“When the locus of evaluation is seen as residing in the expert, it would appear that the long-range social implications are in the direction of the social control of the many by the few.” ― Carl R. Rogers, Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory link
IX
9 Marks, Mark Dever, Jonathan Leeman and the rest of the good old niners often brag that they are congregationally™ endorsed. I have always wondered about that since it seems rather clear to me that they believe in rigid authority (that keys to the kingdom thing.) Recently, Jonathan Leeman wrote a response to the following question that he received.
Dear Jonathan,
I am emailing to ask a question regarding eldership. I visited your church recently, and learned that you recommended removing a line in your church constitution that required a majority of the elders to be lay (non-staff). Our church has been thinking about adding a line to our constitution that does just the opposite: “The number of voting vocational elders (i.e., pastors) must not exceed the number of non-vocational elders.”
His response is rather stunning. Remember, 9 Marks considers itself congregationally endorsed. However, if this response is any indication, I believe that the congregation has virtually no say in the running of Capital Hill Baptist Church. This is an important development because all of the Calvinista wannabes want to fashion themselves after Mark Dever's Hotel California. You should look forward to seeing this implemented in a Calvinista church near you.
1. Paid pastors will now be the majority on the elder board.
In other words. lay elders will no longer be the majority on the elder board. This means that the paid pastors will run the church with virtually no input from the congregation (I will get to that in a minutes.)
You are correct. When our church adopted a new constitution in 1998, we included a provision that required a majority of the elders to be lay elders. A couple of years ago, I encouraged our elders and then our congregation to remove that provision, which the church voted to do.
2. Read this part carefully. Preselected elders were trained for, get this, 4-5 years prior to becoming elders!
Yet over the ensuing 15 years, we found that the lay-elders came and went more quickly than the staff elders due to the transient nature of life in Washington, DC. We would spend four or five years discipling a man, appoint him as an elder, and then two years later his job would send him elsewhere. Ahhh! As such, we often found ourselves bumping up against the ratio limit and unable to nominate biblically qualified staff members as elders.
This particular part of Leeman's answer is quite disconcerting.This means, prior to joining the elder board, they were indoctrinated for half a decade into the ways of CHBC before they were allowed to be elders! Can you imagine if they selected some guy who actually had the temerity to disagree with their standards? Something tells me that they would have been added to the infamous *care list.*
3. After 5 years of biblical™ training, *they* then appoint the trainee as an elder.
Refer to the previously quoted lines from Leeman. There was absolutely no doubt that this indoctrinated elder would be be appointed to the elder board and serve. This seems to indicate that they had the congregation in their pocket. This is not, no matter what they say, a congregational endorsed type of church.The leaders are as controlling as Sovereign Grace Ministries. That's right-Mark Dever was called "Captain, oh my Captain" by his BFF, CJ Mahaney.
In fact, here is what Leeman had to say about it.
Finally, one more word about the nature of congregational authority: it’s a passive and narrow authority. It’s not the authority to lead, per se, it’s the authority to VETO bad leadership.
Also, think about that 4-5 year indoctrinated elder. Is he really equipped to be independent or is he just a trained mouthpiece for the established hierarchy which are, as you will see, the paid pastors?
4. Apparently, 4-5 years of training and then only two years of serving means this is not a biblical system.
Only a 3 year MDiv will get a man the training he needs to gospelly lead. The average lay elder needs far more time than that because….why? Is that stated somewhere in the Bible? Consider all of the persecutions of the early Christians, the Diaspora after the Roman invasion in 70 AD, the number of Christians forced into slavery or scratching out a living while coping with communicable diseases, infections, and a shortened life span. How many of those elders were vetted, trained, and indoctrinated for 5 years before becoming shoo-in elders?
Better yet, a friend had this to say.
"It's clear that the Bible does not spell out staff/laity issues for local church leadership in the NT. But the absence of that is more telling of first century culture and economics. Who believes the Church at Jerusalem had a bunch of paid staff people that all served as the elders?"
5. Oh, so there were tensions because the lay elders were in the majority, huh?
Now we're getting to the root of the problem. I guess sometimes one or two of those highly trained lay elders got a bit uppity. Perhaps they wanted a lay elder board like one of my former pastors who said his elders only disagreed with him twice in 28 years?
Not only, requiring a majority of elders to be non-staff elders subtly changed the power structure. It gave a permanent monopoly of power to the lay-elders, which hardwired a tension into the elder relationships.
6. No problem, just make the majority of elders all paid pastors, hired by the big guy and all will be well. After all, keeping their job depends on being agreeable, right?
…The more we thought about it, the more we realized there is no biblical rationale for preventing a qualified, congregation- and elder-endorsed man from serving who wants to serve. And doing so deprived the church of a shepherd it could otherwise have.
7. Besides, Scripture doesn't prohibit them from doing this, right?
…We decided it was better to affirm simply with Scripture that the elders possess a shared oversight of the flock. Any “checks” on authority inside the elder board should occur through the natural course of relationships, each man working to love and correct any brother in error. And any “extra” authority an elder or group of elders acquires should be the consequence of faithful service rendered, such as naturally accumulates through consistent and faithful teaching or a pronounced track record of one-on-one care for the sheep. This way, we would better avoid making formal prescriptions where the Holy Spirit hasn’t and introducing these subtle imbalances into our governing structures.
8. Loophole found! Having the majority be lay elders contradicts the well defined gospel™* regulative principle."
I don’t know if all the elders agreed with me, but I personally felt that the majority requirement contradicted the regulative principle, which states that we should only establish structures in our churches that are commanded or exampled in the New Testament.
9. See how they shimmy out of the "church constitutions aren't found in the Bible" question.
There is the little issue of the CHBC Compensation Committee(determines pastoral salaries) but we won't go there.
In response to this particular argument, one brother elder asked me, “What about constitutions? Those aren’t in the Bible. Should we get rid of our constitution, too?” In reply, I would say the regulative principle applies to the what and the who (elements), but not to the how (forms). Scripture tells us what to do (preach, teach, sing, pray, gather, distribute ordinances). It tells us who should do what (elders, deacons, etc.). It does not tell us everything about how to do these things: Preach 20 minute or 60 minute sermons? Teach in a Sunday School program or only whole church gatherings? Sing 7 old songs or 2 new songs? A constitution falls under the “how” of organizing ourselves. It’s a useful and optional form. But the elements which the constitution includes? Yes, those must be biblical. And stating who could and could not be an elder, in my mind, transgressed into territory we should not go.
Once again, my friend remarked.
Of course we all know this is a biblically ordained committee referenced in one of the Gospels and about 8 of the epistles!
10. Besides, they know that all of their paid pastors are faithful paid elders and always will be. This means its OK to get rid of the pesky lay elders.
Notice finally that Scripture “fears” not a preponderance of staff or lay elders (see 1 Tim. 5:17). It “fears” unfaithful elders. And the constitutional provision guarded against one possible imbalance—a majority of unfaithful staff elders. But it didn’t guard against another danger—a majority of unfaithful non-staff elders. The Bible therefore presents a balanced solution to both dangers by giving final authority to the congregation, including the authority to install or remove elders (see Gal. 1:6)
11. Beware of any church in which the paid staff are their own bosses.
Don't join such a church unless you are a glutton for punishment. Don't sign any membership covenant. Don't give them any money. Don't pretend that they even care what you have to say. They will claim they do but they are not accountable to you. I would run from any church which delegates all (or the majority of) authority to paid staff who, are in essence, their own boss. Here is a great summation from my friend.
Spiritual maturity, or the perception of spiritual maturity, is not an exemption from the detrimental effects that come with being your own boss or the inherent conflict of interest that occurs in churches more than any private/public organization I know of. The conflict of interest created by church staff being the elders in a church is one of the things that causes many smart business people to question the business operations and acumen of churches. In my view, the best way to overcome that is to have minimal staff involvement at the decision making level. Pastor, yes. The rest of the staff, no. A staff that is directed by an informed and spiritual laity makes better staff people, and it inspires confidence in church members that the operation is being properly overseen. In our church, we have elders. Real elders. Not handpicked Pastor friends who rubber stamp things.
Note to 9 Marks: This ain't congregational polity. This is a game of thrones.
One of these days I’m going to look up these Game of Thrones references.
Hey! First!
Wait a minute.
I don’t know if all the elders agreed with me, but I personally felt that the majority requirement contradicted the regulative principle, which states that we should only establish structures in our churches that are commanded or exampled in the New Testament.
Um. A staff of paid elders is commanded or exampled in the NT? That’s news to me. (and I’m not talking gospel)
The “training” bothers me. Is the term “mentoring” out of favor? At least “training” is a more forthright term, I’ll give them that. I’ve noticed a new “leadership mentoring program” has sprung into existence at my church. Only men leaders, of course. To some extent, it amuses me. Women just quietly go on about their work, no official titles needed of Elder, Minister, Pastor, or even Deacon (deacons recently added, only men deacons, of course, which netted a few private comments from women who notice other women faithfully serving and leading, and notice the requests for “people who have leading and serving abilities” to be deacons–men people, of course.) I will ask around and find out what “leadership mentoring” program is being used and what young men are being groomed for future eldership/deaconship. Did I say “groomed”? I meant “mentored”.
Tree wrote:
Indoctrinated??
I don’t know what they pay their elders, but this must be a privilege of being a larger church. How would smaller churches ever afford to pay staff beyond the usual pastor, receptionist, and custodian (if that)? But if paid elders are the “biblical” way, then “biblical” has lost all meaning, and is completely irrelevant to most churches in the United States, which can’t afford to be “biblical.”
Correction: “training” is what is meant, as noted by the Deebs. “Discipling” is the official term used in the official biblical gospel answer (TM). Whew.
The church where I’m a member forbids paid staff, clergy or lay, from serving on the governing board. And any governing board member who joins the church’s paid staff is expected to resign immediately from the governing board. That’s how it should be.
The last elder-led church of which I was a member, had a rule that NO elders could be on staff. In fact, one elder resigned when he was hired by the church. The senior pastor was a non-voting member of the board of elders, and he was only allowed to vote in the case of a tie. As far as I know, he never voted when I was a member of that church. I think it’s crazy to allow staff members to be elders of a church.
As per the usual, “all elders are equal, but some elders are more equal than others.”
Didn’t Jesus spend 5 years training the apostles and weren’t they salaried???
Oh, and then there’s some OT people, like Moses (murderer turned shepherd); then there was the man that was called while he was plowing a field – Elisha; Elijah and John the Baptist never dressed properly; Daniel was a captive who served a pagan king; Hosea married a prostitute; Amos was only a shepherd ……..
If we judged the books of the Bible, the writers and the prophets by 9 Marx standards, we’d have to shred most of it. (9 Marx is not a typo)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/12/13/mark-driscoll-listed-as-director-of-newly-incorporated-the-trinity-church-in-phoenix/
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
In the “church” I left, the lone elder was the “pastor” and the council he dealt with was more than half staff and family members of staff.
I don’t donate to a non-profit that has more than one staff member on its board. For some reason I had never extended that to the church I attended. I have now rectified that mistake, it was a huge mistake.
