pastors in the city to warn people about Driscoll?

    Be careful Many pastors will go to their deaths defending another pastor. And you could be targeted as a troublemaker. However, if you want my signature, I’ll sign. I’m already doomed.

  156. dee wrote:

    Be careful Many pastors will go to their deaths defending another pastor. And you could be targeted as a troublemaker. However, if you want my signature, I’ll sign. I’m already doomed.

    Yes I’m a troublemaker and proud to wear that badge.

  157. Ron wrote:

    tell me to shut up and go away if I don’t like what is written here.

    Actually Ron I have not read any Blog responses, on TWW, that have told people to ‘shut up and go away’. However I have been virtually told this (by the way I was treated)by a complementarian Church that I used to attend here in Australia. Isn’t that something that the people hurt by the Church would not dream of saying something like this but the ministers, pastors, elders, deacons wouldn’t think anything of it, and they do it as God’s representatives here on earth (so they keep telling us).

  158. @ Reformed:
    Well, if you are prepared to be socially shunned or shut out of any public ministry, you could first approach your elders and see what they are prepared to do. You didn’t say whether you are Reformed Reformed or Reformed Baptist. If you are Reformed Reformed, you may get some cooperation. If you are in a Reformed Baptist church like 9Marks or Acts29 or the like, you may get, at best, a polite dismissal. They promoted Driscoll when he helped the “cause” but now he is a non-person, and they don’t want to be reminded of it.

    Raising issues got me disfellowshipped. The overwhelming majority of pastors I’ve ever known did not appreciate any kind of meaningful input that might cause them to take a stand against their guild. I’m sorry to say that more than I can say.

    On your other point, I have no idea at all what Piper’s “Christian” hedonism has to do with the Good News. But that is perhaps a topic for the ODP. That was my first clue that Piper had lost it, and at the time I was much more “reformed” than I am today. My apostasy from Reformed theology is largely due to Piper and the others in whom I can see precious little of Jesus.

  159. JohnD wrote:

    There are other issues on which I am seriously at odds with the elders such as their insistence on incorporating “complementarianism” into the proposed new church constitution, along with “church discipline”, and a refusal to incorporate the belief that you have made it possible for all people to receive salvation. They seem not have been able to hear from you and have settled for Piper and Driscoll’s religion. May I refer them to you here to be set right?

    @JohnD,
    I would advise you to leave your present church and prayerfully look for a healthier church. This whole ‘church discipline’ movement is simply a dangerous disguise of the 1970s Shepherding Movement, and its abusive, authoritarian practices. Its founders later repented of it and it’s un-Biblical control of Christians’ lives.

    Read (conservative) Baptist Pastor Wade Burleson’s blog article about why people should say not to church membership covenants, here: http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/five-reasons-to-say-no-to-church.html

    Dee and Deb have written plenty on that topic here at The Wartburg Watch.

    You are, rightly, concerned about the comp doctrine that your elders are promoting. It is equally destructive, and comes from the likes of Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips and others (all of whom have been accused of gross sexual sins/predations against others). Comp doctrine is a predator’s handbook and license for immorality and control over others’ lives. It doesn’t respect the priesthood of all believers and our equality in Christ and our mutual submission to one another. It is a lie.

  160. Abi Miah wrote:

    : there is no concern for real people expressed, only for ideas that took a beating. And that was the point of the interview: the damaged people. Piper offers no hope, no lifeline, to those so badly damaged that they want nothing to do with the organized church. He offers them only rebuke, and the fear-mongering that they have left Jesus. The lack of empathy is startling. You don’t beat beaten people. You tend to their wounds. He never does articulate what he thinks Driscoll needs rebuke for. He laments a defeat for a movement. The lack of pastoral concern for those damaged is just shocking. People who have been so damaged by leaders in the church that they declare themselves “done” need TLC from other believers. They need gentle, loving outreach with no judgment. I wish that someone (not Piper), someone would say, “The organized church has harmed you in the most grievous way. We are so sorry. We grieve with you for the harm done. The one who has done this deserves the utmost rebuke. Tell us your story. We want to hear from you, learn from you, pray for you.”

    Awesome post! Thank you. Nicely put. Having read articles about shell-shocked Mars Hill former members who have been excommunicated and shunned, sitting around a backyard at a gathering, I grieve for what was done to them and their families. If Dr. Paul Tripp, who was invited to be on the Board of Mars Hill Church and did and then left, called it the most abusive and coercive church culture that he had ever seen, why doesn’t John Piper have the spine and common decency to do the same? (I wonder a lot about John Piper: Is he like the rest of the comps who have used these abusive doctrines to hide deep, dark secrets? Most of them – Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, Duggar Family – have been hiding sexual secrets/abuses of others.)

  161. Ron wrote:

    To preface my comments, let me say this. I do not know much about John Piper, bridges and tornadoes. I have no emotional investment in defending neo-calvinism, whatever that is. However, having listened to the questioner’s question and John’s response I can’t say that this man has no concern or compassion at all about those who were hurt by the leadership of the church. He seems to be trying to answer the question within the scope that it has been asked. I can’t say, as some of the rest of you, that this man is a “fool” an “old fool” based on what I heard here, or whatever terrible person he is, given comments here. One of the things that rather amazes me about this kind of forum is that it gives the opportunity for people to criticize in a way that seems to show or reveal that they themselves have the same pride and lack of humility that they are criticizing others of. So, now I have set myself up for those of you, in your upper balcony of correctness, to tell me to shut up and go away if I don’t like what is written here. I am no better than any of you, but I’ve said what I’ve said…and no, I’m not a fan of Mark D. nor am I comitted to any “organized” church” in my lifestyle.

    ???

    Why yes, Ron, I think the quote (I was the one who posted it) is apropos for John Piper: “There is no fool like an old fool.” John Piper is a very strange man. He so bizarre that he’s actually threatened by women giving men driving directions when the men are lost and have to ask.

    There’s this book called The Bible. There’s this man named Jesus in The Bible. Jesus criticized others, especially church leaders who were arrogant and full of themselves, who put burdens on other people. I guess you think this Jesus lacked humility and was full of pride for calling a spade a spade.

  162. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Will M:

    “Does he not come across as very insincere, in the article, when he says that he thought he had more influence but that he didn’t? Does anyone actually buy that. If he had decided to stand with the victims at Mars Hill, do you not think he could have made a marked difference considering his influence?”
    +++++++++++++++

    the least he could have done is TRIED.

    So true!

  163. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    I got interested in Piper and started reading and listening to his stuff to figure it out. There is extreme flowery verbosity with passionate voice inflections and lots of waving of hands.

    Bene Gesserit Voice plus Jedi Mind Trick Gestures?

    Now there is a creepy combo, if ever there was one!

  164. Velour wrote:

    If Dr. Paul Tripp, who was invited to be on the Board of Mars Hill Church and did and then left, called it the most abusive and coercive church culture that he had ever seen, why doesn’t John Piper have the spine and common decency to do the same?

    Ah! The $64000 question.

  165. @ Reformed:

    I think it is a waste of time for you but it might make you feel better. As Gram mentioned most Reformed pastors want to pretend Driscoll never existed. The other problem you have is that Driscoll is moving in different theological circles today so they can point that out, too.

    Personally, I have found that going to pastors about any such concerns is a waste of time. They have churches to fill up and the last thing they want is to be reminded of past problems. They are usually the last ones to take on such things unless it fits their agenda of bringing in more pew sitters.

  166. elastigirl wrote:

    “A Colossal Satanic Victory… He (God) permitted a tactical defeat for the gospel.” John Piper – TGC interview

    That is Piper’s deterministic god. You know, the sort of god that plays war games with people as the collateral damage.

  167. Ron wrote:

    I do not know much about John Piper

    Well, Ron, various commenters on this watchblog know a lot about John Piper and assorted others in the New Calvinism movement! Many have come out of that bondage and aberrant theology; they are speaking up. Their voices are not critical spirits but calls from the hearts of watchmen who discern the times they are in and where trouble lies. They are shouting warnings to all who have ears to hear: Danger! Danger! Trouble Ahead! Stop! Turn Around! Go Back!

  168. Lydia wrote:

    They are usually the last ones to take on such things unless it fits their agenda of bringing in more pew sitters.

    Sad, but true, Lydia. SBC pastors at 40,000+ non-Calvinist churches need to be having “family talks” regarding the proliferation of New Calvinism within the denomination, what reformed theology means, how it will change SBC belief and practice, and its future impact on evangelism and mission. Unfortunately, church leadership won’t touch the subject with a 10-foot pole for fear of appearing divisive … thus, the pew remains uninformed, misinformed, or willingly ignorant.

  169. okrapod wrote:

    It is about the b-i-b-l-e and what it is or is not and what it’s purpose is or is not. That is the first question. For people who think that there is no truth outside the bible that means going back to holy kisses. For people who think there is no truth in the bible, given all the issues, that means finding something else for themselves. And in between there is a sea of confusion. There is no easy way to avoid making difficult decisions.

    What you’ve described are the extremes. For me it is entirely possible to recognize both and to pick and choose from either side of the aisle. Truth, beauty, and goodness exist all on their own, and it matters not where they come from. Erasmus rebutted Luther on this point quite handily in my opinion.

  170. @ Muff Potter:

    I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to demonstrate that either extreme is ridiculous and that people have no option but to plunge into the chaos of ideas and make the tough decisions themselves.

  171. Lydia wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    “A Colossal Satanic Victory… He (God) permitted a tactical defeat for the gospel.” John Piper – TGC interview

    That is Piper’s deterministic god. You know, the sort of god that plays war games with people as the collateral damage.

    John Piper got that wrong! It was an ANSWER to prayer, mine and many others’ that Mark Driscoll be removed and that Mars Hills closed. I consider – as do many – that to be A WIN for The Gospel.

  172. Reformed wrote:

    Is there any precedent for creating a petition that would ask the pastors in the city to warn people about Driscoll?

    Interestingly, there is something of the kind here in the UK, especially in the 1980’s when what came to be known as the “house church movement” was growing at its fastest. (This is already going to be a long comment, but I can give a broader description of the house church movement if anyone’s interested.) That period saw a flurry of church-planting activity and with it a flurry of new house churchey congregations springing up. This gave rise to an interesting socio-political dynamic.

    It went like this: in some town or suburb, a new church would start and being door-knocking, leafleting and otherwise getting out and about. In fact, in many cases, they were simply preaching the gospel to people who didn’t often hear it otherwise. Though certainly they carried a widespread built-in assumption that those who were part of existing churches were half-hearted Christians at best. Whatever… Immediately this happened, the existing denominations in that locality would band together to denounce, to each other and sometimes to the local press, this dangerous new cult that was springing up. (Usefully, there was a standard boilerplate list of specific allegations against said dangerous new cult that was invariably trotted out.)

