George wrote:

First

Deb wrote:

@ George:

You are on the ball!

No, just happened to get lucky!

This is well written and researched. I truly tried to watch the videos but the nine marks folks make me want to vomit up my lunch, sorry to be graphic and I admit it might just be me. When I hear the word biblical I often have the same “feeling”. The application of these ideas especially “church discipline” have not just caused pain or are a little oopsie they have ripped churches and families apart in some cases and have been applied in a retaliatory manner on occasions. Why, can’t one mark be, we are mandated reporters for spouses and children who are abused. I E we side heavily with the victim etc. Maybe a mark that has to do with leadership is responsible to the congregation and is held accountable by the congregation, not some handpicked yes club called elders.

Some mark about the church being a family and we don’t allow gutting family (faith) members or hacking the wounded to death to keep the machine running might be good as well. Personally, I would love to have a mark in the local church where showing grief is not some type of satanically inspired sin if it is committed by one of the non-professional Christians. I really mean the last one, it would have helped me a great deal.

The “church” has authority?

‘We were originally called the Center for Church Reform, but then we noticed pastors getting into trouble with their congregations for referring to an organization that seemed to suggest that they should change.”

Even though that was the plan! So they decided not to refer to “Reform” because that might suggest Calvinism and the churches they wanted to change would most likely resist a subtle introduction to reformed theology. It would be better to come in the back door by stealth and deception, rather than be upfront about the real objective (a strategy that numerous YRR picked up on to gain control of non-Calvinist pulpits … anything but a healthy church).

“Biblical Theology” = Reformed Theology, of course

“The Gospel” = Doctrines of Grace, of course

@ BL:
Amen! There’s a reason ‘Elders’ (as in older and wiser men) are to lead the church.

@ Johnny Hopkins:
I like expository preaching too, but I don’t think it’s the only acceptable method of preaching.

What appears to be missing is the one important Mark that Jesus taught: that his followers would be recognized by their LOVE. The ONE MARK of a healthy church is LOVE. When people come in the door, they will recognize the love that the members have for one another. Acceptance on a statement of faith in Jesus Christ verified by a loving nature. We need more ONE MARK churches. Just delete that unneeded X and we have One Mark.

Exactly… We are called to love as JC loved us.. in a sacramental way… that is a HUGH bar to achieve, but we are told that is how His disciples are to be known.. And, for what is worth, I do not claim that I live the way that I should!

An Attorney wrote:

What appears to be missing is the one important Mark that Jesus taught: that his followers would be recognized by their LOVE. The ONE MARK of a healthy church is LOVE. When people come in the door, they will recognize the love that the members have for one another. Acceptance on a statement of faith in Jesus Christ verified by a loving nature. We need more ONE MARK churches. Just delete that unneeded X and we have One Mark.

@ An Attorney:

Amen.

An Attorney wrote:

What appears to be missing is the one important Mark that Jesus taught: that his followers would be recognized by their LOVE. The ONE MARK of a healthy church is LOVE. When people come in the door, they will recognize the love that the members have for one another. Acceptance on a statement of faith in Jesus Christ verified by a loving nature. We need more ONE MARK churches. Just delete that unneeded X and we have One Mark.

Preach it!

@ siteseer:

Spot on.

Here are Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman promoting it prior to the event. In this video, Mark Dever acknowledges:

There are a lot of pastors who I think have very quickly tried to be obedient to what they see in scripture, but they’ve done it without a lot of wisdom….

Wisdom? Maybe. I’m think the lack of wisdom is only a symptom. The disease more like a lack of love. But then the lack of love may be only a symptom of the corrupt system that attracts narcissists who crave power and adulation and are incapable of love.

St Paul’s 9 ‘marks’ of a healthy church, as written to the Galatian church in the 1st century:
1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Gentleness
8. Faithfulness
9. Self-control

Estelle wrote:

St Paul’s 9 ‘marks’ of a healthy church, as written to the Galatian church in the 1st century:
1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Gentleness
8. Faithfulness
9. Self-control

Right!! Why the need to write their own 9Marks? Scripture is not enough for the 9Marks guys.

Velour wrote:

But these same men lay heavy burdens on Christians.

Matthew 23:4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. NASB
Luke 11:46 But He said, “Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. NASB

An Attorney wrote:

LOVE. The ONE MARK

“Francis Schaeffer exhorted, ‘Love–and the unity it attests to–is the mark Christ gave Christians to wear before the world. Only with this mark may the world know that Christians are indeed Christians and that Jesus was sent by the Father.’ More than ever, the church needs to respond compassionately to a needy world. More than ever, we need to show the Mark.

That was “back-in-the-day” …

http://jimbomkamp.com/1john/TRUECHRS.htm: Marks of a true Christian.

@ JYJames:

“Love–and the unity it attests to–is the mark Christ gave Christians to wear before the world.”
++++++++++

don’t know enough about Francis Schaeffer to know whether I like him or not, but what struck me is that love doesn’t require agreement to doctrinal or faux-biblical platforms (whether primary, secondary, tertiary…).

love is really not that hard. I mean, it is if you analyze it to death, turning it into a bunch of non-intuitive rules (& job descriptions…!). by then it’s some over-processed lump of radio-active velveeta cheese. how nice 😐

the Christian marketplace of ideas (& the products they generate) is all so divisive. everyone’s so nervous and scared about getting it right & not getting it right and censoring those ‘who got it wrong’.

I think it’s about viability.

(actually, I think leaders of churches & Christian entities are nervous and scared of losing financial viability. so they go on crusades & campaigns to rally the troops, planting ideas of “you have to get it right! you can’t get it wrong!” to make the troops dependent on them. it’s so wrong, all of it)

I think Anne Rice assessed Christianity correctly: “this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.”

http://www.annerice.com/Chamber-Christianity.html

I went to Liberty, and this reminds me of the two types of students I saw at LU.