@ Liz.R:
Someone else posted that link on the Mark Driscoll thread.
Trinity, as in Mark Drisccoll (father), Jimmy Evans (son), and Randall Taylor (holy spirit)?
I read the article. It says “no members”. Does that mean that this trinity will have Absolute power?
Reading this post was like an exercise in twisting my mind into a pretzel. Why can’t church life be as simple as possible? Love God, love our brothers and sisters in Christ, feed and clothe the poor, visit the sick, the elderly & those in prison, love our neighbor as ourselves, share the love of Christ with those whom we meet, treat others the way we ourselves want to be treated. All this stuff about elder boards, the regulative principle, membership covenants, etc. can become mind-numbing after awhile.
ThatBadDog wrote:
Ha ha. Sounds like something HUG would say!
Just out of curiosity, has 9 Marks, Acts 29, complementarianism, and it’s ilk become the norm for evangelical churches? Or is this blog just highlighting the most egregious cases. Churches in our area are promoting themselves “intentionally invitational”. “Come with your questions” and all that jazz. What stopped from going to church was that the longer I went, the more the mask slipped.
A lot of the controlling stuff and what is called complementarianism (a name I never even heard of until reading it here) was never outright stated but seemed to bubble beneath the surface – however young earth creationism was supported.
Is Christianity’s situation as dire as stated in TWW? Are Christians as a whole sliding back to pre-enlightenment thinking? Just wondering. This isn’t giving me any incentive to want to rejoin the faith anymore.
I think it can be safely said that humans can screw up anything and do…
Jack wrote:
Dee and Deb’s purpose with TWW is to highlight spiritual abuse in the church (and thank heavens for them), but not all churches are abusive. I’ve been very fortunate to find a fantastic church that is so not abusive. You know, it might be fun for the commenters at some point to give a shout out to all the good churches out there.
Josh wrote:
That’s why they need larger churches, and they need the members to tithe, tithe, tithe!
On the other thread about the manly he-men hipster pastor boys I joked that “Real Shenanigans” would make the perfect title for Driscoll’s next book, but ISTM that it’s the leitmotif of all those top-heavy churches.
@ Liz.R:
so . . . he is making his move just in time for Christmas ?
comes to mind some verse from Ireland:
” The darkness drops again . . .
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?” (W.B. Yeats)
This was one of the things that *really* bugged me about CHBC in my sojourn there so many years ago. Almost ALL of the “elders” were young kids fresh out of seminary, all being personally mentored by Dever. These kids had zero experience with dealing with people, zero experience with life outside the conservative Calvinist bubble, and it showed in their behavior. From *my* reading of Scripture, “elders” should first and foremost be just that – people with some years behind them, who’ve learned some lessons about life and faith by living it a few decades or so. But almost all the men and women like that had left CHBC by then – the impression given to us new arrivals was that they were content to let the congregation die off slowly, unreformed, and we were all better off without them. Now, of course, I really wonder just WHAT really happened in the early days of Dever’s rule…
Darlene wrote:
Remember, for many neo-Calvinists, Christianity (at least in part) a mental exercise. The more detailed and comprehensive we could make it, the more faithful we were.
One last word…
one more word about the nature of congregational authority: it’s a passive and narrow authority. It’s not the authority to lead, per se, it’s the authority to VETO bad leadership.
Well, this is a problem, but not just for Calvinist churches. I have been a member of quite a few churches over the years. In all but two of them, the congregation’s role in governance was to essentially vote up-or-down on decisions already made by the staff and/or elders. I can recall NO instance where the congregation voted “no”, even in some matters of controversy.
Eeyore wrote:
But who else would be so easily influenced and manipulated? This has been the YRR way: Recruit young, inexperienced, lacking in wisdom, etc, and indoctrinate. These young men admire their gurus and want to be like them so the cycle perpetuates.
Darlene wrote:
That’s what they are counting on. Don’t bother attempting to understand the verbose documents they put out, the “dear leader” will tell you from the pulpit why you need to vote in favor of his proposed change.
These guys are full of themselves. I give them another 5-10 years until they and their polity are run out of town.
@ Eeyore:
So, the “employees” are given power over those who pay them. Amazing, isn’t it? The people who pay for this are responsible.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
This is where we disagree. I think it is becoming the normal. There are suckers born every minute and our society is not exactly producing independent thinkers.
This level of pastoral and church authority seems to me to be similar to the structure of the Catholic church. It’s almost like a Reformation in reverse.
I wonder why it takes 5 years to train a potential elder to only move his head only up and down, never left to right while in an elder’s meeting?
Lydia wrote:
You may be correct Lydia. I tend to look at this as another shepherding movement, with a bit more polish and shine. I also agree with EMR. I have said for a long time that these guys were born about 600 years too late. They would have loved the power the Roman Catholic church had around the time of the Reformation. They would love it today if their excommunicated members were rejected church membership at any Protestant church.
My experience in Dubai is that churches that are not 9Marx approved welcome with open arms those who have been booted out of one of the 9Marx churches in the UAE. They know what is going on. Fellowship of the Emirates gets most of UCCD’s cast-offs and disillusioned and there have been literally hundreds of them.
Darlene wrote:
I have a lot of sympathy with you here. If only it could be that simple, with every member functioning ministry.
Unfortunately, there are any number of false shepherds, doctrines, brethren … from whom the church needs to be guarded or who need to be refuted. There has to be some level of structure, and someone needs to be held accountable for or oversee a section of the members.
Many charismatics left churches where the leadership/deacons were quenching the Spirir, only later to find they had to have some kind of eldership. Sadly too many of them ended up with heavy shepherding and were arguably worse off than before they left their old denominational stick-in-the-mud churches.
Exactly… And 9 marks churches are not the only ones doing this. Calvary Chapel franchise, Mars Hill, etc, all
EMR wrote:
opps… darn computer
are moving toward a corporate structure… Elders are not Elders, IMHO, unless they are independent and beholden to the congregation.
Bridget wrote:
Exactly. Training/mentoring in New Calvinist ranks = indoctrination.
Darlene wrote:
Darlene, you essentially describe church as it was meant to be. New Calvinism is all about putting a new spin on things to make it as complicated as possible so you have to rely on the teachings and traditions of men. Rather than exhorting a personal relationship with Christ that reaches out to a lost and hurting world in truth and deed, reformed folks attempt to lock you into a system, so they can control you. I have found that New Calvinists in my area mistrust those professing a personal experience with the living Christ; they prefer to adhere to rigid doctrinal propositions about “grace”, rather than a direct experience of grace. I seriously wonder whether these folks have ever encountered the living Christ.
Jack wrote:
An article in Christianity Today indicated that there are some 40,000 Christian denominations and para-church organizations on planet earth. Certainly not all have been penetrated by New Calvinist belief and practice or other aberrant theologies … but, as a 60+ year Southern Baptist, I can tell you that the situation in SBC is dire.
Years ago, when I was in SWBTS in Ft Worth, there was already serious discussion that the ” business of church” was too important to let the lay person be involved….I knew this day was coming. The Neo-Calvinists just figured out a way to “make this happen.”
Eeyore wrote:
Yep, New Calvinism is more of an intellectual pursuit, than spiritual one. Most of the debates on the fine points of reformed theology is a clash of intellect and spirit. It’s a crying shame that so many otherwise intelligent young folks are being drawn to the mental exercise, rather than child-like faith that focuses on a personal relationship with Christ.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
SBC’s North American Mission Board has launched an aggressive church planting program to establish 1,000 new churches per year. I can tell you that in my area, most (if not all) are lead by young reformed pastors and their “elder” teams in their 20s-30s. Devers’ 9Marks model is the church governance of choice at church plants and non-Calvinist SBC churches that are being taken over by the young rebels. I hope you are right … that this will fizzle in 5-10 years. If it does, one the greatest mission fields on the planet will be the disillusioned masses of young folks which have been ensnared by New Calvinism.
singleman wrote:
This bears repeating.
Elizabeth Lee wrote:
Me , too. It removes all checks and balances.
ThatBadDog wrote:
Yep-if you get a paycheck, you are really cool.
Nancy2 wrote:
Somehow I guess we missed it.
@ Liz.R:
We will cover this on Wednesday. Thank you for the link.
Bill M wrote:
This is a really smart guideline. I will mention it in a post one day.
Nancy2 wrote:
Seems that way to me.
Eeyore wrote:
Deverjugend.
Young, starry-eyed, and absolutely loyal to the regime.
dee wrote:
And the BIGGER the paycheck (Hello, Furtick Mansion!), the Cooler and more Godly you are.
Lydia wrote:
Exactly. If congregations put up with this nonsense, well, that’s what they’ll get.
Jack wrote:
Evangelical Christianity is always looking for the “next thing.” Right now, Calvinistas and complementarians rule the “it” factor. However, more and more people ate beginning to look at the excesses of these movements and are speaking out.
There are churches out there that avoid this nonsense but you have to look for them. I have found a refuge in a liturgical church for the time being. Someone asked me how to find a good church.
Here is what I said.
1.Avoid megachurches
2 Avoid celebrity pastors.
3. Find a church with under 800 members.(Pref @200)
4. Liturgical churches can be quite safe since much of the liturgy has been vetted over the ages.
5. Find churches which stress ministry to the poor and disenfranchised as opposed to church growth/satellite centers, etc.
6. Find a place where a pastor actually knows you name after a couple of months.
7. If you have a difficult in finding such a church, look at a parachurch organization which serves a segment of the population that is of interest to you: the poor, refugees, homeless shelters, etc. Many of these groups have church services for their clients in which you could join in. Also, it is highly likely you will meet people of like mind.
8. Start your own Bible study outside of the church with other folks. You do not need an approved church or leader to sponsor such a group. We did this. We have been together for @12 years. We all attend different churches.
Jesus can be found in the oddest places!
Max said:
“Yep, New Calvinism is more of an intellectual pursuit, than spiritual one. Most of the debates on the fine points of reformed theology is a clash of intellect and spirit. It’s a crying shame that so many otherwise intelligent young folks are being drawn to the mental exercise, rather than child-like faith that focuses on a personal relationship with Christ.”
Max, this has often been true of the original Calvinism as well. The original reformed churches went that direction, provoking the reaction of pietism less than a century later.
Dever’s words:
“Unfaithful” to whom, exactly? To the congregation that they serve, and to their Lord? Or to the senior pastor, and his Vision™?
IX Marks has twisted the regulative principle. It’s supposed to be the Regulative Principle of WORSHIP, not the regulative principle of ecclesiastical polity. However, I’ve seen this multiple times now–the RPW morphing into the regulative principle of life in general. I think this is partly because some of its apologists have claimed the RPW is simply an application of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
For a pseudodenomination that is pseudoreformed, they sure appear to be gradually moving in an episcopal direction.
I know this is way off the topic and shouldn’t be here…..however, the local Atheist organization is wanting to put up a banner wishing everyone a ” Happy Holiday.” ( It was actually a fairly nice banner. Nothing really inflammatory. )
For years and both the City of Orange and Orange County ( Texas) have had Nativity Scenes in front of city hall and the courthouse. The Atheists just asked for ” equality” on public grounds.