    In any given location, this could have one or more of several different effects. It might provide the existing denominations with the first thing they’d been able to unite around for years [ironic laughter…]. It might create lasting us-and-them divisions. Just occasionally, with some honesty and willingness on both sides, it provided the foundation for really healthy relationships in the long term. The existing clergy were genuinely concerned to guard the flock, not just protecting their market share; and the new house church respected them for this because they in turn were genuinely concerned to preach the gospel as best they were able. What it rarely did was bring about any change in the attitudes of the new churches, in large part because the aforesaid standard list of allegations contained as much half-truth and slander as genuine rebuke.

    All this to say: you are, of course, dealing with a man who has repeatedly proven himself rebellious and immature, who will take any challenge or criticism as false, or a “trap”, as he has taken to calling it. Not only that, you may be dealing with a cultural movement of enablers who will defend him no matter what he does.

    It’s easy for me to sit here, many kilomiles away, and suggest things that cost me nothing… but your best approach might be to point out that Driskle has run away from a church congregation where he was properly (if belatedly) put under church discipline of a kind that he himself established and taught to others. Moreover, he has run away on the spurious grounds of a cryptic message that “God” gave him. This message will need to be given persistently, in accordance with the kind of “shunning” that Driskle himself oversaw for anyone else put under church discipline at Mars Hill. Moreover, Driskle should be considered a rebellious and unrepentant sinner by the saints in Phoenix unless and until he either returns to Seattle in humility and brokenness to submit himself to, and put things right with, the church he abandoned; or repents of what he formerly taught and seeks forgiveness from the wider church for actively propagating the idea that Mars Hill was ever a “biblical model” of church. This is to do nothing more or less than judge him by his own words and hold him to the standard he himself taught from the pulpit. I don’t personally believe in his model of church discipline, but if he does – and he is free to – then he will naturally submit to it.

    You know far better than I what The Church in Phoenix is made of; though a population of 1.5 megapeople creates a lot of room for a lot of things – good, bad and indifferent. You also know far better than I do where God has called you to serve whom, in what way, and to what end. But you asked us to pray, and with your permission, my inclination is to pray that God will give you the continuing boldness to be exactly who you are in Him regardless of the cost.

  173. Ken wrote:

    Incidentally, did the Englsh team get their bats from willow creek?

    The willow’s not really supposed to creak…

  174. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Moreover, he has run away on the spurious grounds of a cryptic message that “God” gave him. This message will need to be given persistently…

    Sorry – that was badly written. I’m referring to two different “messages” – the one “God” supposedly gave to Driskle, and the message that needs to go out to the churches in Phoenix. I hope that’s clear…

  175. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It’s easy for me to sit here, many kilomiles away, and suggest things that cost me nothing… but your best approach might be to point out that Driskle has run away from a church congregation where he was properly (if belatedly) put under church discipline of a kind that he himself established and taught to others. Moreover, he has run away on the spurious grounds of a cryptic message that “God” gave him. This message will need to be given persistently, in accordance with the kind of “shunning” that Driskle himself oversaw for anyone else put under church discipline at Mars Hill. Moreover, Driskle should be considered a rebellious and unrepentant sinner by the saints in Phoenix unless and until he either returns to Seattle in humility and brokenness to submit himself to, and put things right with, the church he abandoned; or repents of what he formerly taught and seeks forgiveness from the wider church for actively propagating the idea that Mars Hill was ever a “biblical model” of church. This is to do nothing more or less than judge him by his own words and hold him to the standard he himself taught from the pulpit. I don’t personally believe in his model of church discipline, but if he does – and he is free to – then he will naturally submit to it.

    So very true, Nick. Do any of these pastors ever face up to their responsibilities and the damage they caused? It seems that they run away: Mark Driscoll, CJ Mahaney, etc.

  176. It’s been interesting to note that only in the 2015 narratives do we get any “God told me” stuff. In all the 2014 accounts (including Driscoll’s) only human agency ever gets accounted for but once Driscoll’s on the conference circuit talking to charismatics in leadership positions … .

  177. The 2015 narratives have introduced a chronological question, brought up here:

    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-diachronic-survey-of-driscoll.html

    at the Thrive presentation Driscoll said the kids found out about the resignation via social media when the press was covering the resignation. That story broke October 15, 2014. Driscoll told Brian Houston he heard a voice Monday night, from God, and wrote the resignation letter Tuesday (Oct 14, 2014). So there was at least a 24 to 32 hour period in which either Mark or Grace Driscoll could have found it in themselves to tell the kids “Dad is resigning”. According to the Thrive account, the kids found out by way of social media already before the Driscolls informed them.

    Which, if true, means Mark and Grace Driscoll heard voices on a MOnday night October 13, 2014 saying it was okay for them to quit and then, for whatever reason, opted to not inform their children for enough time that the children found out through social media on October 15. Assuming the 2015 stories aren’t just that, stories told in front of crowds, it seems incredible.

  178. Velour wrote:

    Do any of these pastors ever face up to their responsibilities and the damage they caused?

    I’m sure you’re familiar with the old chestnut about Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I think The Church as a whole needs to become a lot more responsible, and a lot wiser, in dealing with both the deceitfulness of riches and with those who are seduced thereby into thinking that godliness is a means of financial gain. And by “The Church” I mean doctrine- or tradition-based parachurch organisations (more commonly known as “denominations”), AND the “None” and “Done” communities, to whatever degree they still profess Christian faith.

    As harsh as this sounds, too many people were willing to follow Driskle, without challenging him. And even now, too many people are still trying to appeal to him as a brother rather than confront realistically the possibility that the fine sermons were just sheep’s clothing.

    As WTH pointed out, Driskle is now talking the language of charismatic leaders. It’s been observed here on TWW (I forget by whom – sorry!) that a wolf in sheep’s clothing doesn’t look like a wolf: it looks like a sheep. To get in among different sheep, a wolf needs different clothing. We sheep need to grow up and grasp the nettle of being as shrewd as serpents as well as being as innocent as doves.

  179. Velour wrote:

    @JohnD,
    I would advise you to leave your present church and prayerfully look for a healthier church.

    Velour, thank you for your concern. Leaving is an option that I have considered prayerfully for a couple of years. I do not feel free to do so. I have a sense of responsibility weighing on me.

    The church is one of two that I grew up in. I taught children in Sunday School for years and as a varsity student led the first mission trips from the church, to a neighbouring country. I left when it wwas clear that intergenerational battles would destroy the church. It just survived and I eventually returned about two and a half years ago. Before returning I discussed the doctrinal position with one of the elders who is a longstanding friend and was assured that it was “middle-of-the-road evangelical”. He was blissfully unaware of what the recently appointed “lead pastor” who had previously spent nearly two years hanging onto Driscoll’s coat tails in Seattle, was up to. The website gave no clues either.

    It was suggested that I should prepare myself to take responsibility for a new program to be introduced into the church. It was stipulated that anyone who was to be in leadership should complete the “Porterbrook” course. This was the first red flag. My many years of experience in various positions of responsibility in other churches counted for nothing. The Porterbrook way was the only way.

    Porterbrook is now official Acts 29 training material but was not back then. It is a part-time course based on materials written by the Acts 29 leader in Europe.

    The first month’s Porterbrook material introduced me to Mahaney, Dever and James MacDonald none of whom I had heard of previously. It was also replete with references to Piper and other New Calvinist “greats” that I had previously come across. It was in the course of researching the reputations of some of these individuals that I came across TWW. I recognised the modus operandi of the New Calvinists/Calvinistas described here immediately. I am most grateful for the work of not only Dee and Deb but the whole TWW community. You have all been an inspiration to me.

    My initial feeling was to leave the church. However, after reflecting on the situation there were factors that strongly influenced me to stay. The vast majority of people in the church were (and still are) being kept in the dark about the direction in which the majority of the elders are taking the church, and would reject it if they were properly informed. This includes family members and lifelong friends. I sense a duty to them.

    I have also considered why it is that I arrived back at this particular time with my particular combination of experience: no formal theological training but having read extensively, about thirty years in private legal practice and (I am told) a bulldoglike disposition. All of these are useful in the struggle for transparency and honesty.

    A recurring thought is that one day I will stand before the one who gave everything for me. I do not intend to have to explain why I was not prepared to take blows for his sake.

    The stance that I have taken is what I believe is right for me in the circumstances. My hope is that my stand will prevent harm to others. I am painfully aware of the many accounts of church abuse here on TWW where leaving the church was undoubtedly the right thing to do.

  180. Hi JohnD,

    Thank you for your post about why you are staying in a NeoCal church and why God hasn’t led you out of it. I appreciate that. Please let us know how we can pray for you and your church.

    As for me, I am so glad I am out of a NeoCal church. What a bizarre experience that was, complete with excommunications/shunnings, the whole comp/patriarchy doctrine, and the abusive control of members via membership covenants (the 1970s Shepherding Movement back in disguise).

    Brad, a poster over at Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board, came up with a new term for this contempt for women in NeoCal churches:”Shehad” (sounds like Jihad but is the “war on women in hyper patriarchal cultures).

    I only wish I had been in a Sunday morning bowling league instead of a NeoCal church. I would have gotten a cool shirt out of the deal with my name on it!

  181. JohnD wrote:

    The stance that I have taken is what I believe is right for me in the circumstances

    John, I believe each must follow the dictates of their conscience as you apparently feel you must do. I’ll say a prayer for you as you continue on where you are. We don’t always know the purpose, but God does.

  182. @ JohnD:
    Thank you for telling your story. I pray that you will be able to make a difference. I think God calls some to stay as long as they can, some to leave, and some to speak up and either stay and take the blowback or get invited to “leave.” Regardless, it sounds like you are well-equipped to handle whatever comes up.

  183. JohnD wrote:

    The vast majority of people in the church were (and still are) being kept in the dark about the direction in which the majority of the elders are taking the church, and would reject it if they were properly informed.

    Such stealth and deception are commonplace in New Calvinist works, whether they be subtle takeovers of traditional churches or new church plants. Sounds like God doesn’t it? (Not!). “Lead pastors” (they love that title!) and elders dodge the word “Calvinist” … it has a negative connotation to the majority of Christians and they know it. But, the new reformers still press forward by a systematic indoctrination of church folks through small group meetings (LifeGroups), subtle steering in sermons, coffee shop discussions with individual members, and recommended readings (Piper books, etc.). By the time the pew gets wise to the theology being unpacked upon them, they are so darn confused on what they believe they don’t know which end is up and fall into step with the reformed leadership.