The students whose parents taught them to do right, but loved and trusted them, were able to move quickly to mature adults.

The students whose parents sheltered and controlled everything they did as kids and teenagers went absolutely crazy when they got to college and their parents weren’t there telling them what to do. They were spiritually weak and immature, and they couldn’t deal with life.

Just because you think tight discipline of someone else will result in growth doesn’t mean it will. Discipline has to come from that person’s walk with God, and based on His love and trust.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I am going to start a ministry called Pound Sand Ministries. The ministry would encourage those who feel hammered by this distortion of the word Gospel to smile and tell the one using the Gospel as a weapon to ‘pound sand’; respectfully, of course.

Great idea! But I think that we should say that winsomely and try to push people gently under our care. We should put them on our Pound Sand care list and pray for them to repent of their perversion of the Gospel and be restored to fellowship in a Pound Sand affiliated LocalChurch. Naturally, we would need to distribute resources to the Pound Sand affiliated LocalChurches and install bookstores or book sale racks for the Pound Sandway books.

Leeman asks, “Is there a track record of stupid pastors [implementing the 9Marks regimen]”

Dear Jonathan Leeman,

Yes.

Sincerely,
One of the Presbuteras

@ Lydia:
And we are prepared to share their tragic testimonies with the world.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Hey, you did not use the word “biblical” in your list… It must not be truely biblical..

Estelle wrote:

St Paul’s 9 ‘marks’ of a healthy church, as written to the Galatian church in the 1st century:
1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Gentleness
8. Faithfulness
9. Self-control

Velour wrote:

They are in love with themselves, with the long lost Biblical truths that they alone have uncovered and that other Christians have missed for hundreds of years.

The Occult Gnosis (Greek for Sekrit Speshul Knowledge) that only the Inner Ring of Truly Reformed Illuminati can Understand?

Pushing this type of issue is very important, it helps to define/contrast the YRR/neo-cal from traditional christianity

Christiane wrote:

Christiane wrote:

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Hey, you did not use the word “biblical” in your list… It must not be truely biblical..

Estelle wrote:

St Paul’s 9 ‘marks’ of a healthy church, as written to the Galatian church in the 1st century:
1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Gentleness
8. Faithfulness
9. Self-control

I once had an SBC blog administrator tells me that the ‘biblical gospel’ was not the same as the four Holy Gospels of sacred Scripture. I have come to learn that the use of the word ‘biblical’ by fundamentalists is ‘code’ for cult=like applications of isolated verses.

Max wrote:

‘We were originally called the Center for Church Reform, but then we noticed pastors getting into trouble with their congregations for referring to an organization that seemed to suggest that they should change.”

Lies from day one.

Estelle wrote:

St Paul’s 9 ‘marks’ of a healthy church, as written to the Galatian church in the 1st century:
1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Gentleness
8. Faithfulness
9. Self-control

And while we’re at it: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and exult in the surrender of my body, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. 6Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

I haven’t checked, does the ESV even have this part? Or do they just skip it?

1 Corinthians 13 The Message (MSG)

The Way of Love
13 If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don’t love, I’m nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate.

2 If I speak God’s Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, “Jump,” and it jumps, but I don’t love, I’m nothing.

3-7 If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don’t love, I’ve gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I’m bankrupt without love.

Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have.
Love doesn’t strut,
Doesn’t have a swelled head,
Doesn’t force itself on others,
Isn’t always “me first,”
Doesn’t fly off the handle,
Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others,
Doesn’t revel when others grovel,
Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
Puts up with anything,
Trusts God always,
Always looks for the best,
Never looks back,
But keeps going to the end.
8-10 Love never dies. Inspired speech will be over some day; praying in tongues will end; understanding will reach its limit. We know only a portion of the truth, and what we say about God is always incomplete. But when the Complete arrives, our incompletes will be canceled.

11 When I was an infant at my mother’s breast, I gurgled and cooed like any infant. When I grew up, I left those infant ways for good.

12 We don’t yet see things clearly. We’re squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won’t be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We’ll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us!

13 But for right now, until that completeness, we have three things to do to lead us toward that consummation: Trust steadily in God, hope unswervingly, love extravagantly. And the best of the three is love.

The Message (MSG)
Copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002 by Eugene H. Peterson

ishy wrote:

The students whose parents sheltered and controlled everything they did as kids and teenagers went absolutely crazy when they got to college and their parents weren’t there telling them what to do.

This was my impression in high school. The kids whose parents were most restrictive were wilder than the ones who were mostly free and trusted.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I am going to start a ministry called Pound Sand Ministries.

Thanks for making me smile. Most recently I was trying to get a non-profit to consider a better human resources policy than just Matthew 18 “go to a brother”. The response I received was “but its biblical”. I found they were completely unable to engage, it was like trying to move a Mack truck that was out of gas, it is going to just sit there unmoving, nothing running internally.

Next time I will smile and think of “Pound Sand Ministries”. Can I print up business cards with “Pound Sand Ministries” on the front and on the back “What I want to tell you when you say its biblical”.

Bookbolter wrote:

Oops, apologies to Lea – you beat me to the same thought.

Great minds! They especially should pay attention to the parts about not being proud or self seeking – because that’s pretty much all of them.

My view of 9 Marks is generally positive.

We started a church in 1992. We did not know Dever or what he was doing, but I met him a few years later.

It seems to me in Christian history many movements or ministries are often reactions to the excesses or failings of previous or existing ministries. One can almost pick out any Christian movement in the history of the U.S. and see some positive things, but also see how the movement is lacking. I believe this is almost inevitable.