Yesterday, the Orange City Council decided to remove the Nativity Scene rather than allow the Atheist banner.
This afternoon, Orange Co. Commissioner’s Court is debating the same…I may go down there at 2PM….just to see the rodeo.
dee said:
Evangelical Christianity is always looking for the “next thing.”
4.”Liturgical churches can be quite safe since much of the liturgy has been vetted over the ages.”
This is one of the biggest reasons I prefer churches which retain centuries-old liturgies.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with home bible studies or even parachurch organizations, but I doubt I’d receive the sacraments or anything like educated preaching.
This may be unspiritual and lacking “Gospel” application but.. in the USA tax law allows a deduction for gifts to churches, some non-profits, and charitable organizations. The Tax Code 501c3 states the requirements that must be met and the part about inurement (that those benefiting from the organization cannot also control the same) would appear to me to make contribution to these churches non-deductible for tax purposes.The congregation should be made aware of this and if they are audited those deductions could be disallowed and interest and penalties charged. I am sure these gospel elite would not want their sheep to get in any trouble with the law, so they should make sure their is no appearance of evil in their midst. Please give generously but don’t claim it on taxes, I wonder how that would preach!
Nancy2 wrote:
It means a church legal structure has more tax advantages.
Some years ago I attended a nondenominational church in another city while visiting old friends from my college days. I checked the church’s website after returning home and found the leadership page. On the one hand, they only permitted married men to serve as teaching or ruling elders. I found it strange that neither Jesus nor Paul would be welcome on their elder board, but that’s a discussion for another time. However, they also placed a check on the pastor’s power by requiring the teaching elder to submit to a consensus of the ruling elders.
Can anyone tell me if 9Marks requires a fee or dues (or strongly requests a donation) to become a 9Marks church? I can’t find it on their website or on any search, but the network acts very much like a franchise and is sucking in a lot of churches–and there must be money involved somehow. What’s funding this outreach of theirs?
Nancy2 wrote:
No. Only Judas got paid anything. 😉
If by “paid”, you mean embezzled. Judas Iscariot, the patron saint of embezzlers as well as betrayers.
dee wrote:
My 2 cents – Prior to attending a new church check the 9Marx website “church search” page
http://9marks.org/church-search/
If the church turns up on the 9Marx list of approved churches it would be advisable to cross that church off your list of possible churches to visit.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Bingo!
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/a-comprehensive-overview-of-crus-winter-conferences-for-december-2015january-2016-paul-tripp-curtis-allen-kenji-adachi-and-scott-nickell-are-s
That is the latest post that I did at my blog. It is a comprehensive review of all the Christmas and Winter conferecnes in Cru (formerly Campus Crusade) Acts 29 and Fellowship Associates are being given center stage. I explaiend why I cannot support Minneapolis, Denver and Washington, D.C. This is being tweted and emailed to Cru around the country. The Southeast and Pacific Norhwest were worked yesterday. 🙂
One Presbyterian church I know (not PCA) receives nominations from the congregation. If they get 10 nominations, they find 8 agree with the Westminster Confession and have “blameless” lives. Then they find 3 are the most agreeable to the Session’s way of doing things (they won’t rock the boat). The 3 stand for election; the other 5 who were wholly qualified except they were not Yes Men never are heard from again. Certainly a bending of the rules, both in spirit and in letter. And on another note, yes, I too am sick and tired of young whippersnappers becoming “leaders” in the church. What a joke.
Patriciamc wrote:
I’m having some trouble with this statement.
Darlene wrote:
How did a bunch of 1st century parchments and papyri about a beautiful Rabbi (who was and is God in human form) get so complicated, so byzantine, and so out of touch with what he taught?
Ted wrote:
I regularly receive emails from 9Marx requesting donations. The latest linked to this page:
http://9marks.org/donate/
I almost donated some money (not really) until I remembered John Folmar’s quote:
“Churches produce pastors and elders. Not seminaries, not para-church ministry organizations. But real, live local bodies of believers.”
http://uccdubai.com/resources/the-uccd-herald/post/the-herald—september-2012
Patriciamc wrote:
I give a shout out to Wade Burleson’s Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, OK.
http://www.emmanuelenid.org/about-us/staff/item/70-wade-burleson
I have never attended, but I have listened to many of his sermons featured on this blog and also read many of his blog articles. He seems like the “real deal.” I trust him and if I lived in Enid I would undoubtedly attend his church.
@ dee:
Thanks for the advice. I was thinking about teaching “English as a Second Language” as a volunteer. I really do want to find others of a like mind. The perfect church for me would be one where it’s non\t an “all or nothing” attitude. ie: you don’t have to be a biblical literalist or believe in young earth creationism to be considered “Christian”. A place where other beliefs are respected (even if not agreed with). I took the question of going back to church to the open discussion page and got some good advice there as well. Lot of good folks read this blog.
“And the BIGGER the paycheck (Hello, Furtick mansion)…”@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I’m just waiting for one of these all-holy CEOs to issue an IPO and sell stock to the livestock in the pews. And then dive behind that high wall of separation between church and state when the taxman calls.
Muff Potter wrote:
Keep asking this!
@ Max:
That is an expensive goal for an SBC that just threw its over 50 career missionaries to the curb.
Eeyore wrote:
I had missed this one and agree with you completely. I’ve felt the discomfort of being in a large group that rubber stamps decisions, it is awful. It would take a concerted effort to get a group together to vote something down or bad leadership out. It takes no imagination to figure how that effort would be received. Actually it is hard to even get that far, if you just start asking questions you get the treatment.
There is a reason dictators come to a bad end, with their head paraded through the streets on the end of a pike. There is not a good way to deal with a despotic regime, so I emigrated so to speak.
Eeyore wrote:
This is the reason why in the Third Reich the National Socialists were all about young people and mentoring the youth. How else do you create a True Believer? You limit their access to information. Plus you use them when they are young and have little experience.
Ted wrote:
That is actually very interesting arrangement of the facts, I’ll have to remember that one.
@ Eagle:
It didn’t work though. It might be true that for a while youth were indoctrinated, but during the war they did what all youth have always done – rejected the status quo and rebelled against it. Once the regime was removed, they turned their backs on it, large numbers never really took the message on board.
You can only force people to believe something for so long, if the foundation is false they will turn from it.
Jack wrote:
We’ve gone to a number of churches since we moved to the Deep South (i.e., where we now live, they call people from Atlanta “Yankees”–not joking) and cannot find one that is not either what we would refer to as dead ritual or, more commonly, a full blown abuse chamber. I don’t think many of the churches represent “the faith” anymore. Seek Jesus, He’ll lead you to His people, but many of them will be out of church or on their way out or in a church, fearful, waiting for the second shoe to drop.
Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher
Law Prof wrote:
My experience too!
NJ wrote:
Funny, that’s exactly what I’m trying to get away from, what I believe has destroyed more fellowship of the true Body of Christ than any old style Soviet raids of churches.
Patriciamc wrote:
I will when I find one.
@ K.D.:
One of the greatest speeches ever given in the New Testament was on Mars Hill in which people came to debate and discuss their beliefs. He didn’t whine about the gods represented there. Instead he spoke about the statue to an “unknown God.” As a Christian, I would have welcomed the atheist banner and then attempted to discuss my faith with those present if it was appropriate. I get tired of Christians stomping their cowboy boots and demanding “our way or the highway.”
Deep down inside, I suspect that many of these folks are seriously afraid to share their faith in a diverse culture so they want and need the government to do it for them.
@ David:
I think that the government is fearful in interfering with any churches. That is why Steven Furtick and Ed Young live large.
singleman wrote:
This is downright wrong.
@ Ted:
I need t check into that. I have no idea. I know Acs 29 requites 10% of the take on Sundays,
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I am in total agreement.
Law Prof wrote:
And how does one know if it is educational preaching if they have not done their own study?
I shy away from anything that is not interactive these days except, perhaps, talks from ancient scholars. And even they tend to take open questions when done. If people can’t ask questions, I don’t see the point of preaching/teaching.
Godith wrote:
I agree.
Does this mark the latest phase in the downward spiral of Evangelicalism?
1. Academia Model- pastor had a study, church had a library, and kids went to a Sunday School while the adults received their weekly instruction.
2. Business Model- pastor had an office, church had a bookstore or cafe, and the services were designed to reach the largest market share, even if it meant turning the Sunday School into a mini amusement park and the adult services into a rock concert.
3. Third World Dictator Model- pastor no longer bothers coming to the church building outside of his “performance times” so no need for office or study, church has shrunk the bookstore/cafe to make room for a recording studio for broadcasting the latest propaganda… er teaching of the Benevolent Leader (BL) to all the many satellite campuses and extra services when he doesn’t want to show up in person, and the kids church gets coloring books featuring the likeness and wise sayings of him (no, not Jesus, but BL), while the adults are kept in line with threats of discipline and spied on by BL’s lieutenants or a computer program.
Sad state for Evangelicalism. I hope it can be stopped, but with every passing year I worry more that it is a death spiral.Thankfully, our Lord is still healthy and active, even if segments of His church are sick.
@ Muff Potter:
Scientists have reconstructed what they believe Jesus would look like.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/15/experts-reconstruct-face-of-jesus-and-heres-what-he-looked-like-5566053/
Jack wrote:
There are some churches and parachurch groups which sponsor zESL at a local level. What a great idea.
@ Lydia:
I bet the salaries of the big boys were raised in the meantime.
dee wrote:
Salvation by Marriage Alone(TM).
Kicker is, when the Church first got going, the culture of the time placed a LOT of importance on Family/Clan/Tribe/Gens and making sure you had a LOT of descendants to swell your Family/Clan/Tribe/Gens.
Without a Family/Clan/Tribe/Gens, you were NOBODY.
Same if you couldn’t contribute to the Advancement of your Family/Clan/Tribe/Gens — House Lannister, House Stark, House Baratheon, House Bolton, House Frey, House Tyrell, House Atriedes, House Harkonnen, etc.
The early Church provided a Family/Clan/Tribe/Gens for those marginalized losers without one — slaves (i.e. two-legged domestic animals), widows, orphans, cripples.
So what gives with Salvation by Marriage Alone and 200-year Quiverfull Plans for your Dynasty?
dee wrote:
Rank Hath Its Privileges.
dee wrote:
I’ve seen that before, and was always struck by how ORDINARY that face looks.
Eagle wrote:
“Give me your children and I will make them mine. You will pass away, but they will remain Mine.”
— A.Hitler, cult leader
Lydia wrote:
Don’t forget Return on Investment, i.e. Predestined to “TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Don’t forget the colonial-style megachurch pastor-sized mansion on your very own Southern Plantation. Now, that’s just not my thing; I’d rather live by myself in a small midcentury modern house that’s … well … not on a Southern Plantation. 😮
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
…He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. Isaiah 53:2
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
“It is believed to bear more of a resemblance to what Middle Eastern Jews looked like in what is now northern Israel.”
Don’t forget that Jesus’ dad was from way out of town…
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
David Platt says we must write “blank checks”.