    Your decision to stay for family and friends is noble, JohnD … but don’t tarry too long and lose ground in your personal spiritual growth … don’t let the brook dry up. God will prompt you to leave when you should; look for the opening. Your family and friends may not follow. The Christian journey is full of personal choices, as you move from milepost to milepost by growing in the knowledge of the Lord. Don’t let the choices of others affect the ones you make to your spiritual detriment. Keep your guard up. If you allow someone’s weakness to control your strength by moving you off course, they will own you. May God give you a discerning spirit and give you wisdom to know what to do and what to say, brother.

    If and when you leave, the church leadership will probably refer to you by quoting 1 John 2:19 “He went out from us, because he was not of us” … and they would be right!! On that glorious day, shake the dust off your feet and don’t look back. I’m praying for you.

  184. JohnD wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    @JohnD,
    I would advise you to leave your present church and prayerfully look for a healthier church.
    Velour, thank you for your concern. Leaving is an option that I have considered prayerfully for a couple of years. I do not feel free to do so. I have a sense of responsibility weighing on me.
    The church is one of two that I grew up in. I taught children in Sunday School for years and as a varsity student led the first mission trips from the church, to a neighbouring country. I left when it wwas clear that intergenerational battles would destroy the church. It just survived and I eventually returned about two and a half years ago. Before returning I discussed the doctrinal position with one of the elders who is a longstanding friend and was assured that it was “middle-of-the-road evangelical”. He was blissfully unaware of what the recently appointed “lead pastor” who had previously spent nearly two years hanging onto Driscoll’s coat tails in Seattle, was up to. The website gave no clues either.
    It was suggested that I should prepare myself to take responsibility for a new program to be introduced into the church. It was stipulated that anyone who was to be in leadership should complete the “Porterbrook” course. This was the first red flag. My many years of experience in various positions of responsibility in other churches counted for nothing. The Porterbrook way was the only way.
    Porterbrook is now official Acts 29 training material but was not back then. It is a part-time course based on materials written by the Acts 29 leader in Europe.
    The first month’s Porterbrook material introduced me to Mahaney, Dever and James MacDonald none of whom I had heard of previously. It was also replete with references to Piper and other New Calvinist “greats” that I had previously come across. It was in the course of researching the reputations of some of these individuals that I came across TWW. I recognised the modus operandi of the New Calvinists/Calvinistas described here immediately. I am most grateful for the work of not only Dee and Deb but the whole TWW community. You have all been an inspiration to me.
    My initial feeling was to leave the church. However, after reflecting on the situation there were factors that strongly influenced me to stay. The vast majority of people in the church were (and still are) being kept in the dark about the direction in which the majority of the elders are taking the church, and would reject it if they were properly informed. This includes family members and lifelong friends. I sense a duty to them.
    I have also considered why it is that I arrived back at this particular time with my particular combination of experience: no formal theological training but having read extensively, about thirty years in private legal practice and (I am told) a bulldoglike disposition. All of these are useful in the struggle for transparency and honesty.
    A recurring thought is that one day I will stand before the one who gave everything for me. I do not intend to have to explain why I was not prepared to take blows for his sake.
    The stance that I have taken is what I believe is right for me in the circumstances. My hope is that my stand will prevent harm to others. I am painfully aware of the many accounts of church abuse here on TWW where leaving the church was undoubtedly the right thing to do.

    I do know of one instance where the elders, particularly one, stood in the gap and took blows and warded off an Acts 29 takeover of their church. Most who take blows, though, do so in faithfulness, but without any visible gain to the church. Since you feel called to that position, make sure you have strong spiritual support from outside of your church because it’s likely you will need it.

  185. Max wrote:

    JohnD wrote:
    The vast majority of people in the church were (and still are) being kept in the dark about the direction in which the majority of the elders are taking the church, and would reject it if they were properly informed.
    Such stealth and deception are commonplace in New Calvinist works, whether they be subtle takeovers of traditional churches or new church plants. …
    If and when you leave, the church leadership will probably refer to you by quoting 1 John 2:19 “He went out from us, because he was not of us” … and they would be right!! .

    What is it with the “stealth” takeovers and the deception? Why do people think this is? It was absolutely true in the situation that I was in, and I read about it frequently. For so many all in the same movement to be doing it must mean that somewhere it is discussed and approved of, no?

    The leadership will refer to you by “othering” you somehow or another. You will be labeled a “liberal,” or it will be implied that you are not “Bible-believing,” or you are “nominal” or “care more about pleasing the world than pleasing God” or “someone who stirs up dissension,” etc. Since you are a male, you will likely escape being called a “gossip.” I believe that term is usually reserved for the ladies, muscular or no.

  186. To: All of the Folks Who Commented to John D.

    I have learned so much from each of your responses to John D. Thoughtful and kind. You’re a good bunch!

  187. @ Max:

    “But, the new reformers still press forward by a systematic indoctrination of church folks through small group meetings (LifeGroups), subtle steering in sermons, coffee shop discussions with individual members, and recommended readings (Piper books, etc.). By the time the pew gets wise to the theology being unpacked upon them, they are so darn confused on what they believe they don’t know which end is up and fall into step with the reformed leadership.”
    ++++++++++++++++++++

    I’m slow here…. can you, anyone, explain the bad/harmful/undesirable aspects of reformed theology? gender roles & the ridiculous membership covenant and discipline thing suck. But what else?

    (the church my kids go to is on the TGC list — I don’t believe this church has ever had any Calvinist anything about it. there is a new pastor. don’t know what it all means)

  188. elastigirl wrote:

    bad/harmful/undesirable aspects of reformed theology?

    Elastigirl, you need look no further than reformed theology’s “Doctrines of Grace.” They contain a warped teaching on the sovereignty of God, which totally excludes human responsibility (free will). You most likely have heard of “TULIP” which is an acronym for the 5-points of the doctrines of grace (“5-point Calvinism”). I encourage you to Google it and see if you agree with the premises outlined by each of these 5-points.

    Is this systematic theology bad/harmful/undesirable? In a nutshell … Are you so totally depraved (T), that you have a total inability on your own to hear the Gospel and by faith believe it? Do you believe that a determinist God operates by unconditional election (U) in that some have been predestined to be saved and others damned before they were ever born, with no choice in the matter? Is there a limited atonement (L) in which the Cross of Christ is limited to only those who were predestined, that the Gospel cannot be applied to ALL men everywhere? Is God’s grace so irresistible (I) that folks who hear the Gospel must receive it, that it cannot be rejected (only applies to the predestined of course). And that the saints (the elect) will persevere in their faith (P)? (I believe that last point, so I’m a one-pointer!).

    So, what’s bad/harmful/undesirable about believing and accepting the doctrines of grace? It’s not truth based on the whole counsel of God! The God of the Bible (not Calvin’s version) is not willingly that any should perish, who sent His son Jesus to die for the whole world, that whosoever will may come. It’s bad/harmful/undesirable to sit under such teaching. It does not produce the life of Christ within you; it hinders the Holy Spirit from operating in your life. Calvinism is an over-emphasis on the message of grace (God does it all), at the expense of missing a personal relationship with Jesus (based on your choice). This is the spiritual side of things. The physical manifestations of authoritarian Calvinist belief and practice have been clearly pointed out by TWW and other watchblogs.

  189. elastigirl wrote:

    I’m slow here…. can you, anyone, explain the bad/harmful/undesirable aspects of reformed theology? gender roles & the ridiculous membership covenant and discipline thing suck. But what else?

    Aside from the extra-Biblical membership covenants and discipline/shunning, and gender Roles propped up by ESS, I think that the biggest problem with Calvinist theology is its view of the character of God and the extent of the Atonement. Of course, I am a Baptist, so the Reformed view of the church and sacraments is also problematic.

    I think that God is not concerned with God’s glory because nothing humans can do can alter God’s glory. God *is* the ultimate glorious Being. That said, I think that God’s character is revealed in Jesus and ultimately at the Cross and Resurrection. God is Love and Mercy and Grace, but he is also Just and Holy and Righteous. I think his fundamental disposition toward humans is love and compassion and lovingkindness, to use an old term. I think he is like a good human father who loves and seeks good for his children and who desires their fellowship and who will seek them out when they stray, but who will ultimately let them go their own way if they are intent to rebel against his goodness. I believe that he knows our weak frame, that we are dust, but loves us because he has made us in his image and desire to restore us to that complete image of him which was marred at the Fall.

    The Calvinist God, in my view, is coercive and characterized by instilling terror in humans. That is not to say that someone who rejects him is not paving their own way to being cut off from his presence–a terrifying thing if ever there was one–but it is to say that a person being cut off is not done so before the foundation of the world and is not created by God to be destroyed by God to the glory of God. That is a god whom I do not see in the Jesus of the New Testament, and so that is not what God is like, IMO.

    On a practical level, I think a good marker is a line-item budget that is readily available to members or even attenders. If church leadership is not willing to tell the people how they spend the people’s donated money, then that is a leadership which either does not trust the people or who cannot be trusted to use the people’s donations.

  190. Max wrote:

    Is this systematic theology bad/harmful/undesirable? In a nutshell … Are you so totally depraved (T), that you have a total inability on your own to hear the Gospel and by faith believe it?

    Yeah, I would watch out for this one especially with children. Teaching them that they are totally depraved and UNABLE to respond to Jesus Christ or seek to be guided in wisdom by the Holy Spirit is a culture of death when it is coupled with determinism as in God determines everything 24/7 even the abuse you take from your parent or a death of a parent or whatever. (I know they explain that stuff away with compatablism but it is total cognitive dissonance–a horrible way to teach kids to think)

    ONe of the hallmarks in how this is played out is “brokeness” and going deep with sin. In a YRR church, being constantly broken is considered living out the Christian life. It is exhausting fatalism. They tend to ignore the resurrection and what it teaches us about new life and striving to live as kingdom people right now. We cannot help but remain sinners because our very existence is sinful (I.e. original sin as in dualism: the material world is all evil but the spiritual is good)

    If we as believers are to mature and grow, seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit, it seems we would be eventually sinning less and less. Right? But that is not how it works in that world. I worry more about the kids/teens in these type of churches than anyone else. There is a reason the YRR movement targeted young people.

  191. Gram3 wrote:

    n a practical level, I think a good marker is a line-item budget that is readily available to members or even attenders. If church leadership is not willing to tell the people how they spend the people’s donated money, then that is a leadership which either does not trust the people or who cannot be trusted to use the people’s donations

    This is the first thing I look for. Why is the budget a secret or protected even with attendees?

  192. Lydia wrote:

    If we as believers are to mature and grow, seek wisdom from the Holy Spirit, it seems we would be eventually sinning less and less. Right? But that is not how it works in that world.

    Calvinism, if allowed to run its full course, leads to antinomianism. There is a lawlessness that takes over after a while which abuses Christian liberties and explains away sin (God does it all mentality). A pursuit of personal holiness is not in the game plan; in fact, holiness is not in their vocabulary. As I write this, some 29-year old New Calvinist “lead pastor” and his “elder” team in their 20s-30s are planning their next leadership move over a case of beer. A generation of flesh babies they are.