Each of us is like that. We are raised in particular time, place, and in a particular family. And each of us probably has some ideas about how to correct the shortcomings of our own upbringing.

So, when I look at the 9 Marks, I can clearly see that they are a corrective or a counterbalance to some things.

In my view, the movements or unhealthy things to which 9 Marks was reacting are the trends and characteristics of the continued presence of theological liberalism, the health and wealth and prosperity Pentecostalism, the “Seeker” movement which was dominant at Willow Creek and other places, and some church movements which believe in the Bible and are in the “Baptist” camp (so to speak), but which through poor exegesis may have strains of legalism (an over emphasis on certain cultural behaviors) and an imbalance in the pulpit of emphasizing a “decision” every week (sometimes rooted in the Gospel, but sometimes not) without the balanced discipleship of people of by going through the entire Bible and trying to help a proper understanding.

There are also some particular polity descriptions (e.g. plurality of elders) that accompany their recommendations. Some I agree with. Others I do not.

9 Marks is not a list of the Christian virtues (e.g. love, joy, peace etc.) because that is not the particular thing that 9 Marks was seeking to address.

I am certain that Dever and others at 9 Marks are very familiar with Jesus’ statement that “people will know you are my disciples by your love for one another.”

They would not deny that. Nor did they forget it. I believe they would say that the principles they are trying to describe are the best way to establish a fellowship of believers where love will be shown because the place has the correct emphases and operates in a way that promotes love. At least that is what I think they would say.

When viewed in this light, we can see that each one of the 9 Marks addresses an unhealthy aspect of the movements or ideologies I have mentioned above.

The reason, in my view, that 9 Marks has been so successful is that the problems they are addressing are very real problems. Young pastors flock to these guys because they see the problems that the 9 Marks prescriptions address.

Dever and his staff are very accessible to pastors, and while I have never been to a 9 Marks conference, I have observed how Dever and others take an interest in pastors and seem to be offering something that is beneficial.

So – that’s the good side, in my view.

But as I said at the beginning – every Christian movement in the history of the U.S. has shortcomings. We can always find an overemphasis on one thing – and an underemphasis on another. Many times, these shortcomings can be serious, so serious that they threaten to undo the very good that the group is seeking to do.

Here is what one of the Wartburg Watch commenters, Eyeore, wrote about that:

“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.”

I have saved this quote because I think it is so good! Thanks, Eyeore!!

With 9 Marks, I believe that may be the case with the issue of church discipline and church membership.

I understand why 9 Marks has addressed the issue. It needed addressing. The same is true of the concept of membership.

These issues are correctives to a generation of seeker churches that for many can become entertainment venues, and a previous generation of church attendees for whom church became more like a country club membership.

But I do not agree with the particular theology that 9 Marks employs in some of its discipline and membership analysis. And I believe the application of their principles can lead churches into serious error and harm to people.

I also believe that Dever’s continued, devoted association with C.J. Mahaney, without any public word or discussion or repentance from Mahaney about all that went on at his churches, is disastrous in the wider evangelical world.

So – when it comes to 9 Marks or any Christian teaching ministry, I employ the advice I received as a young believer. You have to listen to Christian teachers as you eat a piece of fish –

Eat the fish – leave the bones.

Don’t become slavish fan boys of anyone or any movement.

Anonymous wrote:

Young pastors

This is one major problem in itself.

Anonymous wrote:

So, when I look at the 9 Marks, I can clearly see that they are a corrective or a counterbalance to some things.

There is a lot of good stuff in your comment, and I think that they do see themselves as bringing correction to the church in all the instances you listed. The question is really whether their view of themselves is based in reality, and I do not think that it is.

What they do *not* see is that they have brought merely a different *form* of departing from the texts and a different *form* of legalism and a different *kind* of altar call. Instead of “liberalism” they have gone all in with fanciful eisegesis and illogical reasoning regarding “complementarianism.” I cannot see a functional difference between denying the truth of the texts of the Bible and importing new doctrines and pretending they are in the texts while making them essentials of the Gospel. Both are forms of denying the Gospel, though different people prefer one over the other. Instead of no dancing and drinking legalism we have onerous membership covenants and churches where any hint of dissent is not tolerated. None. Zero. Instead of an evangelistic altar call, they are evangelistic about their philosophy of ministry and their doctrinal distinctives. They have an altar call to a different gospel.

I understand why someone who has not been on the receiving end of 9Marks’ philosophy might not be as alarmed by it as someone who has been on the receiving end of 9Marks’ philosophy. And it is a philosophy that is grounded in the idea that some people should rule over other people. Obviously they cannot come out and say that plainly, but that is what is behind their ministry.

Karen Hinckley’s experience with The Village and Matt Chandler’s ElDERS is a perfect picture of an implementation of 9Marks philosophy. It received well-deserved outrage and ridicule. And it exposed the truth behind the facade they promote.

I so appreciate your words about Mahaney. If only more people who are sympathetic to the YRR positions would express what you have. Thank you.

Gram3 wrote:

If all these 9Marks are so essential, then how is it wise to not implement all of them right away? He undermines the reason for 9Marks’ existence.

I mean, I think we all know the answer right? They are at least smart enough to realize that some people are using church discipline in ways that are harmful/andor embarrassing (TVC) to their movement. They are not willing to chuck a mark. So they come up with this halfhearted ‘don’t try this too soon’ position.

It’s ridiculous, but very human.

@ Lea:

“They are at least smart enough to realize that some people are using church discipline in ways that are harmful/andor embarrassing (TVC) to their movement. They are not willing to chuck a mark. So they come up with this halfhearted ‘don’t try this too soon’ position.”
+++++++++++

they can’t backtrack now, can they. too much already invested. the loss in money, reputation, and social standing would be too great.