Lydia wrote:
And having this kind of responsibility boosts the young men’s egos. The Christian cult I once belonged to took advantage of this kind of thing. Young men without life’s experiences were given responsibilities over the lives of others in the group and the result was predictable: like bulls in china shops, they mowed over people’s feelings, treated them with disrespect, thought harsh rebukes were the way to correct people, judged members by how many people they “led to Jesus”, and publicly humiliated members at meetings. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of what went on there. 9Marx sounds like they got their playbook from shepherding movement – the movement that I was once part of. (except we weren’t Calvinists)
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Oh my, I hope it’s not that long! That much time speaks of way too many damaged lives.
EMR wrote:
I’d consider the Catholic Church a much safer place than 9Marx and Acts 29 churches. The RCC has slacked off quite a bit with regards to controlling people’s lives. The Neo-Cals (along with the IFB) have become the most controlling bunch within Christendom. And I’ll add that the Word/Faith movement is a second runner up.
It’s kind of funny (in a sad way) when one thinks about it. The Protestants broke away from the Roman Catholic Church – one of the reasons being that they did not permit freedom of conscience and had a controlling hierarchy. Now, they have become like the ones they despised.
Max wrote:
I can relate to this attitude. The Christian group I once associated with was skeptical of other Christians. When we would encounter them during our street witnessing/evangelism, we viewed them as Laodiceans. The term we used for the majority of Christians outside our circle was “Contentious Christians” or “Church Christians.” We abbreviated it as C C’s. The former term applied to all those who disagreed with us, and the latter term was applied to those whom we deemed as shallow, uncommitted Christians.
K.D. wrote:
They actually used the term “business of church”? Eeeeewwww!!!
Max wrote:
I believe this! Not long ago I listened to a taped meeting of Al Mohler with seminary students in which a young man (a seminary student) asked Mohler what he thought of Mark Driscoll. Almost immediately, Mohler’s first reply was that “he gets the Gospel right.” Of course, he went on to express his misgivings about MD’s behavior, etc. My question is: How does someone get the Gospel right when they are shown to demonstrate egregious, un-Christlike behavior? Well….I suppose if the YRR/NeoCal gospel is an intellectual pursuit, this would make complete sense.
NJ wrote:
I understand. This is one of several reasons why I am now an Orthodox Christian. And even though there is a hierarchy, there is no where near the kind of control and scrutinizing of people’s personal lives. Our parish priest is a very approachable fellow. I have have heard him ask for forgiveness on more than one occasion. This is a rarity among clergy in any church.
Jack wrote:
Definitely the Orthodox parish I attend is like this. One doesn’t have to profess YEC, or Republican, or be a biblical literalist. And I have never heard from the pulpit at this parish (or any other Orthodox parish) a put-down or judgmental decree against other Christian faiths. Something I can’t say was true in the Evangelical churches I attended.
Eagle wrote:
The same was true in China where the Cult of Mao ruled.
Darlene wrote:
Purity of Ideology, Comrades.
Purity of Ideology.
(Like where the Cult of Marx & Lenin ruled.)
Darlene wrote:
“Look at you, nephew! Changing the face of Europe!”
— TV Miniseries “Holocaust”; said to a young Hauptsturmfuehrer-SS just outside Babi Yar
Josh wrote:
Where you don’t even need to hold the whip yourself — your overseers do it for you.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And in addition, soon all local churches will be…..CALVINIST. Because that really is there goal. Remember, no one else has the gospel but them.
*their* goal
Many years ago I resigned from a para-church ministry when I found out about a history of rather credible allegations of ongoing sexual harassment. At one point later I was issued a friendly subpoena as a witness in one of the suits against the organization. Consulted a Christian lawyer at the time and in the course of conversation discussed the governance of the organization in which the entire board of some affiliate offices consisted of the CEO of the organization and the manager of the affiliate office. His comment was that when boards are structured like that it is almost always done very intentionally to consolidate power and secrecy.
He was right.
I don’t see a whit of difference between that and the 9 marks case. Of course they’ll try to claim it’s biblical and above board, but anyone with half a brain and half a BS meter can see what’s going on. Eventually it will implode because this kind of insularity so often enables corruption. But that could take a long time and they’re sure to do a lot of damage before it gets there. It’s a system that invariably ends up sullying the name of Jesus Christ and His church.
Don’t go near any place like that. Don’t have anything to do with them. Don’t give them any credibility
Darlene wrote:
There is no Christ; there is only CALVIN.
“There is no Dana; there is only Zuul.”
— Ghostbusters
dee wrote:
Dee, I hope you’re wrong about 10%. That amount is criminal.
@ Ted:
On the other hand, it looks like Acts 29 at least plants its own churches. This is from their website:
But on the other other hand, it also looks like a pyramid scheme.
9Marks pulls existing churches into its web. If it charged anything like 10% I’d be horrified. But I still suspect it’s a franchise arrangement.
dee wrote:
It is amazing, the leader of the Orange County Atheists has taken the high ground and has made the ” my way or highway” folks look like ogres. The Christian community is missing a great opportunity to witness here and they are so afraid of something different here….but then, this is East Texas….we border Newron County to our north. ( Newton County has the 2nd lowest number of college grads, 4 year B.A., B.S., B.B.A., etc in the nation…Orange County is not much higher on the rung…I don’t think you people know what it is like…..)
I’m getting off-topic, Dee, but there was some discussion about Acts 29’s fees in a TWW article earlier this year.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/06/05/church-planting-a-la-acts-29/
In that article Deb wrote,
According to that, it’s (merely) 1% that goes to the
coffers“Catalyst Fund” of Acts 29. But where does the other 9% go? To church planting by Acts 29, or by the local church at its own discretion?Either way, that 1% could add up big over more than 400 churches.
Gus wrote:
Our church just had the budget printed in the bulletin last week. We’re in the DC area, and these numbers should shock you:
1) The Executive Pastor flat-out told me that they have a 70% turn-over rate in any given decade, thanks to the transitional nature of the DC community.
2) The Senior Pastor is paid ~50,000/year. In DC.
3) There are 7 additional staff members, including the Executive Pastor. The TOTAL budget for all of their salaries was ~130,000.
4) I did some scratch-math on the back of the bulletin, and realized the church meets its budget if EVERY member only donates $150/month. THAT’S IT!!
5) They support no fewer than 15 additional ministries with church funds, including giving all of our kids AWANAs for free, a church clothes closet (free to anyone who asks) food ministry, Christmas for a ton of kids in Baltimore, a sister-church that we fully fund in Guatemala, and on and on and on….
6) The pastor has preached on giving exactly once since we’ve been there, in September. It was on how no matter how little you could give, God could make it grow. It wasn’t about, “Give until it hurts, and God will take care of you with beans and rice,” which is what I’ve heard from a dozen or so churches so far.
7) The Executive Pastor sat in my living room (drinking GovPappy’s coffee, btw!) and said that he & the Senior Pastor consider themselves to be “Under-Shepherds.” They have zero voting privileges. They don’t actually bring anything to the congregation for a vote AT ALL. That’s the job of the elder board. The elders and deacons are congregationally elected (EVEN WITH 70% TURNOVER!) and the pastors consider their job to be to get on board w/ the ministries and direction that the BOARD sets. ————> I ALMOST FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR AT THIS ONE! Luckily, the Vulcan was holding me up.
Seriously, guys, there are people in the Body of Christ who are NOT like the Borg-Church monsters who are trying to take control of everyone’s personal lives. I’ve never been to a place more alive & loving & welcoming.
Oh, and EGALITARIAN. 😉
Darlene wrote:
I believe this! Not long ago I listened to a taped meeting of Al Mohler with seminary students in which a young man (a seminary student) asked Mohler what he thought of Mark Driscoll. Almost immediately, Mohler’s first reply was that “he gets the Gospel right.” Of course, he went on to express his misgivings about MD’s behavior, etc. My question is: How does someone get the Gospel right when they are shown to demonstrate egregious, un-Christlike behavior? Well… I suppose if the YRR/NeoCal gospel is an intellectual pursuit, this would make complete sense.
It’s partially the intellectual angle, but it’s also the “we are always sinners” angle as well. The primary question is going to be “Does someone articulate the salvation process correctly?”, with the proper emphases on sola fide and divine grace? Unless the person in question commits some unacceptable intellectual transgression (like believing in open theism, Pelagianism, etc) that is usually enough. “Un-Christlike behavior” is rarely an issue, because A) if said behavior is aimed at non-Reformed, it’s almost meritorious, and B) we’re sinners saved by grace anyways. Any strong emphasis on “our faith must be shown by works” is decried as diluting the pure gospel of grace.
I’m not defending it, I’m just trying to show how their words and actions can be explained by their theology.
@ XianJaneway:
Sounds like pastors I grew up around. They had no power. They were respected for what they modeled. They were not these perfumed princes of entitlement we see today.
I am stunned at what comes out of 9 Marx that is more and more becoming the normal. They teach human mediators who hold the keys to affirming your salvation! This is cult 101.
@ Eeyore:
The biggest sin is daring to disagree with the elders. The elders can protect child molesters, use God to control others and for fame and profit….which is perfectly OK.
Another thought, as I have been reading through the comments…
Please bear in mind, when discussing those who attend neo-Reformed churches, that they are NOT consciously thinking, “Yes! Please take my money, please brainwash me, please treat me like a stupid sheep!” I know *I* certainly did not think these things when I was in that world. You have to understand the motives for why people *do* join churches like this.
1) These people are tired of the vapid, entertainment-centric style of megachurches. They want to be challenged. They want to know what the Bible actually says about things like sin, heaven and hell, what God is like, etc. They suspect that God is not up there just to entertain us and make us happy, and they want a church that acknowledges that.
2) These people want to take the Bible seriously – IOW, not just as a repository of moral encouragement and Sunday School stories. They want the Bible to speak to deep moral, ethical, and philosophical issues. And they want a church that will speak out clearly on their stances, based on what the Bible says.
3) These people want help in raising their children to hold onto Christian theology and values. They want a church that will strongly teach and encourage all its members to know and hold to the Truth in the face of intellectual and cultural opposition.
You may disagree with the particular stances of how they interpret Scripture and what they consider “unchanging moral truth”, but from their understanding they are trying their best to be faithful in an unfaithful world. The problem is, the blind-spots in the Reformed culture are deep enough and dangerous enough to blow the entire project sky-high, and leave lots of wounded and disillusioned parishioners in the wake.
Darlene wrote:
When Al Mohler said that about Driscoll, he was referring to Calvinism, of course. To reformed folks, Calvinism = Gospel (I’m serious, they really believe that Calvinist doctrine is the one and only gospel truth). So, while the good doctor may not have been fond of Driscoll’s potty-mouth antics, he was sending a message to the New Calvinist crowd that Driscoll’s theology was OK.
P.S., if you’ve never heard Dr. Mohler’s “Where else are they going to go?” defense of New Calvinism, check it out at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6lRMMvNCn8. Caution: the video clip contains arrogant language unsuitable for youth in your home.
Lydia wrote:
Yep, SBC’s church planting budget for 2015 is $60 million! What should the priority be? Plant new churches with young reformed pastors or save the ministries of seasoned foreign missionaries (most of whom would be non-Calvinist, I suspect)?