  193. @ elastigirl:

    On the other thread you asked about what to watch out for concerning your children’s attendance at your current church. I would sit in on any classes they have separate from you AND ask to see curriculum that is used in teaching. Sitting in on the classes is important because presentation can be quite different from curriculum.

  194. @ Velour:
    Thank you for your willingness to pray. Gram3 has highlighted a particular feature of the NeoCal churches being their lack of transparency. I am aware of documents that reflect the agreeement on doctrine and money matters between our church and Acts 29. I have been refused access to those documents. There are other similar issues. I believe that if what should be available to all church members is made available to them they will soon see what is afoot. The truth will do its work. My strategy is to focus on those areas. The law supports me on this so the eldership is vulnerable. Your prayer for wisdom in that process wiil be appreciated.

    In every situation like this there is potential for harm to the faith of individuals. I am praying that people’s faith would not be harmed. Please do so too.

    I think the term “Shehad” is so apt. Today and tomorrow we celebrate Women’s Day in our country with the emphasis on pushing back against the subjugation of women. It is so ironic that our church’s eldership is importing doctrine that does the opposite.

  195. @JohnD,

    I will pray for you, your church, and that peoples’ faith not be harmed.
    Which country do you live in?

  196. @ Gram3:
    The process of “inviting” me to “leave” got off to a bad start for them. I was approached informally and told that if I did not drop my opposition to New Calvinism I would have to be regarded as “divisive”. I was told that I would know what the scriptures said about divisive people. Thanks to TWW and other watchblogs I was forewarned on the NeoCal “divisiveness” strategy and so was forearmed. What followed was a brief lesson from me on what the scriptures actually say about divisiveness. As you will know it was one who attempted to bring in new teaching contrary to what the apostles had taught that was divisive. They knew where that was going and the deafening silence continues to today.

  197. Thanks for all your input. I’m asking this same question on the TGC post:

    …just this nagging question in the back of my mind…. so, all this TGC, neocal stuff seems to be all about power and control. power and control for men. power and control for church leaders.

    1. what about Calvinism/neocalvinism leads to this mindset?

    2. or, alternatively, is Calvinism/neocalvinism the vehicle of choice to save a dying industry? is it because it allows for power and control? what about Calv/neocalv makes it a convenient vehicle?

    (To chat further about question 2., I could say that I think it is self-evident that ‘church’ is a dying industry, which means the whole food chain is a dying industry. Professional Christians (pastors/salaried leaders/seminaries) I’m sure feel pressure and threatened, so of course the urge for an all-out campaign to save their industry (desperate times call for desperate measures).)

    3. similarly, are the Christians (career & church attenders) that are attracted to calv/neocal paranoid of social changes and therefore feeling desperate for control? and again, what about calv/neocalv lends itself to power and control?

  198. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Max:

    ++++++++++++++++++++
    I’m slow here…. can you, anyone, explain the bad/harmful/undesirable aspects of reformed theology? gender roles & the ridiculous membership covenant and discipline thing suck. But what else?
    (the church my kids go to is on the TGC list — I don’t believe this church has ever had any Calvinist anything about it. there is a new pastor. don’t know what it all means)

    My own experience was that exact equation: a church which was never Calvinist before (though Calvinists were welcome; theology wasn’t exclusive on secondary issues such as Arminian vs. Calvinist, etc.) + new pastor + TGC listing = stealth takeover by Neocalvinist. That may not be true in your case, but it definitely has red flags.

    What is harmful about Calvinist teaching? For many Christians, apparently nothing; however, the implications of their understanding of predestination make God into a monster for many people and stir up great fear in others that they are not really among the “elect.” I don’t know how young they begin to teach those doctrines. I was exposed to them in high school (different church than I mentioned above) and it almost drove me from the Christian faith entirely. I know some lovely people who are at least technically Calvinist, but I could not partake of a church where that was a prominent part of the theology. I think another harmful effect is that Calvinism is very systematic in its theology. I have seen many adherents to Calvinism who were thus very rigid in their thinking and who were quite confident that they and only they had a correct reading of a particular Scripture. (I suppose this could happen in any theological system, but it certainly seems rampant among Neo-Cals.)

  199. Max wrote:

    Calvinism, if allowed to run its full course, leads to antinomianism. There is a lawlessness that takes over after a while which abuses Christian liberties and explains away sin (God does it all mentality)

    Yes, a long time professing believer can rape children and still be elect. It boggles my mind. It becomes lawless because all sin is the same and since we are all born sinning –as sin was imputed to us by Adam— then there is no escaping it even if we are elect. One thing I never hear them preach on is the fact that Jesus accused the Pharisees of being “lawless”. It is an interesting subject and one it took me a long time to understand.

  200. @ Abi Miah:
    I have godly people who are supporting me. I am grateful for them. I am also grateful for your support and that of all those who have commented. I also sense that there are many others who read the posts and comments on TWW and quietly raise their voices to God.

  201. elastigirl wrote:

    1. what about Calvinism/neocalvinism leads to this mindset?

    Determinism has to be hierarchical for it to work. Power and control is the name of the game. None of it works without it. Islam is deterministic, for example.

    It is one reason you don’t hear much about the Holy Spirit in that ST. You cannot have power and control with people who think for themselves. Determinism relies on “philosopher kings” in the form of theologians and pastors to tell us how it all works for us.

  202. Bridget wrote:

    My honest question – can one wolf recognize their brother wolf as someone who is doing harm?
    While this is being discussed on Christian blogs, an article came across my fb stream yesterday from Piper. All I read was the heading “No President Obama.” Who knows, I may have agreed with what the article presented, but I couldn’t bring myself to read it because of Piper’s positions on women and wolves in his midst.

    I didn’t answer this right away, but wanted to think about it. Brad Futurist Guy has website which is full of insightful information. https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/thoughts-on-redemption-in-the-wake-of-abuse-agents-of-damage-versus-agents-of-healing/

    I think Piper’s actions here fit partially into the category of “Enforcers.” Piper has in the past said things that fit into the category of “Outsiders Who Are Commenders” and thus participate in the sin. But your question is about whether one wolf recognizes another as a wolf. Wolves run in packs. If you are a wolf, it seems logical that you think wolf values are correct values. So perhaps commending or defending a wolf reveals oneself as at the least, blind to wolf-like behavior.

    To me, one thing that is puzzling is how much text Jesus spends on warnings about religious leaders and how little time seems spent in the organized church to being on guard against wolves. The epistles carry forward these warnings, too, and charges against religious leaders are found throughout the OT. One would think we would have a clue. But it does seem true that until it actually happens that you yourself become wolf-meat or someone you love becomes wolf-meat, or you actually observe someone else become wolf-meat, that the average Christian, even Christian in leadership, has a hard time believing that there are pastors from whom the flock needs protection. I tend to think that most church leaders, themselves honest followers of Jesus, trying to make wise decisions, are actually sitting ducks for someone who looks like that on the white-washed outside, but is scheming behind-the-scenes. I think evangelicals particularly have a tendency to equate what they view as “solid doctrinal teaching” coming out of someone’s mouth as the equivalent to reassurance that the man is not a wolf. My experience is that one way that wolves get power is that they are good talkers, both from the pulpit and behind-the-scenes. Additionally, I think most church leaders are good, decent people and they cannot employ their normal “polite/nice” modes of interaction to protect a flock from a wolf. Hence, the ease with which stealth takeovers happen.

  203. elastigirl wrote:

    2. or, alternatively, is Calvinism/neocalvinism the vehicle of choice to save a dying industry?

    History shows us there is no quicker way to kill Christianity than following Reformed Calvinistic ST. (Most mainline Calvinists don’t, btw) What happened to the Puritans? What happened across Northern Europe? The historical aspects of this are very interesting if we take a long view.

  204. elastigirl wrote:

    (To chat further about question 2., I could say that I think it is self-evident that ‘church’ is a dying industry, which means the whole food chain is a dying industry. Professional Christians (pastors/salaried leaders/seminaries) I’m sure feel pressure and threatened, so of course the urge for an all-out campaign to save their industry (desperate times call for desperate measures).)

    I wonder about this. People are always going to want to be part of something. They are always going to be seeking out like minded groups especially as we are a transient society.

    But I also think that many become exhausted in a Neo Cal churches over time. I don’t see entertainment churches dying out, though. The Neo Cals often said they were the “real” alternative to the seeker entertainment types but at the same time they use many of their tactics and strategies to attract people and to train pastors. It is a bit of a bait and switch because the ultimate purpose is to control.

    It almost seems like two extremes to me. The happy-clappy Joel Osteenesque entertainment Jesus or the angry selective God that only cares about His glory as you are nothing but a worm.

  205. Abi Miah wrote:

    To me, one thing that is puzzling is how much text Jesus spends on warnings about religious leaders and how little time seems spent in the organized church to being on guard against wolves.

    Right. I will take it a step further and say Jesus spent a lot of time warning about religious leaders of His own tribe and almost NONE about the Roman government or their false religions.

  206. Abi Miah wrote:

    What is harmful about Calvinist teaching? For many Christians, apparently nothing; however, the implications of their understanding of predestination make God into a monster for many people and stir up great fear in others that they are not really among the “elect.” I don’t know how young they begin to teach those doctrines. I was exposed to them in high school (different church than I mentioned above) and it almost drove me from the Christian faith entirely.

    This is why I am so zealous on the topic. I live at ground zero, come from the SBC and am seeing what is happening with my kids teen friends who are still in those sorts of youth groups.

    Our former church was taken over about 18 months ago. Before that there were select SBTS students coming and trying to influence but our pastor was wiser than them. TWo SBTS students got engaged and made a huge deal that they would even kiss during their engagement. They made a huge point about this to the youth as they volunteered with the youth group after the pastor left. Thankfully most of the adults in the church thought it ridiculous but still were careful not to refute it publicly so as not to “offend” them.

    But my teen was taking a girl to church who comes from an abusive family and was raped when she was 12. So what is that poor girl to do with such teaching and modeling of what is Christ? So is this poor girl to believe her abuse and rape were “determined” by God, too? Where is human responsibility in all this? I got to the point that taking the kids to that church was just downright cruel and taught them NOT to think or seek after the Holy Spirit. They were to be broken worms who were unable to do anything “good”.

  207. JohnD wrote:

    Thanks to TWW and other watchblogs I was forewarned on the NeoCal “divisiveness” strategy and so was forearmed. What followed was a brief lesson from me on what the scriptures actually say about divisiveness. As you will know it was one who attempted to bring in new teaching contrary to what the apostles had taught that was divisive. They knew where that was going and the deafening silence continues to today.