And I think the Gospel Glitterati, including 9Marks, *should* be ashamed of their performance and their doctrine in the wake of Karen Hinckley. And I mean ashamed in every sense of that word. Shame in being exposed and also a reason to look inward in self-examination. The entire Village meltdown reminds me of Jael and Sisera. Except their wound is totally self-inflicted. Karen just refused to be a victim or be shamed by her ELDERS who shamed themselves.

Lea wrote:

Julie Anne Smith wrote:
I had to snort at the one and only comment left under 9Marks FB status linked above: https://www.facebook.com/9Marks/posts/10154075815111203?comment_id=10154078142231203&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R%22%7D
What in the world?

The only comment there now is some guy thanking someone else for waffle mix. Biblical waffle mix, of course.

Lea wrote:

And while we’re at it: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and exult in the surrender of my body, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. 6Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.”

Perfect!

I think personal healing is often proportional to the measure that we understand God’s mirth. Chesterton stated that the mirth of God is so holy, that Scripture does not directly address it. Though a prayerful reading of the parables will surely give one a wonderful taste.

With apologies to Chesterton lovers, I paraphrased his commentary regarding mirth–a more exact rendering is that mirth is spoken little of in Scripture because His mirth is so holy.

Anonymous wrote:

The reason, in my view, that 9 Marks has been so successful is that the problems they are addressing are very real problems. Young pastors flock to these guys because they see the problems that the 9 Marks prescriptions address.

This is the very problem with Mark Dever and 9Marks. Pastors should NOT be flocking to Dever for solutions, nor should he be providing them with solutions. Every congregation of believers is perfectly capable of solving problems through prayer, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Scripture, wisdom, and the brains and gifts the Lord gave those believers.

Lea wrote:

BTW, check out this post, from 20 hours ago:

“QUESTION: Why should churches discipline members who no longer attend?”

Because they are running out of whipping boys?

But seriously let's think this through for a moment. In effect, wouldn't anyone who attends that church and signed a membership covenant automatically be in church discipline? They could call it 'first time obedience for adult members'. Hee hee.

@ Anonymous:

I am aware that you are totally immersed in that world. However you find Mahaney a horrible embarrassment. And you comment on the Mahaney problem here. However you are not connecting the dots between Mahaney, Mohler and Dever on church discipline and many of the other behavioral problems that have taken place. Why in the world would Dever have anything to teach or model for you or your church? Are you separating the actual person from their own behavior?

Lea wrote:

BTW, check out this post, from 20 hours ago:
“QUESTION: Why should churches discipline members who no longer attend?”

Reminds me of how they dug up Wycliffe’s bones to burn them.

Anonymous wrote:

The reason, in my view, that 9 Marks has been so successful is that the problems they are addressing are very real problems. Young pastors flock to these guys because they see the problems that the 9 Marks prescriptions address.

Lol! I live at Ground Zero and have a totally different perspective. They don’t have a clue about the problems except what they were told were problems at Seminary. They were groomed to be little despots who hold the truth while most pew peons don’t.

If anyone should know you should know those membership covenants are legal documents.

The 20-somethings flock to 9 marks because it will teach them how to control people and have power. They are all about being obeyed. Now they couch it in the smarmy caring language worthy of mahaney as in “caring for your soul” and our responsibility as Elder before God, etc. But make no mistake, they love the pedestal 9marks teaching puts them on.

9marks is the Neo Cal equivalent to giving teenage boys whiskey and car keys. Dangerous and very unwise.

siteseer wrote:

Maybe the problem is that many are pursuing the pastorate when they have not been called to it.

I think a lot of abusive, authoritarian pastors/elders used the “I was called by God to the ministry” line the way they use *Biblical* (do it my way or you’re a heretic), simply to shut down all discussion and questioning. If you don’t think he was called to the ministry then you’re challenging God.

My former NeoCalvinist pastor was fond of telling the flock he was called by God to preach. All of the former church members and church staff members would beg to differ.

Velour wrote:

You see, we have been able to solve small problems without Mark Dever. So there.

Maybe that’s because we’re women? With no one in charge by virtue of their manhood, we learned to actually talk to each other! Yay us.

One thing that concerned me about the 9Marks movement is that they attempt by polity to perform the work of the Spirit in terms of members’ commitments and choices. By placing such an authoritarian emphasis on the members responsibility to their local church, they do not allow people the freedom to follow the Spirit, unless the members are directed to do things within the parameters 9Marks has specified. For example, members may be punished for not tithing, for not attending small group meetings, for not evangelizing, for admonishing leadership where they need it, for resigning membership, etc. 9Marks churches require members to fit a particular mold instead of allowing the Spirit to prompt and define what an individual Christian’s life. They would contend that they are only requiring members to do what Scripture requires. It is obvious that they have gone beyond what is written and in some areas have “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith”.
“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” Is there freedom in these churches? Is the Spirit allowed room to work (outside of the box that it appears they have created for him)? Are the gifts of the Spirit freely allowed to function within these churches? With the emphasis on discipline and membership, it appears that they have neglected the “weaker” parts of the body, whom we NEED in the church for a healthy functioning body, in favor of the teaching/administration gifts! The majority of these churches are cessationist. How can they properly function without the gifts they need to be healthy? “And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.” The gifts of the Spirit really do not seem to play into the 9Marks schema (other than in the box they have created).