Lydia wrote:
That is my experience as well. The minister of our church didn’t have power and money, but had everyone’s respect. Even as a child, I loved hearing the sermon, even when I didn’t quite know what he was talking about, because his presence was so, well, Godly, and he had a wonderful voice.
When I was very ill as a child, he came and visited me at my home a couple of times. I’ll never forget that – it really was a great comfort to me.
Do they make them like that any more?
I grew up in 2 different churches. The first one, the deacon board members were all yes men. If they didn’t agree, out they went. The pastor of that church ended up hurting a lot of people by his actions. We left there in my early teens. The 2nd church, the deacons weren’t yes men. My grandfather being one of them. Guess which church had a bigger positive impact on my life? Sure wasn’t the first one.
https://youtu.be/I_Wi5OYZ7Ks Here is another one of Dr. Molher’s intellectual superiority demonstrated.
On the surface, Dever’s promotion of his 9 Marks for a healthy church appears OK. We would probably all agree with the importance of the following in his framework: (1)expository preaching, (2)biblical theology, (3)a biblical understanding of the good news, (4)a biblical understanding of conversion, (5)a biblical understanding of evangelism, (6)biblical church membership, (7)biblical church discipline, (8)biblical discipleship and growth, and (9)biblical church leadership.
The kicker is that Dever views “biblical” only through a Calvinist lens … particularly when it comes to theology and leadership. Most of the rest of Christendom does not hold to reformed belief and practice; thus, we are all wrong of course. New Calvinism is all about restoring the true gospel that the rest of us have lost.
If I were to draft a list of “marks” for a healthy church, I most likely would include a derivation of Dever’s “9”, but add a 10th most crucial mark as the first one on my list: “The Presence of God.” I’m sorry, but I don’t sense that God is hanging out in New Calvinist churches! He can’t penetrate the arrogant atmosphere created by its preachers, nor come alongside the aberration of NC belief and practice. They are doing church without God, but they don’t realize it.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
I think this is true of any power structure whether laity only or clergy only. Proper humility is needed in all areas. Just as clergy have abused their powers, I am aware of situations where laity abused pastors. Some sort of balance of power is a good idea–e.g. have salary set by the denomination, etc. (or to a similar public position with salary info available like that of a tenured teacher, principle, etc.).
That said, a five year training or vetting process strikes me as EXTREME! I bet–like many churches in metro areas–that they even have seminary educated laity willing to serve. So, I doubt if this is a matter of knowledge-base. Such strikes me as more a matter of control, which is disturbing.
Dever been in charge of CHBC for well over 10 years, the congregation of CHBC Numbers in the hundreds. If there aren’t sufficient numbers of laypeople suitable to be elders – without requiring five years additional training-the church as a whole should be charged to be a failure.
Chris S wrote:
Because the laypeople are obviously learning NOTHING, or at least Dever assumes that. What does that say about him?
Darlene wrote:
I’ve noticed this too.
I spent a year or more several years ago reading a bunch of stuff about Roman Catholicism to understand it better, and a lot of the reasons Protestants broke off from RC way back when are some of the very same things they are doing today.
They’re putting into practice the things the first Protestants said they disagreed with the RC over.
It’s like some of the authoritarian Protestants of today want to reinvent the RCC all over again, but with themselves in charge. It is very, very strange.
Max wrote:
Because they are doing church with gods. (Lowers case intentional)
Daisy wrote:
No priests, nor bishops, nor cardinals ……. they are all pope wannabes.
Darlene wrote:
I already shared the story on this blog in an older thread of a post I saw on an ex IFB blog. Some IFB church was wanting to do IFB church plants in some section of Europe. The IFB guys had a map printed up of the “unChurched” area.
The funny thing is the area they were concerned about was already covered with all sorts of Protestant churches.
These IFB guys didn’t think anyone could get the Gospel from Methodists, Lutherans, or whomever else was on the map; no, the only way the people over in that region of Europe (or where this was) could be saved was if they got the Gospel from an IFB church. It had to be IFB churches.
Surprise to anyone? Behind the rhetoric and tortuous theological defense lies a nearly naked lust for power. You can see it in the actions, words, books, and more. They will continue to build their empire, and pretend that it is Christian.
Bill M wrote:
Did anyone else notice Leeman’s suggestions in the prior mailbag question?
The Pew-sitter has noticed a troubling trend with the sermons (in clear violation of one of the IX Marx, BTW). What to do? Leeman counsels that he walk on eggshells with Pastor and beat about the bush with winsome service and love and a couple “side-door” comments for a year or two, and then give up and go away all quiet-like if that doesn’t work. Except, of course, if Mr Pew-sitter signed the good-ol -IX Marx contract— he can’t!!
One thing Mr Pew-Sitter absolutely can’t do, of course, is talk with any other pew-sitters about the problem.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
In my opinion, that just about sums it up. And as I have been saying for years, the congregations that empower this nonsense have some responsibility.
Though I do recognize that the the NC’s have stealthily overrun many formerly healthy churches. But at the end of the day, people attend these parodies of churches, give them their money, and put up with their bizarro discipline/authoritarianism/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
Sleepers Awake!
Dave A A wrote:
Get out of there. Simple as that – there is nothing else to be done about it with these characters. Until that starts happening (people bailing out en masse), this nonsense will continue forever.
I know this isn’t relevant to the article at all, but I need to make a prayer request tonight, because I honestly don’t know any other Christians besides the people from the neo reformed churches I have been a part of the past seven years, and I don’t feel comfortable reaching out to any of those people. Here it is: I am at my wits end with work. I am overwhelmed, feel like I can’t accomplish anything, I am working well over 40 hours a week plus weekends. If I am not working, I am thinking about work. My boss is horrible. Nothing is good enough, and she always has something to complain about. I don’t know what to do. I don’t have family near me or family that cares. I have one friend right now, and she is from a neo reformed church. I literally can’t take one more day of this constant battle with work. Something has to give, or I will have a heart attach or nervous breakdown at 31. If you could find it in your schedule to say even a short prayer for me, I would greatly appreciate it.
Christina wrote:
Oh Dear Christina,
I feel certain that I am not the only one praying for you this evening.
I have been in very similar situations, and can appreciate just how suffocating it can feel. Please keep cool! Don’t burn any bridges if you can help it!
And don’t forget to breathe!
Praying for peace for you, and a better situation to come…
I completely agree. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If they claim they are above committing sins like the rest of us, run away!!
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
@ roebuck:
Ditto!
Max wrote:
There is no “Christ”, there is only CALVIN.
Lydia wrote:
RANK HATH ITS PRIVILEGES.
AND THE PREDESTINED ELECT HAVE THE MOST PRIVILEGES OF ALL.
The other elder trick out there is “you elder mine and I’ll elder yours”. Mark Driscoll right now is starting up his new church in Phoenix, The Trinity Church. The first listed Director (they haven’t listed elders yet – this came off of incorporation records) – Jimmy Evans from Trinity Fellowship Church in Amarillo and the Marriage Today TV show and products. Jimmy is also the Lead Apostolic Elder of Gateway Church, making him the highest ranking official at Gateway. – (p) means they get a full time paycheck from their home church. They have some other local elders. I tried to stick to the big names they have in common:
.
Who Elders Jimmy’s Church(TFC): The three Apostolic Elders are Robert Morris, Brady Boyd and Tom Lane – plus Jimmy Evans(p) as regular elder
Who Elders Gateway Church: Jimmy Evans, Jack Hayford (p – part-time at TKU but it was still $160,000 for 1 hour per week), Robert Morris(p), Tom Lane(p) and son Todd Lane(p), Preston Morrison, Steve Dulin(p), Gayland Lawshe(p), Kevin Grove(p) and Jeremy Carrasco
Who Elders Gateway Scottsdale: Robert Morris, Tom Lane, Steve Dulin, Kevin Grove, Jeremey Carrasco, Gayland Lawshe and Preston Morrison (p)
New Life Colorado Springs (Desperation Band Fame – Ted Haggard’s old church):
Apostolic Elders: Jimmy Evans, Jack Hayford, Tom Lane, Robert Morris, Larry Stocksill
The list goes on across the country. If Robert Morris wants his way, Tom Lane and Jimmy Evans and Brady Boyd and all the other co-elder golf buddies will take care of each other. They are always expected to return the favor. There is no independence. Jimmy Evans will get other buddies to load up the Mark Driscoll show and someday Mark will sit as Apostolic Elder for many more churches in order to cover for someone worse than himself.
In the mean time they all get paid 4-5 figures per speaking gig at each others churches. They sell each others books. They have elder retreats at the most expensive and luxurious resorts and golf clubs around the world. The tithers pay for it all. And no true accountability will ever take place. Ever. The inbreeding assures that. Robert Morris openly refers to it as “cross pollination”. He says it like it’s a good thing.
PS Praying for you Christina. Time to watch something funny and curl up with some hot chocolate.
Edit:
I should have clarified – the Senior Pastors for the above churches are:
Trinity Fellowship: Jimmy Evans/Jimmy Witcher
Gateway Church: Robert Morris (former TFC pastor)
Gateway Scottsdale: Preston Morrison (former GW pastor)
New Life Colorado Springs: Brady Boyd (former TFC and GW pastor)
The Trinity Church North Phoenix: Mark Driscoll
Do you see another pattern here? Musical Senior Pastors and Musical Elders
What as scam…… We all need to work to continue to expose this stuff…..
LT wrote:
@ Christina:
OH Christina, I am so sorry you find yourself in this mess. I was where you were 30 years ago.I was getting ready for work one day and thought” Well, I could always shoot myself!”It was the calmest sanest thought I had had in months.
I was fortunate enough to have an Employee Assistance Plan through the job that was making me crazy and I was able to see a therapist that day. Please in addition to prayer, reach out to your doctor or your local mental health center. There is help out there.
LT just nailed it. No governance just “leadership” with all the same names and faces. Why we left our DFW mega church. We wrote our resignation letter and I was invited to have dinner with two low level employees. Funny thing, but the employee who sent the email invite-her dad works there as a pastor.
No one read my letter because I expressed a concern for the lack of governance and too much nepotism. I laughed at the irony.
Mega churches are just employment centers for spouses, kids, in-laws etc.
Sad what’s happening to the church.
The money changers who were driven out by our Lord have returned in droves!!
@ nmgirl:
Christina, I wanted to add something. That horrible day, the therapist told me one thing I had never heard before: It was OK to take care of myself first.
@ Max: How does starting new churches in areas that already have lots of christian churches, considered good stewardship of resources?
Christina wrote:
Christine, I will make sure to pray that our God gives you peace tonight. And that He leads you in a direction that frees you from this overwhelming burden.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Ah…but their sins are on a completely different level than the pew peons. That is why the leaders get to go on sabbaticals instead of being subject to church discipline like the laity.
nmgirl wrote:
Thanks for your advice. If I had time to go see a mental health professional, I would. But I doubt I could find the time away from work. Between work and the sad state of churches as reported on Wartburg Watch, things seem pretty hopeless and bleak right lately. The people I thought were “community” and “dependable church people”, turned out to be the type of Calvinsitas the Deebs warns against.
nmgirl wrote:
Ah….because those churches have lost the true gospel. Remember this: Only the Calvinistas have the True Gospel.