    One function of blogs like TWW is to warn, another is to equip with information, and yet another is to encourage those who have been harmed, and finally to proclaim the essential Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have been confused by all the things which have either been added or taken away from that. I have been tremendously encouraged here, and I have learned a lot as well from people’s experiences and their various perspectives.

    When it comes to deafening silence in the wake of a substantive response, I know what that is like. The fact is that you can read one or two books and get all of the talking points that you are likely to encounter. Once you get behind their talking points and take them to the actual scriptures, and they know that you are going to the scriptures and not to their favorite guru, then they will go silent. And that is because they have no real answers beyond the talking points which they have learned. They do not know how to show their work, but they can parrot the “right” answers.

    I hope that you are able to make some people stop and think, and I really believe that if you point people to Jesus and the real Gospel, their faith will not be shaken. What shakes people’s faith is finding out that what they believed is actually as real as a Hollywood set. There are veneers with no structure behind them. But the veneers are quite convincing until we are forced to take a look at the back side. The illusions have to be destroyed before people can see the real Jesus and his Gospel.

  208. Gram3 wrote:

    When it comes to deafening silence in the wake of a substantive response, I know what that is like. The fact is that you can read one or two books and get all of the talking points that you are likely to encounter. Once you get behind their talking points and take them to the actual scriptures, and they know that you are going to the scriptures and not to their favorite guru, then they will go silent. And that is because they have no real answers beyond the talking points which they have learned. They do not know how to show their work, but they can parrot the “right” answers.

    In my experience, when they go silent is when they are most dangerous.

  209. elastigirl wrote:

    what about calv/neocalv lends itself to power and control?

    I would like to draw a distinction between people who believe that Calvin’s perspectives reflect what the Bible tells us but who are not dogmatic about it. They actually think that Arminians can be believers! But there are rabid folks in any belief system, and it is the rabid folks that we are seeing come to the fore in the YRR Gospel Glitterati phenomenon.

    Why a Calvinistic surge now? I think there are many reasons. Calvinism appeals to people who are highly educated, and people who take pride in their knowledge about theology and systematics. Calvin was a lawyer, and he read the scriptures like a lawyer rather than as an ordinary person would read them. The younger folks are the most highly educated generation in our history. They have also grown up in an era where social chaos and economic uncertainty is the norm rather than the exception in America and the West. Also, in the evangelical church we have had the explosion of megachurches and seeker-sensitive orientation which does not encourage deep thought about much of anything. At the same time there has been an explosion of mass-media celebrity culture. I agree with the other commenter (Lydia?) who said that the entertainment churches are not going away.

    So, if you are a young, well-educated person who is disturbed by the chaos around you, including possibly in your own family, and you see a tight and tidy system that appeals to your pride in being “in the know” and cool and different from your parents’ church, then the YRR may resonate with your generation more than with others. You are accustomed to the conference/event culture, having grown up with huge concerts or stadium events being a common experience. That did not used to be the way things were. Thank you, Beatles.

    I think, overall, the YRR is primarily both reactionary and parasitic. I don’t think Piper and Grudem’s message would have taken hold before about 1980 nor after 2000. That’s my opinion, and I think at this point the YRR movement is consuming its capital. It is parasitic in that the YRR and Gospel Glitterati built their empires on what previous generations had built. They are not, as a rule, expanding the Kingdom by conversion by the Gospel but by converting Christians to their way of thinking and taking them away from their existing churches. That can only go on so long, as others have said.

    I also think that the Woman Question will be the ultimate undoing of the movement. Pastors can afford to have a stay-at-home wife with 5-6 kids while living a comfortable (at least) upper-middle-class lifestyle on the donations of church members. People are going to start noticing that at some point, likely in their late 30’s to early 40’s when their aspirations do not meet their reality. How many young people can afford to live like one of the pastors of a Gospel Glitterati church? I think the women are going to start realizing the true message being delivered and are going to ask why the church values them as persons less than the world values them. When the women leave, the kids leave. When the kids leave, there is no legacy generation. If there is no legacy generation, the organization become nonviable.

    I am not a profit, like Dave AA, so take this with a barrel of salt. It’s just the way I explain to myself what in the world has happened in the last 40 years or so to get us to this point.

  210. Lydia wrote:

    Yes, a long time professing believer can rape children and still be elect.

    Because they’ve got that Get Out of Hell Free Card signed by God personally for them before the creation of the world. In other words, “DO WHAT THOU WILT IS THE WHOLE OF THE LAW! OPEN SEASON!”

  211. Lydia wrote:

    JohnD wrote:
    The law supports me on this so the eldership is vulnerable.
    Can you expound on what you mean by this?

    When my country (South Africa) transitioned from apartheid to democracy there was, understandably, a strong emphasis on personal liberty. This was enshrined in the new constitution. Specific legislation was enacted to give effect to particular rights including the right of access to information held by government and private bodies. A private body is broadly speaking any entity that is not part of government and would include churches.

    The church has entered into an agreement with Acts 29 on doctrinal and financial issues. The elders have refused to disclose either the document or its contents. A member would have a right of access to the document in terms of the legislation and, if necessary, to a court order enforcing that right.

  212. Gram3, I would take a few steps further and say the problem of American evangelicalism is that it presupposes the nuclear family as both historically and prescriptively normative, when the consumer unit known as the nuclear family is more typical of the post-World War II economic boom years.

    It is ultimately useless to pretend that the dogmatics in themselves explain much because the axiom that “ideas have consequences” is an apologetics bromide that often lacks viable explanatory power.

    What’s more as we see Mark Driscoll looking ready to pivot away from a new Calvinist, pseudo-Reformed team to a more charismatic scene it’s important to keep in mind that a Mark Driscoll can abruptly change theological “tribes” while still being Mark Driscoll. If anything the appeal of the new Calvinist movement in more secularized socio-economic terms does more to explain their appeal. Mark Driscoll, in particular, with variations on Piper’s “Christian hedonism” looked appealing to young people because it sacralized the recreational activities of drinking and smoking and having sex. So for people who came from a more Wesleyan/Holiness background In American evangelical culture this looked like a less legalistic culture to join. The problem was what the left hand gave in permitted activities the right hand took away in HOW you were expected to participate in them.

    Progressives have tended to fail in assessing a Mark Driscoll because they fixate on comments about women and gays, they look at what they think the fans are buying rather than what the fans think they’re investing in, which I think Gram3 has done a fairly good job summing up. Driscoll’s promise a sense of belonging and Driscoll explicitly sold young people on living for a legacy. The long con was that it was revealed over time that this legacy people were living for was not a shared legacy of “we” but Mark Driscoll’s increasingly self-referential legacy of “me”.

    So it’s not ironic or paradoxical that those who have been most persistent in publicly addressing the contradiction between Mark’s formerly stated ideals and his words and conduct have not been particularly cynical types but early joiners who are in some sense “true believers”. We remember what Mark claimed to stand for, observed how galactic the gap between ideal and practice became, and made a point of bringing this to light.

    It’s not just that women have lesser value, anyone who isn’t mated up and reproducing gets sidelined and this despite the fact that if we combine massive student and consumer debt with grade/degree inflation and decades of outsourcing our production it’s economically less and less plausible to insist that younger people pursue the suburban middle-class dream. That, too, was where the old Driscoll got attention for suggesting that aspiration was problematic and then a decade or so later he was living in Woodway in a million-dollar house while acting like he was doing ministry in some edgy urban area as if he lived there still.

    To piggyback between ideas presented by Roy Baumeister and some complaints from Zimbardo, if you solve the problem of individual males being socially and economically disposable and give them a legacy to live for, regardless what that legacy may be, you’ve by definition created a cult. Mark Driscoll convinced a whole bunch of now formerly young guys that if they joined the team they’d have an indispensable role to play in shaping a legacy. Then as the decades passed people got a chance to see that the only person who was indispensable was Driscoll. Now we get a year or two to find out if the splinter plants can survive with the personality cult that took shape around Driscoll.

    Gram3’s socioeconomic explanation seems like a good fit with what I observed over fifteen odd years in Seattle.

  213. God being morally responsible for permitting evil to happen is inescapable in Christian theology unless we’re all going to be Marcionites. This problem exists regardless of whether we’re synergists or monergists on soteriology.

  214. Gram3 wrote:

    So, if you are a young, well-educated person who is disturbed by the chaos around you, including possibly in your own family, and you see a tight and tidy system that appeals to your pride in being “in the know” and cool and different from your parents’ church, then the YRR may resonate with your generation more than with others.

    Bingo! There is no doubt that New Calvinism attracts the academically-inclined. Reformed systematic theology challenges the mind … to reach beyond the faith of fuddy-duddies to a new horizon of “truth.” The problem is that education does not produce one ounce of revelation. Intellectual assent is not always spirit-driven. Debating theology is not preaching the Gospel. It’s sad, but the YRR appear to be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). We are losing a generation to this madness … whose plan would that be?

  215. JohnD wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    JohnD wrote:
    The law supports me on this so the eldership is vulnerable.
    Can you expound on what you mean by this?

    When my country (South Africa) transitioned from apartheid to democracy there was, understandably, a strong emphasis on personal liberty. This was enshrined in the new constitution. Specific legislation was enacted to give effect to particular rights including the right of access to information held by government and private bodies. A private body is broadly speaking any entity that is not part of government and would include churches.

    The church has entered into an agreement with Acts 29 on doctrinal and financial issues. The elders have refused to disclose either the document or its contents. A member would have a right of access to the document in terms of the legislation and, if necessary, to a court order enforcing that right.

    @JohnD,

    That’s disrespectful that the church’s elders wouldn’t be: 1) transparent with church members about the church’s finances which comes from members; 2) won’t respect South African law about transparency; and 3) have catered to the American-based Acts 29. I am sorry to hear about all of that.

    By the way, it’s nice to hear you are from South Africa. I was thinking recently of making the S.A. dish Bobotie, which I learned to make as a child from British relatives who lived there and visited us here in the U.S.

  216. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Yes, a long time professing believer can rape children and still be elect.

    Because they’ve got that Get Out of Hell Free Card signed by God personally for them before the creation of the world. In other words, “DO WHAT THOU WILT IS THE WHOLE OF THE LAW! OPEN SEASON!”

    By the way, H.U.G., did you see the Naked Pastor/David Hayward cartoon about Cecil the Lion? http://nakedpastor.com/2015/07/dentists-lions-and-equal-opportunity/

  217. @ Gram3:

    “When the women leave, the kids leave. When the kids leave, there is no legacy generation. If there is no legacy generation, the organization become nonviable.”
    ++++++++++++

    Ha…. sounds like a case of ‘things having a way of working themselves out’ with regard to MD’s beloved mantra, “if you get the men, you win the war. if you get the young men, you also win the war for the future.”