“You shall know them by their fruit.” What sorts of fruit have been borne from these churches? I’m sure some people have come to know Christ, and like Paul, we’re grateful for however that happens, but look at the public incidences of bad fruit: pastors who have brought shame upon the name of Christ for their handling of sexual abuse within their churches, pastors who have been removed from their pulpits for sin, a parachurch organization that doesn’t stand alongside those abused within these churches, a culture of celebrity pastors, etc. Are these the fruits of the Spirit working in the church? Healthy churches should see an increase in the things mentioned in Ephesians 4: “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace… From Him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, joins and builds itself up in love… Put off your old self…Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

One of the distinguishing features of healthy churches I have been a part of was an emphasis on prayer, praying, seeking God together, seeing answers to prayer, seeing discernment given, seeing lives transformed. It was an acknowledgement that we cannot “do” church without the supernatural power of God. I find it interesting that prayer is not one of the 9 Marks. It was one of the defining characteristics of the churches in Acts: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Jesus himself seemed to know what the marks of a healthy church were as he addressed the churches in Revelation. He called them out for leaving their first love, for tolerating idolatry and immorality, for having dead works, and for being spiritually poor, lukewarm, and blind. What Jesus loved in the churches was their patience, their discernment, their perseverance, their hearts of faith, their good works even amidst trials and hypocrites, their steadfast devotion to him, their love, faith, patience, their commitment to Jesus and his words. In focusing on what is biblical, they have missed the forest for the trees. The Spirit, his activity in his gifts and his fruits and his reality in believers’ lives– Spirit-filled believers make a Spirit-filled church which is a healthy church.

Lots of thoughts lately on these things. 🙂

Lea wrote:

Velour wrote:
You see, we have been able to solve small problems without Mark Dever. So there.
Maybe that’s because we’re women? With no one in charge by virtue of their manhood, we learned to actually talk to each other! Yay us.

We don’t know better. :o)

Anonymous wrote:

So – when it comes to 9 Marks or any Christian teaching ministry, I employ the advice I received as a young believer. You have to listen to Christian teachers as you eat a piece of fish –

Eat the fish – leave the bones.

I’ve heard this one a lot myself. It bothered me some 40+ years ago when I heard it first from Corrie ten Boom. A few more decades have only made it bother me more.

That advice, I am sure, works well as a response to ‘taking in’ an INDIVIDUAL book or teacher. As when the ‘bone’ is along the lines of choosing to overlook some quirk, mannerism, or goofup specific to the speaker, that doesn’t really impact the fullness of what they are teaching/writing.

In which case, one can and should enjoy the fish and get rid of the *occasional* bone encountered.

But this well-used phrase is too easily mis-used. It is fuzzy and can be used to obfuscate, excuse.

What is the acceptable ratio of fish-to-bone?

When this bony fish is being served, is there ever an opportunity for the fish-eaters to publicly speak out at some point and note that they just encountered a fish bone – and warn their fellow pewishioners to chew more carefully?

Do the men presenting the fish ever warn the fish-eaters to always be wary of potential fishbones in the fish they are serving?

I know for the decade+ I was in the shepherding/discipleship movement, not once did leaders EVER say that there might be bones in that there fish.

In point of fact, just the opposite – we were told that those bones WERE fish, and no amount of showing them the bright shiny bone stuck in the roof of your mouth from the fish they just served, ever caused them to question themselves or what they were serving.

And the saying doesn’t take age into consideration. Toddlers have to be told more than once to ‘watch out for bones.’ Yet, spiritual toddlers are never warned by leaders about potential fishbones in the teaching they are about to hear.

It isn’t an occasional quirk or error that could easily be ignored, in my opinion, it isn’t that we need to watch out for the occasional bones – it’s that poison permeates the fish.

.

I used the church search function you linked. None in my town. Whew.

Lydia wrote:

The “church” has authority?

Lydia, the “local church” has become a sixth Sola.

Lydia wrote:

@ siteseer:
Good points. And when we study the passages they use for church discipline it becomes very interesting indeed. They simply don’t fit their own models.

Agreed that Siteseer has great points, as usual. You are highlighting a truly glaring problem that Anonymous is overlooking for some reason. And that problem is the utter hypocrisy of the CJ Mahaney nonsense. What does Dever teach all these pastors about Mahaney? One thing or possibly two: loyalty to ones’ friends trumps loyalty to Christ, and the Rules only apply to the pewpeons. I do not think that either of those two lessons is consistent with any part of the New Testament or with the example of our Lord himself.

They have nothing good to teach because they have become leaders before they were learners at the feet of anyone other than one of the Anointed Ones in GG land.

Gram3 wrote:

What does Dever teach all these pastors about Mahaney?

I’m thinking of the passages about leading by example (which doesn’t seem to be a mark). He is teaching them, by example, that pastors and people in with the in crowd are exempt. Period.

Gram3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, when I look at the 9 Marks, I can clearly see that they are a corrective or a counterbalance to some things.

There is a lot of good stuff in your comment, and I think that they do see themselves as bringing correction to the church in all the instances you listed. The question is really whether their view of themselves is based in reality, and I do not think that it is.

What they do *not* see is that they have brought merely a different *form* of departing from the texts and a different *form* of legalism and a different *kind* of altar call. Instead of “liberalism” they have gone all in with fanciful eisegesis and illogical reasoning regarding “complementarianism.” I cannot see a functional difference between denying the truth of the texts of the Bible and importing new doctrines and pretending they are in the texts while making them essentials of the Gospel. Both are forms of denying the Gospel, though different people prefer one over the other. Instead of no dancing and drinking legalism we have onerous membership covenants and churches where any hint of dissent is not tolerated. None. Zero. Instead of an evangelistic altar call, they are evangelistic about their philosophy of ministry and their doctrinal distinctives. They have an altar call to a different gospel.

I understand why someone who has not been on the receiving end of 9Marks’ philosophy might not be as alarmed by it as someone who has been on the receiving end of 9Marks’ philosophy. And it is a philosophy that is grounded in the idea that some people should rule over other people. Obviously they cannot come out and say that plainly, but that is what is behind their ministry.