Christina wrote:
Christina, a job that takes up that much of your life and has no concern for your health will run you into the ground. There must be an answer. You should not feel so trapped in your job that you have no other recourse.
roebuck wrote:
The only congregational input or veto some leaders will hear will consist of– empty pews!
To be clear, the letter-writer may actually be in a good church where the leaders listen to honest input– even criticism. But Leeman suggests the letter-writer take ‘a side-door, lighter approach. “Hey, those five tips offered wisdom I easily forget—thanks! But I did not hear any gospel encouragement for parents who try to follow such wisdom and fail. Did I miss it? Maybe I tuned out.”’ (Sounds a bit snarky to me). A direct approach should only be attempted after a couple years of serving and loving (being a joy to Pastor?) and making oneself known as ‘an encouraging and helpful ministry partner’.
GK wrote:
Which Dallas mega church did you leave? One of the reasons why I loathe Dallas. It is amazing how people at the churches will name drop Christian celebrities and regular people. “I am Tony Romo’s mentor” “Matt Chandler is my friend” “Oh, I know the lead singer of Hillsong’s wife” Gross.
Max wrote:
No clue what we did before Reformef theology. How did the good news spread without Mark Dever, Matt Chandler, Dougy Wilson, Piper, etc. I guess the early church weren’t true believers. That’s right, the people who walked with Jesus weren’t true believers. Obviously, because the person who saw the empty tomb and told people was a woman. She didn’t consult her male elders before spreading the news, so she should have been disciplined. Thank God for Reformed theology,
@ XianJaneway:
Good for you, and your church. Happy for you.
Would that more were like that.
Christina wrote:
Praying for you, Christina.
Chrstina wrote:
It’s amazing the whole movement didn’t go to hell in a handbasket, starting off with such an egregious error as that! #sarcasm #ifitwasntobvious
As Dee pointed out previously, American Culture, and evangelicalism in response, is always looking for the next, best thing… We want to part of the new cool, best, correct thing. Further, we look down on tradition. So, in comes YRR, and off you go.. Most pew sitters probably do not realize that it is just a revamped Calvinism form years ago.. The most baffling thing is the giving up of independence and privacy..
Chrstina wrote:
Christina wrote:
Christina, you’re not alone my friend 🙂
It’s a balmy summer’s evening here on the other side of the world and we’re thinking of you. Life sucks sometimes, it really does, but please don’t think you’re alone. I’m not sure I can help, but if there’s anything I can do, Dee has my email
Take care 🙂
Chrstina wrote:
Wasn’t the Dallas Megachurch whirl the setting of the novel “Good Christian Bitches” and its TV spinoff GCB?
(Incidentally, according to Wikipedia one episode of GCB included Grinning Ed Young’s “Seven Day CHRISTIAN Sex Challenge”.)
Darlene wrote:
Again, THERE IS NO CHRIST, THERE IS ONLY CALVIN.
LT wrote:
Just like MBAs with Golden Parachutes from bankrupted company after bankrupted company after bankrupted company…
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Yes! But it does fit in with the larger culture of youth that is also eschewing privacy with social media and giving up portions of independence trying to censor speech, etc.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Tom Wolfe called the ones on Wall Street, masters of the universe. It is who these types are. Many people admire it.
@ Christina:
Then reach out to us. I’m not a Christian but there are some pretty good people here.
@ nmgirl:
Christina, If you are interested, I am going to ask the Deebs to give you my email. Contact me anytime.
nmgirl wrote:
To the reformed mind, those churches are not genuinely Christian unless they hold to Calvinist doctrine in belief and practice. Thus, communities where non-Calvinist churches exist across America are open to the new reformation and worthy of their resources to bring the true gospel to them. Arrogance!
@ Christina:
I am sorry for what you are going through with work right now and also dealing with the state of the Church. I’ll be praying for resolve in your work situation and friends who can support you.
“Because the laypeople are obviously learning NOTHING, or at least Dever assumes that. What does that say about him?”
Well exactly, if they don’t have qualified lay elder candidates after all this time, the ministry of the church (and by extension Dever’s ministry) is a failure).
Based on what LT said, I hadn’t thought of Mark Driscoll as a future apostle in the New Apostolic Reformation, but that wouldn’t surprised me. First a reboot of pastoring a megachurch, then at some later date holding a pseudoevent where hands are laid on MD to formally invest him with the title of “apostle”. Guys like T.D. Jakes can call themselves Bishop, but being a modern superapostle has that trumped.
Lydia wrote:
That’s a very short comment with a lot in it! This shift in culture is the same on this side of the Pond as well, both in the UK and Germany.
It strikes me there are two aspects which millenials may one day come to regret. The first is the lack of privacy making it easier for others to control them (the picture of what they did at the party they put up on facebook may come back to haunt them).
The second is an unwillingness to judge or discriminate in a good sense. Putting the suffix ~phobic on to a word to shut down what may be legitimate criticism or discussion. Put the word ‘bigot’ in the next sentence. What’s good enough for gays is good enough for Islamists, and any other authoritarian outfit that may come along, not excluding “evangelical” ones. There seems to be a current fad of being professionally offended. It’s not whether you are telling the truth, it’s how it makes me feel that is what matters.
@ Christina:
Christina, I prayed for you just now. I prayed that the very Christ in your name and in your heart will carry you through this time.
“We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed (2 Cor 4:8-9). So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded (Heb 10:35); being confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil 1:6). Be of good courage, and He will strengthen your heart (Ps 31:24)… for He has said, I will never leave you, nor forsake you (Heb 13:5).”
Yup
Lydia wrote:
Christina, I have prayed for you, that either you’ll get a new boss or will be able to strategize a way out of your current job situation to something better. Whatever your financial situation, if you’re on the fast track to burnout, something’s gotta give. I hope you can leave that place on your own terms, rather than being terminated by some jerk before you’ve lined up something new.
@ Max:
“I have found that New Calvinists in my area mistrust those professing a personal experience with the living Christ; they prefer to adhere to rigid doctrinal propositions about “grace”, rather than a direct experience of grace. I seriously wonder whether these folks have ever encountered the living Christ.”
+++++++++++++++++++
like they feel left out, and it makes them uneasy, afraid, feeling inferior. so they double down on a manufactured version of it, lauding it as the gold standard. problem solved. but it’s like pretending, going through the motions.
it’s like codifying something like falling in love, or friendship. feelings & intuition (& common sense) are replaced with step-by-step instructions. the end result is plastic & pretending. and it’s exhausting. there’s no fun & delight, no magic chemistry is possible. it’s anything but life-giving.
@ Max:
“SBC’s North American Mission Board has launched an aggressive church planting program to establish 1,000 new churches per year. …Devers’ 9Marks model is the church governance of choice at church plants … I hope you are right … that this will fizzle in 5-10 years.”
++++++++++++++++
I certainly do, too. but what a colossal waste of money (other people’s money). it’s painful to think about.
elastigirl wrote:
Elastigirl, you’ve described life as a New Calvinist perfectly! These folks are swept up in the hype of the moment, but left spiritually lifeless at the end of the day.
Divorce Minister wrote:
According the the New Testament, we are all clergy (priests) …and we are all laity (sheep). And we are to call no one leader, no one teacher, to give no one an honorific ever, under any circumstances–and there is but one mediator between God and man, Jesus. There were the words of Jesus, the words that Matt and Mark and James and C.J. and all the boys hate with a spitting fury.
Dave A A wrote:
The one thing that Leeman would forbid is exactly what the Lord told us to do: Confront the elder in public, expose his evil, publicly call him out. The greatest problem these people have, the biggest stumbling block, is Jesus and His words, He made it all, the universe, He’s the one behind every word in the Bible. They don’t want to obey His words, they hate them, they don’t want to submit to His lordhip. They rage against it in their passive aggressive, backhanded ways.
One has to wonder if a good old-fashioned, smug, smirking, profoundly ignorant atheist like Bill Maher, dead wrong but at least honest and forthright in his wrong-headedness, isn’t better.
elastigirl wrote:
But the Predestined Pastors and Church Planters will personally benefit from it (at least for a time) and That’s What’s Important.
Remember all the 20-something Silicon Valley types living high off Dot-Com IPOs, competing for the highest “Burn Rate” (i.e. who could go through Other People’s Money the fastest)?
elastigirl wrote:
“Our Duty to The Party.”
Chris S wrote:
“Ours is a High and Lonely Destiny, Digory.”
Law Prof wrote:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ………. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehend it not.”
Jesus is still the Word, life and light. These people are the darkness.
Max wrote:
Not I.
The odd thing about expository teaching is that Jesus didn’t really do much of it. When he started from a scribsher, he seems to’ve followed it up with something like Today, this scribsher is fulfilled right in front of you. (And it didn’t always end well, btw.) Or, he’d open with a scribsher, and follow it up with that’s what you’ve heard, but I say…. Or he’d bring in a scribsher by way of explaining what he was doing – something like, this scribsher must be fulfilled in Me.
But a lot of the time, his teaching as the Gospel accounts record it went something like, What’s the Kingdom like? Well, it’s like this… again, it’s like this… and this… and this. Where’s that in the Bible? Well, it’s in there now, obviously, but it wasn’t then – none of the parables of the Kingdom expounded on any pre-existing scribsher.
I’ve no authority to say that traditional fundagelical expository preaching is sinful or wrong. But the extent to which it has become viewed as the primary way through which God speaks to his people does disturb me; there’s little to commend it from scribsher itself and I think it’s become a sacred cow.
(By the same token, though a little off-topic, I’ve been told that my own “calling into ministry” towards the poor and the downtrodden isn’t from God because it didn’t come via a scribsher. But again, this is just tradition. There are few if any instances in the scribshers themselves in which God called or appointed a person by referring them to any pre-existing scribsher.)
Daisy wrote:
Or maybe not.
I agree with this post…
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
These guys are trying to turn the “fellowship of believers” into a dictatorship.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You’d be hard put to find a place in the bible where caring for the poor was seen as outside the scope of Jewish or Christian life; quite the reverse. And I imagine this calling came the way most Christians claim a calling comes – getting on with it in the church, gradually finding it is your ‘thing’ or gift, and a growing conviction that this is what God wants you to do.
As for expository preaching, the good thing about this is that i)subjects we don’t always like to hear will have to be dealt with, and ii) more positively we will get to know and get into all the good that God has for us or has done for us. And if you were Baptist and had to have three points, iii) well-taught Christians ought to be less gullible and fall for the nonsense being peddled around these days.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I’m gaining confidence in my agreement with you. When NJ mentioned up thread the need for “educated preaching” I internally thought why? Shouldn’t we learn from each other? I’ve consistently found lectures are a poor way for me to gain information. I used to excuse it because I thought I was exception but I have found in all aspects of life it is a poor means of education. The preacher at my present church does a much better than average job but I question the large central role preaching has been given in the church in general.