  218. Gram3 wrote:

    I think, overall, the YRR is primarily both reactionary and parasitic. I don’t think Piper and Grudem’s message would have taken hold before about 1980 nor after 2000. That’s my opinion, and I think at this point the YRR movement is consuming its capital. It is parasitic in that the YRR and Gospel Glitterati built their empires on what previous generations had built. They are not, as a rule, expanding the Kingdom by conversion by the Gospel but by converting Christians to their way of thinking and taking them away from their existing churches. That can only go on so long, as others have said.

    This is an excellent point.

  219. Velour wrote:

    Velour on Sun Aug 09, 2015 at 12:20 PM said:

    Thank you. South Africa.

    @JohnD,
    I will pray for you, your church, and that peoples’ faith not be harmed.
    Which country do you live in?

  220. @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:

    Why is God morally responsible for our choices and behavior if He created us a free will beings who have the ability to make choices? Most evils are perpetuated by humans. I understand this question concerning tornados and earthquakes, though. But even then, He gave us brains to invent ways to better protect ourselves from such from warning systems to buildings.

  221. @ JohnD:

    South Africa… and here I was picturing you in Indiana or Georgia or something

    Are you familiar with Wilbur Smith? I’ve read many of his books. An amazing experience, reading something of his. “When The Lion Feeds” on up to “The Burning Shore” (the Courtney series), many others (Eagle In The Sky, Firebird, Birds Of Prey, River God…) I feel like I’ve been to South Africa, just from reading.

  222. Max wrote:

    Calvinism, if allowed to run its full course, leads to antinomianism. There is a lawlessness that takes over after a while which abuses Christian liberties and explains away sin (God does it all mentality).

    I need to find the proper citation for this quote. I think it is from a paper by Rigoni of the University of Marseilles. “Recently it has been also shown that a disbelief in free will leads to antisocial tendencies, such as aggressive behavior (Baumeister et al., 2009) and cheating (Vohs and Schooler, 2008).”

    Science confirms our conclusions.

  223. Lydia, as my atheist friends have put it over the years, all forms of orthodox Christian deity are morally responsible for rapists raping because if the Calvinist God fore-ordained the rape then Arminian God still lets rape happen by not stopping the rapist from exercising free will. Arminians and Calvinists don’t always get that the things they fight over are a distinction without a difference to an unbeliever on the matter of metaphysics and ethics. The Christian “answer” to evil is not freedom of the will or lack thereof but Jesus on the cross, God choosing to bear direct responsibility for our sin.

  224. elastigirl wrote:

    Are you familiar with Wilbur Smith? I’ve read many of his books. An amazing experience, reading something of his. “When The Lion Feeds” on up to “The Burning Shore” (the Courtney series), many others (Eagle In The Sky, Firebird, Birds Of Prey, River God…) I feel like I’ve been to South Africa, just from reading.

    I read and enjoyed all of Wilbur Smith’s earlier books back in my teenage years.I don’t remember too much of the detail now. I stopped reading him because, and I know this is going to sound strange but its true, his writing became almost boring for me. It definitely is not boring but I stared spending whatever time I could in many of the wild places that his books are set in and often experienced truth as stranger than fiction.

  225. Nancy2 wrote:

    John MacArthur is a total patriarchist. He believes women should not be allowed to work outside the home. He says that it’s okay for women to start teaching a women’s or children’s Sunday School class when she’s about 60, after she is past the age when all of the children she might have been biologically able to have would be grown.

    Hmm. I’ve never married or had a kid. In my 40s now.

  226. Daisy wrote:

    Nancy2 wrote:

    John MacArthur is a total patriarchist. He believes women should not be allowed to work outside the home. He says that it’s okay for women to start teaching a women’s or children’s Sunday School class when she’s about 60, after she is past the age when all of the children she might have been biologically able to have would be grown.

    Hmm. I’ve never married or had a kid. In my 40s now.

    And ironically the very first person to get “keyed out” (Gram3’s saying for excommunicated/shunned) at my former NeoCal church was a godly doctor (married for 40+ years to his wife) who a long-time close friend of Pastor John MacArthur’s! The good doctor’s “crime” was that he disagreed in private with the pastors/elders’ running of the church and he used the Bible to back it up. The very ideas that MacArthur espouses, and that my former pastor espoused too, came back to bite MacArthur in this vicious attack on one of his closet friends.

  227. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    The Christian “answer” to evil is not freedom of the will or lack thereof but Jesus on the cross, God choosing to bear direct responsibility for our sin.

    I don’t disagree with this just disagree with blaming God for what humans do. If God “allows” us to do evil then He also “allows” us to do good and work to protect innocents.

  228. Paradoxically penal substitutionary atonement can be construed as an observation that God the Son takes responsibility for our sins with us and for us. What God permits is a package deal. He permits us to do good works and also evil. It’s the attempt to exonerate God from the possibility of permitting moral and natural evil that we have to avoid and that is, more or less, one of the key themes of Job.

    In Job 2:3 God remarks that He permitted Satan to torment Job without cause. God rebukes Job’s friends by saying they did not speak the truth about Him the way Job did. The irony is that those who defend the honor of God against Job’s accusation that God let him suffer without a good reason end up being rebuked as those who misrepresent God. Job’s friends wanted God to be off the hook for something God refused to make Himself off the hook for. The ostensibly orthodox explanation turns out to get rebuked by God Himself as not being true, even though it’s considered true in general, just not necessarily true about what was allowed to happen to Job.

    God permitting moral and natural evil to occur and bearing a moral responsibility for that by knowingly letting sin enter the cosmos is a related question becomes, “then to whom is God responsible?” Christians have affirmed the goodness of God’s character so we have an answer to that question.

    A toxic shortcoming in Piper’s approach is that in his eagerness to rush to a Job’s comforter theodicy he seems to forget any element of Immanuel.

  229. Lydia wrote:

    Yes, a long time professing believer can rape children and still be elect.

    As someone was saying on another thread (maybe it was even you?), the flip side of this coin is that they teach a person can appear to be saved, think they are, profess to others they accepted Christ, but die only to find out they are one of the non-elect. Really weird theology they have going on.

  230. Lydia wrote:

    It almost seems like two extremes to me. The happy-clappy Joel Osteenesque entertainment Jesus or the angry selective God that only cares about His glory as you are nothing but a worm.

    That’s kind of how it appears to me. I’m not fond of either one.

    Though I can tolerate small doses of Happy-Clappy. Not too much of it, though, because I like to admit to others (if I feel it is safe to do so), that I fail at times, feel sad at times, etc, and could use someone to encourage me.

    In Happy Clappy churches, you cannot admit to having pain or problems. You will get shamed or scolded for it if you do.

  231. Lydia wrote:

    Right. I will take it a step further and say Jesus spent a lot of time warning about religious leaders of His own tribe and almost NONE about the Roman government or their false religions.

    Yes, and Paul too. Paul has about a whole chapter in one of the NT books telling the church not to spend time judging those outside the church (God will judge them) but to judge those inside the church.

  232. Lydia wrote:

    They were to be broken worms who were unable to do anything “good”.

    I also don’t see how this sort of theology helps or is good for people who already think of themselves as worms.

    I had dirt poor self esteem up until a few years ago myself. I already thought I was a worm, and I felt unloved by God, or I felt like God loved everybody way more than me.

  233. Daisy wrote:

    I also don’t see how this sort of theology helps or is good for people who already think of themselves as worms.
    I had dirt poor self esteem up until a few years ago myself. I already thought I was a worm, and I felt unloved by God, or I felt like God loved everybody way more than me.

    Exactly. I want our youth to see their great God given potential. I want them to see all the good they can do like finding cures for cancer, new inventions to improve lives, caring for elderly, etc, etc.

  234. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    It’s not just that women have lesser value, anyone who isn’t mated up and reproducing gets sidelined

    Oh yes. I’m over 40, never married, no children.

    And it’s not just Driscoll and the Neo Cals, but many other theological groups and churches in American Christianity have managed to alienate and exclude over half the current U.S. population – adult singles. They never take the spot light off the nuclear family, pro-creating, and marriage.

    I found it funny when Driscoll did some blog page (this was about a year or more ago), or sermon on, how adult singles (who are childless) can leave a legacy too. He was trying to cram them into his Legacy shtick, IIRC.

  235. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    if you solve the problem of individual males being socially and economically disposable and give them a legacy to live for, regardless what that legacy may be, you’ve by definition created a cult. Mark Driscoll convinced a whole bunch of now formerly young guys that if they joined the team they’d have an indispensable role to play in shaping a legacy.

    This is the saddest part of a very informative comment. I hear from young women that they feel like they are disposable, too, and maybe that was part of it as well for the young women who were drawn to a man who is clearly a misogynist.

    I don’t live in the PacNW and don’t understand the culture there and still have a hard time understanding why Driscoll was so attractive to so many. When I first heard about him about 2005 or so, I though he was crude and trashy and adolescent. Even some older people I know were taken with him because he was “reaching the kids.” It seemed to me to be all about his show, and it was the same creepy feeling I got with Mahaney.

    I never thought either was a good teacher–good showmen, certainly–but maybe that’s because I’ve had some really good ones who did not make it about themselves at all. I *never* could see a plausible reason for Piper and Grudem to hook up with Driscoll other than mutual self-promotion, just like I could never see a plausible reason for Dever/Mohler/Duncan to superglue themselves to Mahaney other than Mahaney having the conference infrastructure and model for church planting in place. Somebody realized everyone would be better off together.

  236. I think there is a logical explanation for John Piper: The man is certifiably nuts.
    But that takes half the fun out of calling him “Flutterhands”.

  237. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    Lydia, as my atheist friends have put it over the years, all forms of orthodox Christian deity are morally responsible for rapists raping because if the Calvinist God fore-ordained the rape then Arminian God still lets rape happen by not stopping the rapist from exercising free will.

    This cropped up in a discussion at the weekend with my boy and middle daughter. She gave the same answer to this you did, and I make the point that atheists I have interacted with without exception do not want a God who would intervene in their personal lives. It’s the last thing on earth they would want, they want aboslute personal autonomy, particularly when it comes to moral issues.

    So they can’t really complain when God respects that and doesn’t intervene. The way he did intervene on the cross leaves him still absolutely sovereign, and leaves our ‘freewill’ intact at the same time.

  238. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    What it rarely did was bring about any change in the attitudes of the new churches, in large part because the aforesaid standard list of allegations contained as much half-truth and slander as genuine rebuke.

    Thanks for the memory … ! I can identify with a lot of what you said from personal experience. I think many of the newer churches came about because of the cobwebby deadness of the older ones, indeed outright apostacy, but the one I was in did develop a sense of pride that we and the ‘related’ churches were somehow better. Pride, and you know who opposes the proud …

    Your point about rumours and half-truths being spread about is absolutely true. I think one reason house-church leaders were loath to listen to criticisms from the older churches was that accusations were based on assertions lacking specific evidence. Add to this the bias of some – they would be critical anyway because other and/or newer churches didn’t follow some aspect of church life the way their denomination did. Real worship requires an organ and stained-glass windows; TULIPs are the only flowers allowed.