Karen Hinckley’s experience with The Village and Matt Chandler’s ElDERS is a perfect picture of an implementation of 9Marks philosophy. It received well-deserved outrage and ridicule. And it exposed the truth behind the facade they promote.

I so appreciate your words about Mahaney. If only more people who are sympathetic to the YRR positions would express what you have. Thank you.

Gram: Lots of good wisdom from you here. I am old enough to look back on all of the stuff that I did that I thought was going to change this or that, and sometimes only see that I was as bad as the people I was trying to correct.

Christian truth and the life of the church has so many facets. It’s worse than a golf swing or a swimming stroke. There are so many things to master that once you think you get one aspect down, you are messed up somewhere else.

That’s why being kind to people in church is so important. We don’t worship people, but it really is about how you love people.

Anonymous wrote:

Eat the fish – leave the bones.

While that wisdom may generally apply, sometimes the meat itself is poisonous.

What then?

Some of what is going on in “survivor blogs” is to point out the Fukushima-type radiation already in the fish *before* people try to figure out whether it’s toxic while attempting to eat it.

@ BL:

Anonymous said: “You have to listen to Christian teachers as you eat a piece of fish – Eat the fish – leave the bones.”

BL: “But this well-used phrase is too easily mis-used.”
++++++++++++++++++

i’m stuck on why I have to listen to Christian teachers in the first place. I’ve heard it all — haven’t heard anything fresh or inspired in years. if we’re talking about spiritual nourishment here, it’s a no-Christian-speaker-required state of affairs. I can feed myself a nice piece of fish.

i’m sure i’m kind of missing Anon’s point. too tired today – minimal sleep the last few nights.

When someone can make a list and write a book on the marks of a healthy church and not one of them is love, something is very wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Eat the fish – leave the bones.
Don’t become slavish fan boys of anyone or any movement.

There are no bones in caviar. Too many fan boys and useful idiots believe that everything these guys serve up is top quality caviar.

John wrote:

When someone can make a list and write a book on the marks of a healthy church and not one of them is love, something is very wrong.

A+

Thanks to you and everyone else who noted that this is the ONLY mark of the church.

Anonymous wrote:

In my view, the movements or unhealthy things to which 9 Marks was reacting are the trends and characteristics of the continued presence of theological liberalism, the health and wealth and prosperity Pentecostalism, the “Seeker” movement which was dominant at Willow Creek and other places..

i.e. Impure Ideology (not TRULY Reformed)?

When viewed in this light, we can see that each one of the 9 Marks addresses an unhealthy aspect of the movements or ideologies I have mentioned above.

And Objectivism addresses the unhealthy aspects of Communist Ideology.

elastigirl wrote:

or, in my observation, with character standards in your average human being. my agnostic relatives and friends would find this reprehensible. (the fact that someone who believes in the God of the Bible would compromise like this)

“Urrr… It’s all Under the Blood.”
— Mike Warnke

Velour wrote:

I would like to be a charter member of Pound Sand Ministries. I’d like to help run the online store.

Meet your reformed competition: http://www.missionalwear.com/

Missional Wear began in 2010, with the aim of blending theology with apparel in order to create a truly unique product.

@ FW Rez:

Thanks!

Tim wrote:

I used the church search function you linked. None in my town. Whew

I wish our community were so lucky.
We have at least two in our area. Our church regularly gets refugees from them, generally fleeing because of controlling teachings about women and marriage. We sit with them through their tears, assure them that they are not crazy, tell them they have a home here and have them serve communion!
Actually, all our former 9Markers have been great people. We are grateful to have them.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Eat the fish – leave the bones.

While that wisdom may generally apply, sometimes the meat itself is poisonous.

What then?

Some of what is going on in “survivor blogs” is to point out the Fukushima-type radiation already in the fish *before* people try to figure out whether it’s toxic while attempting to eat it.

Correct. I am not talking about Mahaney and his churches and the survivor blogs. My exposure to 9 Marks, Dever et al. is not at all connected to Mahaney.

I would not characterize everything Mark Dever says as radioactive or toxic. I believe he does a very good job with much of what he teaches. I do not agree with the basic framework of their view of discipline per Matt 18 and I Cor 5, though I believe that church discipline is important. Morales, for example, should not only have been prosecuted, but he also should have been disciplined in the church.

I also have problems with their approach on membership, membership covenants, biblical manhood and a host of other cultural issues.

Loren Haas wrote:

We have at least two in our area. Our church regularly gets refugees from them, generally fleeing because of controlling teachings about women and marriage. We sit with them through their tears, assure them that they are not crazy, tell them they have a home here and have them serve communion!

Do you mind if I ask the denomination of your church?

I will keep it in my mind in my own area if they’ve managed to escape Neo-Calvinism, 9Marx, Acts 29, Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, and the other authoritarian groups.

Gram3 wrote:

What does Dever teach all these pastors about Mahaney? One thing or possibly two: loyalty to ones’ friends trumps loyalty to Christ, and the Rules only apply to the pewpeons. I do not think that either of those two lessons is consistent with any part of the New Testament or with the example of our Lord himself.

The loyalty/friend angle is what I hear the most which is now accepted by society in many areas: politics, business, entertainment. They even manage to make themselves out to be semi Heroes for sticking by their friend during a crisis. Not a lot is said about the victim’s left behind. And people end up admiring their loyalty to their friend in crisis.

Of course this angle became all-encompassing when the elite started hiring image professionals. It works so why not copy when you can make the Bible say anything you want and you are the masters of the church discipline universe. The youngens are over come with their greatness and even laugh at a joke made by one of the loyal friends…. at the expense of the victims.

Yes, Just like Jesus.(sigh)

Gram3 wrote:

And it is a philosophy that is grounded in the idea that some people should rule over other people. Obviously they cannot come out and say that plainly, but that is what is behind their ministry.