The questions asked by my peers have been much more effective in advancing my understanding. It was a few simple questions from a friend a year ago that moved me to identify and attempt to deal with the dysfunction and spiritual abuse at the church I have since left behind. Also the posts and comments here on TWW have been crucial in this past year.
We’re supposed to teach each other, elders are supposed to teach by example. About the only place expository preaching goes on in the Bible is to those who had not believed in Jesus. To those who were already believers, John said “You don’t need teachers, because you have the Holy Spirit to teach you.”
These lord-it-over-the-flock types such as are called out biblically on this forum need to sit down and shut up. Many of them are probably in the same position as those in the Bible who were being preached to in an expository manner, because I am willing to bet that many of them are believers only in their systems, themselves and their own chutzpah–not in Jesus.
Ken wrote:
You bring this up a lot. But based on your comments over the year or so, I think you get this backwards. Paul would never contradict Christ as you consistently have him do.
Expositon would require cultural context, linguistics, etc. The bible is not a collection of magic books.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
“Speculation is the mother of all evil…”
~ Gordon Gekko ~
Law Prof wrote:
Yes. Elders would stay behind making sure others escape being fed to the lions.They are not the entitled perfumed little princes we see today.
@ Eeyore:
Eeyore:
You are exactly right about many of the new “Reformed” churches and ministries and the dangers there.
Dear Dee and Deb,
Just wanted to let you know that my new book on the New Apostolic Reformation is getting pretty close to coming out and has finally received its cover. Here’s a link:
http://www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-9956-4
Feel free to promote it, if you want (or not, if you don’t feel comfortable). Hope you both are well.
dee wrote:
Dare I… Gasp!… disagree with what credentialed scientists have come up with??
roebuck wrote:
Good one roebuck! In my opinion when Jesus’ Dad brought himself into this world through Mary, he was the most beautiful specimen of man ever. Why wouldn’t the last Adam be?
Victorious wrote:
I take a different view of the Isaiah passages, one that is not wooden and literal.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, when I refer to “expository” preaching, I think of approaching the study of Scripture by exegesis, rather than eisegesis. Good preaching, in my mind, is when a messenger frames a message to allow the Bible itself to teach us Biblical text, within its context, to discover the original meaning of the inspired Word (exegesis). However, in far too many places on a given Sunday morning the messenger interprets a text or portion of text to introduce his own presuppositions and agenda (eisegesis). Calvinists are famous for cherry-picking verses to support their theology; they tend to camp out in various passages to hammer home the same doctrinal preconceptions … making them fit reformed tenets, sometimes through much gyration. (It can be argued that those of other theological persuasions also do this.)
But, having said that, I hear what you are saying about much of 21st century preaching vs. that proclaimed in the early church. It is true that Jesus preached more about the Kingdom than anything else … we should note that and read the “red” carefully to see what the Savior is saying to us. On the other hand, New Calvinists like to hang out in Paul’s epistles rather than the Gospels. That troubles me. Paul has a lot to say to us, but we can’t understand his words properly if we don’t filter them through Jesus. In my personal study of Scripture, I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me into Truth … I find it critical for the Word (Truth) to be connected to the Spirit of Truth for it to become real to me. Much of preaching today is not Spirit-led.
roebuck wrote:
And that’ll be where the blond hair & blue eyes came from…
Dee, I’ll be thinking of you as you all face this sad news.
Beakerj wrote:
Yes, that long straight hair parted in the middle, the blue eyes, and a much longer beard that what those pictures show 🙂
Max wrote:
Well, that’s a fair point; I’m certainly with you on that.
Beakerj wrote:
Like way, way out there from another continent perhaps?
I have watched several you tubes of this guy and other YRR pastors…. The hubris is breathtaking…. I have been a faculty at a secular University for over 27 years… I would be run out if behaved/talked like these guys…. The biggest irony is I grew up in a fundamentalist church/school, and far from “losing my faith” being in the secular environment actually helps cut through the BS these types spout off about, and what we really know, and most I,protantly, don’t know…. These guys live in a bubble just talking to each other and not really be challenged…
brian wrote:
Bridget wrote:
Something like that 😉
@ Muff Potter:
My dear Muff
There is a disclaimer on my tweets and comments. I sometimes refer to things that are interesting but not necessarily endorsed by me.
And I agree on the genetics thing. There is definitely some unusual DNA involved in this birth! 🙂
roebuck wrote:
I can’t believe no one has mentioned the glowing golden halo yet!
Nancy2 wrote:
Runs in Dad’s family…
brian wrote:
Thanks Brian. Proof once again that just because you have Dr. in front of your name doesn’t necessarily mean you have something intelligent to say about everything. (this brings to mind C.J. Mahaney’s comment that Dr. Mohler must be intelligent because he saw a big stack of books in his office)
Max wrote:
One naturally wonders how many of those books the great Dr. Mohler has ever even read. And where his ‘Dr.’ came from. A bunch of charlatans.
LT wrote:
If this is all factual information in your comment, these guys need to be exposed for the mountebanks and grifters they are.
@ Muff Potter:
And just for the record, I’m in favor of overhauling the tax codes so these guys will have to ante up just like everybody else.
Christina wrote:
Christina, I’m so sorry. I’m praying for you! Where are you located?
roebuck wrote:
Honorary Doctorate bestowed by another ManaGAWD?
Reverend Larry awards Reverend Moe an Honorary Doctorate.
Reverend Moe awards Reverend Curly an Honorary Doctorate.
Reverend Curly awards Reverend Larry an Honorary Doctorate.
NYUK! NYUK! NYUK!
Ken wrote:
i) For me the question isn’t whether there should be teaching or not but from what source. If I need to be told something I don’t want to hear it will likely come from those that know me rather than a “pastor” preaching to a room full of people. Those I know will also have a much better ability to break through, I’ve found that I listen more to people who care about me, I’m sure the reverse is true. Frankly most pastors do not and cannot care as much as my closer associates, some “pastors” don’t care at all.
ii) I think I’ve already mentioned I’ve received much better teaching from smaller groups and individuals than from a pulpit. When I’ve done bible studies I’ve found people remember what they say more than what they hear, so sitting mute listening to a lecture has little staying power.
iii) If by “well taught” you mean seminary trained “pastors”, then phooey. I left when the 30 year old seminary kid couldn’t listen to people who had been practicing their faith for a half century. Seminary indoctrination has apparently bred a generation of very gullible pastors. And much of the nonsense you may refer to came from via a pulpit. Making the statement here on TWW that training somehow lowers the nonsense rings hollow considering much of the grist that gets churned over on this blog, grist as in nonsense from a trained pastor in the pulpit type grist. At least when I say something dumb few will be influenced and most will question it, not so with the trained “pastor” that so many are also trained to trust.
To summarize, my experience has been that preaching is vastly overrated compared to teaching one another. The knowledge or wisdom of “pastors” is NOT superior to other believers in the church and fails miserably compared to the assembled wisdom of those believers. Over reliance on preaching also suppressing teaching, I know a great many saints in the church with much wisdom that have been sidelined by this system that only recognizes the “pastor” and maybe a few other “leaders”. Preachers need to recognize they have a limited supporting role and not the primary role. I suspect this “pastor” system has created a bunch of spiritual runts rather than a well taught priesthood of believers.
Thanks for your comment Ken, it prodded me to sharpen my understanding. If I misread your point then sorry, at least it gave me an opportunity to sort things out.
Q wrote:
How so?
Christina wrote:
Hi Christina. We’re all praying for you. My advice, and I’ve been in a hellish situation before, is to look for another job immediately if you already aren’t. In the meantime, see how you can use the situation to your advantage, such as what experience can you get out of it to put on your resume or note in an interview, etc.
Law Prof wrote:
I think finding a good church is like finding a good spouse: note your must haves and note what differences you can live with. For me, I must have an egalitarian church that has truly kind people and is active in the community. Personally, I would never, ever go to a comp, neo-Cal church. Been there, done that, had the sense to get out.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think when these guys talk about the Holy Trinity, they really mean the Holy Quad: God the Father; that other guy, what’s his name; Paul; and Calvin.
Bill M,
For myself, I make a distinction between the proclamation of the Word on Sunday morning in the liturgy, and more informal Bible studies. I believe both are important in the life of the church although historically, the former was seen as a means of grace by the original reformers.
One of the issues I have with the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition is their elevation of the sermon as the high point of the service, originally going hours in length during the late 16th and 17th centuries. For a variety of historical reasons, the Lord’s supper was downplayed in comparison, even though the ministries of Word and Sacrament were supposed to be the “twin peaks” of the liturgy during much of the Patristic era. Instead, presbys have been treated to lecture-style sermons which used to be quite lengthy. I’ve often thought perhaps the shorter homily, delivered as proclamation of God’s Word to his people and done well, might be a more effective vehicle of grace for those listening.
Lydia wrote:
Yes. How privileged we all must be to be granted the honor of joyfully contributing to the lifestyle of paid staff while not being burdened with any decisions about how the church will be the church.
Christina wrote:
Christina, I pray that the Lord will show the way through the darkness for you. Many of us have been through similar things, and I thank you for sharing your request with us. I pray that you will find a friend who loves you and Jesus and other people more than a system.
Patriciamc wrote:
Did that one myself, the spouse and I dragged the family through a YRR mess. if we do that one again, I expect our many children to smother us with pillows–and they’d be right to do it.
@ Bill M:
I think you misunderstood in part. 🙂
By talking about hearing things we don’t particularly like, I have in mind not treating the bible like a delicious box of chocolates and only savouring the parts we like, the promises for example, or having ‘itching ears’. Going through a whole book verse by verse will mean, in the case of Ephsesians for example, looking at predestination rather than avoiding it. Or dealing with God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. And these subjects would have to be dealt with in context, the bible wasn’t written in ‘verses’ that we can assemble together as we think fit. You can get a distorted view of God if you only concentrate on his mercy, or only concentrate on his severity. Too familiar to fear him, too fearful to call him Father.
By ‘well-taught’, I don’t have pastors in mind, but all believers gaining a good understanding of the bible. The teachers in the church should be enabling this. Building people up. The truth setting them free. As Spurgeon once said, those who have a bible that is falling apart usually have a life that isn’t.
A good knowledge of the bible will mean believers do not get in state (as they often do!) when someone tells them ‘you cannot have been baptised in the Spirit if you have not subsequently spoken in tongues’. A new law – missing from the NT. Well-taught Christians ought not to fall for authoritarianism, having a fairly good idea of what authority is, and the checks and balances on it that are in the NT. They should know whether tithing is commanded of NT believers. Except ye believe in a literal 6 day creation, ye cannot be saved … .
They should read the bible and learn doctrine for themselves, see this as a Christian responsibility.
In dealing with sceptics, believers ought to have some ideas about violence in the OT, or slavery, or rape, the role of the Law as far as NT believers are concerned. The internet is spreading an awful lot of ignorance on these subjects, and imo we need to be clued up on them, even if we won’t have answers for everything.
Christina wrote:
Requests for prayer are always relevant. And you have them!
Ken wrote:
I have problems with emphasis on doctrine but throw in a healthy dose of love and humility and we are in agreement on reading the bible for yourself.