    Without direct personal experience or reasonable hard evidence from books or talks in the public domain, you can take alot of talk about what goes on in churches with a large pinch of salt. Rumours are always, if not outright false, highly exaggerated most of the time.

  239. Lydia wrote:

    @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:

    I don’t subscribe to PSA and read Job as “wisdom” poetry along with Ecclesisates and Proverbs so we probably won’t get too far in this discussion. :o)

    And Job shows God asserting that theodicies that defend Him from responsibility for evil by permitting moral evil and calamity are ultimately wrong.

    Not subscribing to PSA or its earlier theological formulation of ransom theory presents a problem in that God still permits moral evil and is thus accountable for it. Paradoxically the self-substitution theories of atonement are the ones that most directly address the theological conundrum. It’s actually a bigger problem for Christians who won’t subscribe to these models of atonement. I’ve seen the divine child abuse arguments against PSA and the problem gets back to Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor who points out that with the free-will theodicy God still has orchestrated a cosmic harmony end-point that depends on the death of a single child.

    I read Ecclesiastes as 1) not by Solomon 2) not in any way repenting of any previous life 3) concluding that wisdom itself, though valuable, is ultimately of limited use. Job and Ecclesiastes are countervailing documents that address the problems of prosperity teaching inherent in how people could misinterpret and misapply Proverbs.

  240. R@ Gram3:
    Yes, I am very concerned about those who have been injured by church leadership. I have, and I have spent much energy in my line of work, trying to help those who have. So, the protection of church leadership is not one of my “sacred cows”. Do I believe that it is possible to be heartbroken over those hurt by John Piper and still speak to the matter without the snark, ridicule and mockery that is part of many comments here, yes. Do I know anything about Jesus, his humility and compassion, yes. Do I know the dictionary definition of thw word “fool”, yes. Do I believe that Jesus said that if we call a brother a “fool”, we are in danger/liable to the hell of fire? yes. Do I believe that we should first go and speak to a brother and seek to be reconciled before calling him a “fool”, yes. Should I have become more familiar with John Piper before writing my original comment? yes. Should I respond to you Dr. Fundystan…(who will not use your own name} if I am the Ron, you are saying is not too bright? no

  241. Ron wrote:

    Do I believe that Jesus said that if we call a brother a “fool”, we are in danger/liable to the hell of fire? yes.

    Hi Ron

    I am going to assume that you are new to blogging, especially new to blogs that deal with abuse in all of its forms, including church leaders who say things that can deeply trouble and hurt others.

    Le’t start with this quoted statement. So, do you believe that Jesus was saying that you will only be saved if you believe on Jesus and never call another person a fool? I certainly don’t. I think many people mistake these statements by Jesus as new judgements on Christians.

    In fact, Jesus was saying this during the three years of his ministry. His ministry was about showing people that their sins go far deeper than doing work on Sunday.I believe that Jesus was saying that if you believe this, you, too, are guilty of sinning.

    However, every week in my church we do a confession of sins. At the end of the confession, the pastor reminds us that all of our sins, known and unknown, are forgiven. Jesus took care of that “you will go to hell if you call your brother a fool” on the Cross.

    Ron wrote:

    Do I believe that we should first go and speak to a brother and seek to be reconciled before calling him a “fool”, yes.

    This debate was over a few years ago. As blogs became more popular and pastors and church leaders were getting called out, the Matthew 18 meme got so overcooked that no one stopped to think of the implications.

    Even the most rigid of Neo Calvinists, like DA Carson, agreed with many of us bloggers on the following point. When pastors and churches jump up and down, telling us to come to listen to them or come to their church, they are speaking to the public. They do not get to dictate how those, who are the listening public, perceive their public utterances.

    What is said in the public arena gets to be critiqued in the public arena. The “go to your brother” stuff belongs in the church with which you are affiliated.

    I say lots of things on this blog. In fact, today, I am going to criticize a publicly posted TGC article. Also, I have no problem with anyone calling me names, whatever. In fact, we keep a running list of the names we are called on this blog called “What the World Is Saying About TWW. My current favorite is daughter of Stan (sic).

    If I didn’t have a thick skin, I would never publicly blog. I expect to be harshly criticized on a daily basis and I think those who do have the right to do so. I bet John Piper is used to it as well, given a number of the kooky things he has said. However, unlike your adorable TWW blog Queens, Piper does not allow comments on anything he writes. For a guy who is into the manly thing, he has far thinner skin than two women.

    Ron wrote:

    Should I respond to you Dr. Fundystan…(who will not use your own name} if I am the Ron, you are saying is not too bright? no

    Now you have stepped into it. I wish I could have warned you. When the Deebs started this blog, we blogged anonymously because our husbands feared that they would be shooting through our front doors. As we got further along, we often saw comments like yours directed not only at us but at readers who we believe need to preserve their anonymity for valid reasons.

    By allowing anonymity, we have been able to bring into the light terrible stories of abuse in churches and parachurch organizations. So, our husbands agreed to allow us to use our names so that, by using our names, we get to vouch for those who wish to remain anonymous. If you have a problem with this, you will not feel comfortable commenting on blogs.

    Many people who have come to this blog have been beat over their heads by churches. As they work through their feelings, they will say things in a manner which obviously is not valid in your world. It is valid in my world and on this blog. I am heartened to hear that you never think or call anyone any names.

    .Ron wrote:

    Dr. Fundystan…(who will not use your own name

    Finally I just did a search of the name “Ron” in the comments on our blog for the last few years. You need to thank your mom for giving you such a common name. As far as I can tell, no one could ever figure out which Ron in this whole wide world you are. In fact, as far as I am concerned, your name could be Mortimer. So, don’t go sounding all big and brave about using your *real* name.

    You could be Ronalds Žagars, a Latvian former football goalkeeper; Ronald Venetiaan, a former president of Suriname, or Ronnie O’Sullivan,the British snooker player.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald

  242. Ron wrote:

    Do I believe that it is possible to be heartbroken over those hurt by John Piper and still speak to the matter without the snark, ridicule and mockery that is part of many comments here, yes.

    What was the tone that Jesus used with the religious “leaders” of his day who were leading the people astray and putting them into bondage to their man-made laws? How about John the Baptist’s tone? Paul’s tone? Jude’s tone?

    The only relevant question is whether or not what John Piper (or anyone else) teaches is true. If he is teaching what is false, then he needs to be exposed. Is he putting people into bondage under his own law? Yes, I think he is and expend a lot of the Deeb’s pixels saying so.

    As for going to him to be reconciled, I am a female, and therefore it is impossible for me to have an audience with him. I’ve tried with some of his disciples and that has not gone very well.

  243. R@ dee:
    Wow, Dee. Are you sure that I’m just trying to sound “big and brave” about using my real name? As to which Ron I am, if you are involved in governing this website in some way, then look up my email address and find out what my name is. As far as thanking my mother for giving me such a common name, I can’t, she died of the same disease that I am now dying of. Are you sure about your hermeneutics in regard to Jesus statement in Matthew 5?. The context does not support your explanation. Am I saying that you will “only be saved if you believe in Jesus and never call another person a fool”? …When did I say that? The condescending tone of your opening statement is remarkable. I’m not new to this, Dee. Here’s what’s new for me, a differnt attitude towards those I differ with. either in the public arena and in the church. I believe that if you knew the record of my life in the last few years, there would be no way to deny that in my imperfect way, I care for the hurting and oppressed. But after over 18 months of experiencing the horror of sickness and suffering to a degree I have never known before, I don’t see or view others as quite the mortal enemies that I used to. You are however, not hearing me say that I never think or call anyone names. Are you “heartened” to hear that as well?

  244. Gram3

    Well, one of the things that’s hard to convey to people who weren’t in the Seattle area is that a lot of the appeal of the early MH had more to do with Mike Gunn and Lief Moi with Mark as part of that dynamic than Mark himself. Thanks to more than a decade of branding and narrative shaping people think the epicenter was Mark. He MADE himself the epicenter over time but that’s not how many of us who were there in the earlier years recall the group.

  245. WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:

    a lot of the appeal of the early MH had more to do with Mike Gunn and Lief Moi with Mark as part of that dynamic than Mark himself.

    Right about that. I don’t know anything about them. Given the hidden origin of Acts29, it seems that Mark taking credit for what others have built is par for the course.

  246. Ron wrote:

    Do I know the dictionary definition of thw word “fool”, yes. Do I believe that Jesus said that if we call a brother a “fool”, we are in danger/liable to the hell of fire? yes. Do I believe that we should first go and speak to a brother and seek to be reconciled before calling him a “fool”, yes

    Ron, a few questions for you:

    1. How old are you?
    2. How have you studied the Bible?
    3. How much do you ACTUALLY know about John Piper? (What he has said to domestic violence victims, sexual abuse victims, the victims of Mars Hills’ spiritual abuse?)
    4. Do you know John Piper?

    5. If you have any kind of maturity – age as well as Biblical study – do you REALLY think that Jesus was merely saying “by the way – don’t use this word called ‘fool’?” Seriously? That’s what you believe?

    And you believe that Jesus, who atoned for sin, that His blood can’t atone for a word? Jesus who said that the ONLY unforgiveable sin was to NOT believe in God?

    6. In case you don’t know, Jesus was addressing an internal sin issue (as he frequently did). He was addressing a Jewish belief that ONLY those who actually murdered were guilty of murder. Jesus was addressing, in the context of the verses about don’t using the word “fool”, that murderous anger is like the sin of murder. That’s what He was doing about.

    7. God’s Word is full of the word “fool”. God Himself uses the word fool. He cautions us to stay away from fools.

    8. The Book of Proverbs is an entire study about fools (don’t become one, stay away from them, don’t listen to them, don’t hire them and on and on).

    Why have you missed the boat?

    I don’t harbor anger toward John Piper like Jesus was talking about when we are not to use the word fool. I do think John Piper is a foolish man for his age and that his foolish words bring a reproach upon the name and cause of Christ inside and outside of the church. He has caused much damage and won’t have the humility to own up to it.

  247. Ron wrote:

    R@ dee:
    Wow, Dee. Are you sure that I’m just trying to sound “big and brave” about using my real name? As to which Ron I am, if you are involved in governing this website in some way, then look up my email address and find out what my name is. As far as thanking my mother for giving me such a common name, I can’t, she died of the same disease that I am now dying of. Are you sure about your hermeneutics in regard to Jesus statement in Matthew 5?. The context does not support your explanation. Am I saying that you will “only be saved if you believe in Jesus and never call another person a fool”? …When did I say that? The condescending tone of your opening statement is remarkable. I’m not new to this, Dee. Here’s what’s new for me, a differnt attitude towards those I differ with. either in the public arena and in the church. I believe that if you knew the record of my life in the last few years, there would be no way to deny that in my imperfect way, I care for the hurting and oppressed. But after over 18 months of experiencing the horror of sickness and suffering to a degree I have never known before, I don’t see or view others as quite the mortal enemies that I used to. You are however, not hearing me say that I never think or call anyone names. Are you “heartened” to hear that as well?