This is why they are adamant about elder polity in the SBC as the one most true to scripture. How they get there must be read into it.

Anonymous wrote:

Gram: Lots of good wisdom from you here. I am old enough to look back on all of the stuff that I did that I thought was going to change this or that, and sometimes only see that I was as bad as the people I was trying to correct.

There you go. The other excuse I hear for ruining people. We all make mistakes when we are young…blah, blah. And I realize now I was just as bad as the other people….

Really? You were helping to protect pedophile protectors when you were a young man? Ruining people is part of growing up?

You want to stick to vague generalities and I really do get that because when one gets specific about Dever, Mahaney and Mohler- the connections between them and what has gone on in so many churches now, it makes it very hard to defend 9 marks and what, if anything is good about. The balance sheet is in the red with blood.

I don’t think there is anything harder in this world then admitting that one invested ones credibility into something one thought was a spiritually good thing for people which turns out to be a cruel self serving total disaster. Most people, especially if elders, are embarrassed to admit their part in supporting these authoritarian extra biblical ministries. I have seen this up close and personal way too often.

There Comes A Time when innocent people are more important than loyalty to friends or a program one went along with at church. There is an arrogance out there that says we can do it right. But the foundation and premise of 9 marks is the real problem. It is based on the idea that special men must be over the ignorant masses who need discipline. That is a disaster waiting to happen

@ Velour:
Velour, we are American Baptist. You should know that churches in this denomination vary widely. Ours is moderately progressive, others not so much. Our church is very supportive of women in the church- female associate pastor, majority female board. We also make space for more than twenty recovery groups each week.
Check us out: crosswalknapa.org

^correction, should read: “have seen so many lives…”

BL wrote:

I point out all the time that Jesus taught folks for about THREE YEARS – and then sent them off into the world.

And they were not the cream of the rabbinical crop. That was later with the educated Paul. No, our Lord chose the ones who did not even make the first cut and had to go work mostly at 14. I guess He thought they could get it at some point. :o)

Tim wrote:

I used the church search function you linked. None in my town. Whew.

Oh my, Sometime ago I just checked and found none, now there is a Baptist church that show up on their map. I visited the church website, went to their membership page, and what would you guess was the first thing under “Why membership”? … Hebrews 13:17! Okay, easy guess, but it was the very first words.

Later in their text:
“pastors are accountable for their sheep (members) and people (members) are to submit to their leader (pastors).”
Yup, its 9Marks alright.

@ Anonymous:
Ok. So what exactly does he have to teach you and your church when you admit he gets the obvious wrong from scripture. He transports his personal philosophy in to the scripture passages!

Is your church 9Marks?

Lydia wrote:

The youngens are over come with their greatness and even laugh at a joke made by one of the loyal friends…. at the expense of the victims.

Like that scene early in A Man for All Seasons:

King Henry VIII is disembarking from the Royal Barge onto the bank of the Thames where there is no pier or quay. King Henry drops off the bow of the barge and lands in the mud up to his knees. The courtiers and nobles aboard the barge watch in shocked silence for a moment; then King Henry starts points at them and starts to laugh. All the courtiers start laughing in unison with King Henry.

@ Law Prof:

“[they can do all manner of wonderfully ‘christian’-looking things]”…they can donate money to just causes and maintain a superficially righteous aura–and not know Jesus at all, in fact harbor secret resentment towards Him that even they are afraid to acknowledge to themselves.”
+++++++++++++

I’ve truly wondered about this. my intuitive sensors pick up on feedback that suggests that some church leaders are threatened by Jesus and the attention & limelight he gets. and they compete with Jesus for these things by ignoring him while they have the mic and the spotlight (at least as much as they can get away with).

the feedback also suggests that this is partly subconscious on their part. I suspect the reason for it all is how their realm of Christian culture ascribes power and glory to upper echelon men leaders, pumping up their egos.

but this is old news, isn’t it.
———

I tend to care more how one treats another, …..and never reserve the best seats for themselves (e.g., such as at T4G conferences), ….
++++++++++++++

well isn’t this one of the top vital signs for “i’m-a-celebrity-&-yes-i’m-all-that-and-more-why-just-look-at-how-humble-&-disinterested-in-my-own-greatness-i-can-appear-as-I-sit-here-in-my-chair-in-the-celebrity-section-pre-show-with-hunched-over-humble-body-posture-all-by-myself-so-as-to-draw-attention-to-myself-as-i-read-my-notes” egocentrism.

crimany, these silly men…

elastigirl wrote:

I’ve truly wondered about this. my intuitive sensors pick up on feedback that suggests that some church leaders are threatened by Jesus and the attention & limelight he gets. and they compete with Jesus for these things by ignoring him while they have the mic and the spotlight (at least as much as they can get away with).
the feedback also suggests that this is partly subconscious on their part. I suspect the reason for it all is how their realm of Christian culture ascribes power and glory to upper echelon men leaders, pumping up their egos.
but this is old news, isn’t it.

Very interesting!

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

I might add, in my 50 years in fundamentalist Baptist, evangelical, campus ministry, and mainline demoniation, I NEVER heard that my pastor “holds the keys” to my salvation!! Nor did I hear that he could he could withhold communion from me?? This is not minor doctrinal differences!

According to Mark Dever/9 Marxist the local church (i.e. pastors/elders) can ‘determine’ if you are saved or not by your ‘fruit’ (not spiritual fruit as the Bible would have it, but lock-step obedience to the pastors/elders dictates).