I find it fascinating and hypocritical that so many Neo-Cal churches are moving toward self perpetuating elderships even though they pretend that the congregation has an input. In the 70’s and early 80’s in South Africa, where I live, many churches with charismatic leanings were removed from our (Baptist) Union because they were no longer congregationally governed, I doubt the same will be done again to the Calvinistas who follow they same route, albeit with a very different set of theological gymnastics. At least the Pentecostals/Charismatics where honest enough to simply admit they where going for an Apostolic form of governance.
Bill M wrote:
Seems to me that the emphasis on doctrine results in a legal handbook of sorts as opposed to the Good News Jesus brings of abundant life, living water, forgiveness, freedom, and eternal salvation.
@ Victorious:
…forgot about hope, joy, and peace 🙂
@ Jbthebaptist:
I think you bring up an important point. If it is anything like here, It is the stealth and deception that is the biggest problem. If they were upfront about their intentions it would not work, so they have to go stealth.
Of course in the SBC they would not have made it as far as they have if they had been upfront about their intentions. Too bad people were not reading chapter 4 of Quiet Revolution by Neo Cal Ernest Resigner. It is basically a playbook on taking over the SBC without people realizing it.
Ken wrote:
On this we also agree, and by implication authoritarianism is bad doctrine. I also agree with Victorias above that the spotlight should be on the Good News and not doctrine. Yet I will concede that if we get doctrine markedly wrong it can have godawful results.
@ Lydia:
Thanks for that – I shall go and have a look – its definitely happening over here now and it is disturbing.
Always amazes me how people who claim they are all about ‘biblical truth'(TM) are so happy to play fast and loose with ordinary every day truth.
Ken wrote:
Ken, it would be helpful in discussing the importance of doctrine, if you would disclose what/which doctrines you are speaking of. In other words, which doctrines do you think Christians have a responsibility to learn from scripture that are applicable today. You mentioned slavery, violence, tithing, and the Law which you correctly identified as OT subjects that believers should have a knowledge of.
But this:
…is where most problems and/or abuse is occurring in the church today.
So again, it would be helpful to know what areas of authority specifically you think believers should abide by according to the NT.
@ Christina:
You are in my prayers. I have been there before, and all I can say is stay strong, and look for new work. You will make it!
Lydia wrote:
Salami Tactics and Stealth Takeover.
Like Stalin used to sew up Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW2.
And then there’s Coup From Within, like Hitler used to take over Germany in 1933.
Jbthebaptist wrote:
North Korea justifies all its atrocities “In the Name of The People”, so why not?
Next step is for the Elderships to become hereditary, inherited from father to son like IFB and Mega-preachers. Let the Game of Thrones begin.
Patriciamc wrote:
Not God the Father, Calvin, Calvin, and Calvin?
Bill M wrote:
I agree the word ‘doctrine’ can sound rather cold. Apostolic teaching sounds better, plus of course the gospels themselves.
What I have in mind with the expression is tucked away in a verse in Philemon:
I pray that the sharing of your faith may promote the knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ.
The goal is to get into the good of what God has done for us, to ‘realise’ our assets in both senses of the word realise; to experience God rather than just know about him.
This is not the same thing as being indoctrinated, and maybe this possibility is why doctrine has acquired a negative connotation. Some Christians break fellowship over doctrine when they shouldn’t, it shouldn’t become unnecessarily divisive.
If we don’t attempt to get healthy doctrine, behaviour will suffer, so whilst doctrine as head knowledge may not be the ultimate goal of the Christian life, we cannot do without it either.
Victorious wrote:
All of them! I mean we should not be bound to follow a particular stream of theological thought, but should always be Bereans.
So by all means read CBE or CBWM for their interpretations, but place the NT itself above them. A church may have either a Calvinist or Arminian history or emphasis, but believers should read the bible and think about these doctrines for themselves. Great care needs to be taken that believers are not excluded by group-think or a requirement to sign on the dotted line for a particular emphasis.
This does not mean we are free to ignore those in the church gifted to teach it, or ignore those who have gone before us – a good check on novel interpretations. No to doctrinal anarchy! It does mean our consciences shouldn’t be bound by what men teach unless it is clearly derived from scripture. Respect yes; blind obedience no.
There is a doctrine of Christian liberty in the NT, and had Christians been suitably aware of it, perhaps the false submission and heavy shephering doctrines (for example) would not have been believed and done so much damage, being followed by believers who should have known better and not been so easily fooled. How often this has happened because the person espousing a doctrine is a famous name, speaks at conferences having written books, and therefore we think must have got it right.
Even more dangerous perhaps are the followers of famous names who don’t have the wisdom and maturity of more well-known ministries, who far from having any nuance take everything to an extreme or use it as an ego trip.
Ken wrote:
Thanks for responding to my question about areas of authority, but “all of them” is pretty ambiguous for me. Here’s what I asked again:
…it would be helpful to know what areas of authority specifically you think believers should abide by according to the NT.
You mention several “streams of thought” such as CBE, CBWM, and Calvinist or Arminian and rightly suggest believers should search the scriptures for themselves. But in my 40+ yrs. as a believer, I have found gazillion areas of disagreement as to what the Bible teaches even among the most mature Bereans!!
So I’m guessing one must not only search the scriptures, but then must search for a church/body of believers who agree with my understanding. Since I think I’ve read there are over 30,000 denominations to choose from, that shouldn’t be too difficult a search.
Personally, I wouldn’t call liberty a doctrine so that’s why defining doctrine is difficult. Here’s my opinion on the truths that all believers should agree on and whether you agree with the gazillion others churches have developed is a matter of exercising one’s freedom and/or conscience. I hope you agree.
NT Doctrine that unites believers into one body is this imo:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Corinthians 15:1-8 New American Standard Bible).
Victorious wrote:
Well I thought I gave a reasonable answer; unfortunately it wasn’t all that relevant to the question! 🙂
So, to be more specific conerning the matters about which you wrote:
God and his word are the ultimate authority, and we must obey God rather than men. This qualifies everything else.
There is the authority of Christian leaders aas at the end of Hebrews – those who spoke the word of God to whom we should submit or yield.
Then there is the home as already discussed at great length!
In both church and home I see a flat hierarchy. More to do with respect than ‘do as I say’. Christian believers are in many ways equals. The relationship is not analagous to that between a king and the assistent kitchen maid. Nevertheless part of our submission to Christ is for the younger to submit to the elders.
Then there is human government as in Romans 13. How much easier that is for us than for those to whom Paul wrote. This is still for today, and part of our obedience to Christ is render to Caesar what is his, and failure to do so will incur God’s judgement and displeasure.
I found something interesting in Romans 13:
For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good.
Rulers who are servants. This is the nearest you will get to a biblical reference to servant-leadership. Perhaps the term isn’t quite the sanctimonious hogwash that I usually tend to think. But I don’t think many of us think of the government in these terms!
Then there are the principalities and powers, but I’ve never been convinced it is our job to deal with them as a church as we don’t have the authority.
Our cultural condition is democracy. The church, however, is not a democracy though Baptist Church Meetings are often treated as though it is. The kingdom of God is not a democracy, it has a King who actually rules. So, oh American evangelicals, one day you are going to have to get used to a monarchy again!
@ Ken:
Thank you so much for taking the time to qualify the specific areas you consider to be doctrine of importance in the NT. And thank you in advance for allowing me to qualify your doctrines. 🙂
I couldn’t agree more! But there’s that little matter of how over 30,000 denominations see God’s Word and it’s various translations and interpretations. That makes it a little less cut and dried as to the specifics contained within.
Ooops…forgot a end quote somewhere but I think you can make out which you said and which is my reply. Sorry. 🙁
Ken, let me try again.
Thank you so much for taking the time to qualify the specific areas you consider to be doctrine of importance in the NT. And thank you in advance for allowing me to qualify your doctrines. 🙂
I couldn’t agree more! But there’s that little matter of how over 30,000 denominations see God’s Word and it’s various translations and interpretations. That makes it a little less cut and dried as to the specifics contained within.
Hebrews 13:17 uses the word “peitho” which is found 52 times in the NT and only translated “obey” here. All other 51 times it’s translated as being persuaded, being convinced, trust, believe, yield. The area of persuasion, trust, yield, etc. is obviously in spiritual matters as evident by the fact they are watching over our souls. That narrows down the area over which they are accountable to God and it’s in their designated area of serving. They preach the Word and we trust in their transmission after proving it by doing as the Bereans did. If the transmission contradicts our findings, we have less trust and are not so persuaded nor should we necessarily yield in certain cases of erroneous, agenda-driven interpretation.
OK…I will mention only one reservation. I cannot find one place in all the Bible where husbands are commanded to rule over or have authority over their wives. This makes that doctrine iffy to say the least. But we have beaten that dead horse enough I think. 🙂
It seems you are attributing “servant-leadership” to the government and if so, you would be correct. The government is a “it” in verse 17; not a “he.” And most importantly, “it” is secular in nature, not spiritual. It’s design is to protect citizens of a country against crime by exacting appropriate punishment for noncompliance with federal or civil laws. Therefore, it doesn’t equate to Christian leadership and doesn’t imo meet the criteria for labeling it as doctrine in a section on church beliefs.
That makes the word “doctrine” even more ambiguous given the correct understanding or misunderstandings in these areas. I’m left with the basics noted in my post above:
“…that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”
This is the important and primary doctrine that unites all believers into one body and enables love for one another just as He loves us.
Can it really be that simple? I believe the answer is yes, but only if we set aside the power struggles.
The Lowborn must be taught Manners before their Betters.
“Beat him until he learns to prostrate properly before one of My rank.”
— Thai nobleman in Anna and the King of Siam
@ Victorious:
Thank you for your long post.
As far as denominations go, there are two: those who believe, and those who refuse to obey the gospel.
I agree about the nuance of ‘obey’ in Heb 13 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account (RSV) with the proviso that each specific context will determine the exact meaning of a particular word. I wonder if there had never been a shepherding error whether this would matter quite so much in view of the other checks and balances on submission in the rest of the NT.
You wrote: I cannot find one place in all the Bible where husbands are commanded to rule over or have authority over their wives. … But we have beaten that dead horse enough I think.
Oh no we haven’t … 🙂
I also agree on maintaining unity based on the straightforward message of the 1 Cor 15 gospel. Keeping the unity of the Spirit whilst simultaneously jousting over various doctrines and ideas.
Do you know why there are 4 corners of heaven? In one are the complementarians, another the egalitarians, in another undecided voters or otherwise of no fixed abode, and in the other Baptists (they will never come to terms with the fact they are not the only ones there). Then of course there are the Calvinists and Arminians, sprinklers and dunkers, liturgy fans and happy clappies, continuationists and cessationists. Each grouping of course will have nothing to do with the others …
There will be a clearing house (St. Peter’s House – first right after the entrance, no appointment necessary) to enable individuals to select the combination amongst whom they will feel the least uncomfortable.
Disclaimer: the bit about Baptists is an old chestnut beloved of … British Baptists, from one who knows! Please insert your denomination of choice.