    @Ron,

    You said you’re sick and dying. How can we pray for you?
    I am sorry to hear you are in ill health.

    (By the way, I don’t see the likes of John Piper as ‘a mortal enemy’, even when I referred to him as a fool. I am using it the way Proverbs does: don’t become a fool, don’t listen to a fool, don’t hire a fool, etc. Piper is far too old to be so foolish, to be leading so many astray, and he has damaged the name and the cause of Christ both within the church and outside of its walls.)

  248. Velour: I don’t intend to respond to every point in your comment above. Here are a few answers: Let’s just say that as of last week, I am old enough to now receive social security. I’m not sure what you mean by “how have you studied the Bible?” I learned about the Bible while being brought to church as a child. In the 60’s, I left everything behind that the Bible teaches about God, morality,church, anything. Later, at a Big Ten University, God graciously changed my spiritual heart and direction. Later I spent 4 years in theological graduate school and seminary at what most theological folks consider one of the top schools of its type. I have 2 Masters degrees in theology, I have a divinity degree. Later, I become a Pastor in a Presbyterian church and within 7 years of church stuff, I could no longer tolerate the kind of politics and power games amongst the clergy that I left, and never went back.Your question in point 5 above doesn’t even follow the point I made in my comment.Your question or point in #6 is pretty much exactly the point I would make in my concern about using the word “fool” toward another professing christian. Not because its a “word” but exactly because in Jesus example while using it, he is intending to expose the intent of the heart. Do I know that that is what he is talking about? yes. I know the passage, I know what it says, I can quote it to you in greek if you would want me to. We will have to disagree about by how far I have “missed the boat”. Thank you for your concern for my health. I am not in a good place physically. You could pray that in my remaining days, God would give me a kind heart and a mouth that is slow to speak and a desire to just walk humbly with him each day. Such words are no longer a cliche to me as they once were but a deep and true longing in my soul as I await the day of seeing his face.

  249. Ron wrote:

    I am not in a good place physically. You could pray that in my remaining days, God would give me a kind heart and a mouth that is slow to speak and a desire to just walk humbly with him each day. Such words are no longer a cliche to me as they once were but a deep and true longing in my soul as I await the day of seeing his face.

    Hi Ron,

    Thanks for your response.

    I am sorry you are not in a good place physically. I will be praying for you and ask others here to do the same.

    Please let us know what else we can do to help you at this time.

  250. Lydia wrote:

    @ WenatcheeTheHatchet:

    I don’t subscribe to PSA and read Job as “wisdom” poetry along with Ecclesisates and Proverbs so we probably won’t get too far in this discussion. :o)

    I don’t subscribe to PSA either – I just get tested for it (Total & Free) every six months.

  251. Daisy wrote:

    As someone was saying on another thread (maybe it was even you?), the flip side of this coin is that they teach a person can appear to be saved, think they are, profess to others they accepted Christ, but die only to find out they are one of the non-elect.

    1) Like God saying “You Go To Hell! Just Because I Say So!”

    2) I figure this is why so many Calvinist types are always trying to PROVE to themselves they are Actually Elect — Bigger Church & Furtick Mansion Than Thou, More Pewsitters & Followers Than Thou, More Perfectly Parsed Theology Than Thou, More Calvinist Than Thou. (The level of More Calvinist than Calvin was already passed long ago.)

  252. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    figure this is why so many Calvinist types are always trying to PROVE to themselves they are Actually Elect — Bigger Church & Furtick Mansion Than Thou, More Pewsitters & Followers Than Thou, More Perfectly Parsed Theology Than Thou, More Calvinist Than Thou.

    I barely remember as a kid reading about the Puritans or some Christian group.
    They were always concerned if they were really saved or not, so they went around all the time, looking for sin in their own lives.

    They were always spiritual -navel gazing.

    I was brought up to believe (and still do) in the OSAS view. I never worried about losing my salvation, or if I was really saved to start with.

    I didn’t sweat it. Made my life much easier in that regard.

    I kind of felt sorry for all the Puritan guys who were always stressing out over whether they were saved/the elect or not.

  253. Ken wrote:

    I have interacted with without exception do not want a God who would intervene in their personal lives. It’s the last thing on earth they would want, they want aboslute personal autonomy, particularly when it comes to moral issues.
    So they can’t really complain when God respects that and doesn’t intervene.

    I don’t know if I agree or disagree with your points here, but there are some atheists who at least claim they do want God to work in their lives.

    Which is strange because they say they don’t think God exists.

    Anyway, years ago, I found an atheist forum and stumbled across it a time or two months later when googling for some other topic. I don’t know why their forum kept popping up for me, but it did.

    It’s a forum (IIRC) of most ex-Christians who now say they are atheists. Their main complaint is that they are paralyzed or had limbs blown off while serving in the military or whatever, and they blame God for this.

    They think if God is healing other people of their problems, God should have healed them. Because, though, they are still in wheelchairs or having missing body parts, there must not be a God.

    It was kind of an odd site.

  254. dee wrote:

    When the Deebs started this blog, we blogged anonymously because our husbands feared that they would be shooting through our front doors. As we got further along, we often saw comments like yours directed not only at us but at readers who we believe need to preserve their anonymity for valid reasons.

    I have been cyber stalked both when I used my real name and later under another screen name. Some of us have good reasons why we don’t use our real names online. I don’t think people like Ron appreciate that.

  255. @ Daisy:

    P.S. About being cyber stalked. I should mention that when I used my real name, the creepster tracked me down in real life, called me on the phone too, I think he had my street address, etc etc.

  256. rhondajeannie wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    When I see John Piper the saying comes to mind, “There’s no fool like an old fool.”
    Velour, I like this quote by Abraham Lincoln,
    ‘Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt’.

    That’s actually a paraphrase of a verse from Proverbs, I think. So not only is it Lincoln, it’s biblical(TM).

  257. (refugee wrote:

    rhondajeannie wrote:
    Velour wrote:
    When I see John Piper the saying comes to mind, “There’s no fool like an old fool.”
    Velour, I like this quote by Abraham Lincoln,
    ‘Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt’.

    That’s actually a paraphrase of a verse from Proverbs, I think. So not only is it Lincoln, it’s biblical(TM).

    And now I seem vaguely to remember that conservative reformed speakers excoriated Lincoln. I don’t remember why.

  258. Abi Miah wrote:

    The lack of pastoral concern for those damaged is just shocking. People who have been so damaged by leaders in the church that they declare themselves “done” need TLC from other believers. They need gentle, loving outreach with no judgment. I wish that someone (not Piper), someone would say, “The organized church has harmed you in the most grievous way. We are so sorry. We grieve with you for the harm done. The one who has done this deserves the utmost rebuke. Tell us your story. We want to hear from you, learn from you, pray for you.” That’s what I’d like to hear from a church leader.

    Yes, this.

  259. Lydia wrote:

    On another note, I believe Piper, retired, is the point man in dealing with the pushback on Driscoll that is going on. He has the least to lose and the most gravitas with tons of followers.

    I’m not sure I take your meaning.

  260. Daisy wrote:

    but is only drive by greed and profit.

    I know you meant “driven by” but “drive by” certainly seems to fit his current M.O.

  261. Abi Miah wrote:

    James 2: 19 You believe that God is one. [You have the correct belief about God.]You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. [Oops. The devil could pass the exam if it is only about ideas.]

    Well stated.

  262. refugee wrote:

    rhondajeannie wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    When I see John Piper the saying comes to mind, “There’s no fool like an old fool.”
    Velour, I like this quote by Abraham Lincoln,
    ‘Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt’.

    That’s actually a paraphrase of a verse from Proverbs, I think. So not only is it Lincoln, it’s biblical(TM).

    Exactly. It IS Biblical.

  263. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Abi Miah wrote:
    ” It is really hard for me to understand people who know that their leader is egregiously deficient of love (e.g. consistently bullies people, is narcissistic etc.) and yet follow him because of the ideas he preaches from the pulpit.
    Obviously, the followers are getting something out of it; that’s why they put up with the A-hole in the first place. Personal advantage? Ego-boo? Lure of the Inner Ring? Belonging to a One True Way mass movement? Tabaqui the Jackal sucking up to Shere Khan for the crumbs from the tiger’s kill? Flattered that “I Am Right and Everyone Else is Wrong”?

    Add to the list: looking for assurance amidst personal chaos, after a highly dysfunctional upbringing. Promised a good result by persuasive, empathetic-sounding speakers. Called to follow after those who have gone before, in order to achieve “success” …overlooking the fact that their godly parenting advice, assuring confident, mature, godly fruit, is being promulgated by people whose own children are under the age of ten.

  264. I wish people like this wouldn’t use Middle Eastern Christians as a tool to score cheap rhetorical points. There is simply no comparison between Iraqi and Syrian Christians (nearly all of whom aren’t even Protestant, let alone Calvinist) being beheaded and driven out of their homes, with Mark Driscoll’s church collapsing due to his own poor judgment. Piper is simply being callous and insensitive here.

    What’s especially offensive is that he pals around with people like John MacArthur who deny that Catholics, Orthodox, and Assyrians (including the vast majority of Middle Eastern Christians) are “really” Christian at all.

    Even if Piper doesn’t himself agree with MacArthur’s views, it’s still offensive of him to have brought up the Middle East in that context. Mark Driscoll is not a victim of an attempted genocide, or anything remotely resembling one.

  265. Daisy wrote:

    I barely remember as a kid reading about the Puritans or some Christian group.
    They were always concerned if they were really saved or not, so they went around all the time, looking for sin in their own lives.
    They were always spiritual -navel gazing.

    And writing it all down in journals, most of which have survived to this day. That’s how we know so much about their sin-sniffing navel-gazing.

    To think what it must be like to not ever have a life because you were too busy sin-sniffing yourself 24/7/365. It’s the Reformed way to seal yourself off into a Monastic bubble detached from reality, and that way lies Madness.

    I find the Jewish emphasis on “L’Chaim!” — Live Your Life — to be much more healthy.

  266. @ Abi Miah:
    While I agree with the sentiment, it wasn’t the organized church that abused these, God’s beloved, but Mark. Please don’t condemn the church because of the sins of a few. From Acts 2 to today the church has been an organized community of those whose faith is in the risen Lord as their savior. What Mark and others have done might have slightly dim the church’s name but it will never snuff out her light.