At my former 9Marxist/NeoCalvinist/John MacArthur-ite church lovely Christians were *disciplined before all* and *keyed out [Gram3’s TM for excommunication] for:

*wanting to leave that authoritarian church
*missing church
*missing Bible studies on work nights
*wanting a congregational vote
*disagreeing with the pastors/elders and asking any questions
*choosing your own friends and not permitting the pastors/elders to choose your friends
*not believing in Patriarchy/Complementarism
*not believing in Young Earth Creationism and that the world is 6,000 years old
[as Dee and Deb have noted the Hebrew word used in creation has 56 different meanings in Hebrew including ‘a long time’]
*what you fed your children
*what you brought to church potlucks
*what you wore
*the safety of children
*home decor [things from other countries, gifts]
*fraternizing with liberals, gays, people who were different than them
*not using hate speech

I was excommunicated for opposing the pastors/elders bringing a Megan’s List sex offender to church, membership, a position of leadership, access to children, inviting him to volunteer at a 5-day sports camp for children, and telling NO ONE.

Ken F wrote:

From the site: “The largest selection in Reformed lifestlye products anywhere!” and “Lifestyle on mission to the glory of God.”

I can remember when the “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” T-shirts were all the rage here.

@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
It is incredibly scary to me because it has become the new normal for too many.

Lydia wrote:

And they were not the cream of the rabbinical crop. That was later with the educated Paul. No, our Lord chose the ones who did not even make the first cut and had to go work mostly at 14. I guess He thought they could get it at some point. :o)

Heheh, even Paul notes more than once that he wasn’t much of a speaker.

As God tells us – He doesn’t look at the impressive outer appearance like people do, He’s looking at the heart.

“God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things–and the things that are not–to nullify the things that are,”

“When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.”

Unschooled & ordinary – but these men HAD BEEN WITH JESUS.

THAT is what we need to see when we’re looking at ‘leaders’ – that they’ve been with Jesus.

Not whether:

-they throw a great conference with lots of goodies for the other leaders.

-they are entertaining on stage.

-they’ve written a gazillion books.

-they’ve coined a new ‘spiritual’ term to market.

-they rub elbows with the religious elite.

-they’ve repackaged and sold authoritarianism to the susceptible & gullible as THE answer to the church’s problems TODAY.

How can we know they’ve been with Jesus? They’ll focus on what Jesus did.

For the people:

-to preach the gospel to the poor

-to heal the brokenhearted

-to preach deliverance to the captives

-and recovering of sight to the blind

-to set at liberty them that are bruised,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

For the religious leaders

Rebukes for those:

-who disregard justice and the love of God.

-who love the most important seats in the synagogues.

-who love respectful greetings in the marketplaces.

-who are hypocrites.

-who load people with burdens too hard to carry.

-who will not even touch, much less carry themselves, the same burdens they put on others.

-who have taken away the key of knowledge.

-who won’t go in themselves, and hinder those who were going in.

-who kill and persecute anyone God sends to correct them.

I do not know of any of the elite religious leaders who do the above.

Law Prof wrote:

perhaps meet Jesus for the first time,

I don’t think the implication is necessary or useful

@ Velour:
It’s unbelievable, isn’t it?

One of the problems that I have with 9 Marks and other Christian groups is that they never, ever ever examine their presuppositions. Let’s just take Mark’s word that “church discipline is in the Bible”. Who cares? So is stoning your adulterous wife, cooking food with human poop, cannibalising babies and all kinds of cool stuff. Why should we practice church discipline? I don’t have a problem with church discipline in concept – any social group has rules. But I do have a problem with lemmings who don’t think critically.

Bill M wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
perhaps meet Jesus for the first time,
I don’t think the implication is necessary or useful

I said “perhaps” and I absolutely, positively stand behind it 100%, Bill. I think what we’re seeing here in Dever, Mahaney, YRR, et. al. is for the most part apostate. I look at the fruits and simply do not believe they love Jesus. Do. Not.

Not backing down from that.

@ Velour:

I think what makes all of this power-trip stuff fly is the dream-come-true of jr. high redemption. men with leader hats get to regress and role play jr. high as powerful alpha males and full-fledged members of the in-crowd.

Deb wrote:

@ Bill M:

Agreed. I have met Anonymous, and he is a sincere Christian.

Even though he’s reformed, I still consider him to be a brother in Christ.

If so, I consider him a sly and clever one. We know each other from The Outpost days.

Velour wrote:

Lydia wrote:
When the topic of church discipline was becoming All the Rage in the emerging Neo Cal movement, I started paying attention to its trajectory. One of the early gurus of this was Jay Adams who is also the father of nouthetic counseling. I realize that not all Neo cals are going to make these connections because they are immersed in 9marks and might have missed the earlier roots that revived what is basically a Puritan interpretation/ tradition in pracice. ( as if that isn’t scary enough)
I figured that out a few years ago at my ex-NeoCal church, on my own.
Jay Adams was doing a lot of speaking on the subject back then at conferences so I found a podcast and listened. I am no scholar but I was aghast at how he added to the scripture to make it fit his agenda of church discipline. He literally added a step in Matthew 18 to take it to the elders before it is taken to the entire church.
Yes, this extra step is also in Jay Adams’ book on church discipline.

Very depressing….

I repeat again…. This concept that M Devers, and his “flavor” think they hold the keys to our salvation is setting off all sorts of warning bells in my brain… Especially when connected with their authoritarian bent…. Thank G$d we have separation of church and state!!

Deb wrote:

When someone can make a list and write a book on the marks of a healthy church and not one of them is love, something is very wrong.

‘Love’ is not negative enough for leaders who want to intimidate with ‘membership contracts’, public shaming before the congregation, and enforced exposure to predators . . . these ‘leaders’ rule by fear and shaming, and ‘love’ has no place in their play-book. But I don’t get it how the people who join these ‘churches’ don’t run like hell when the horns begin to grow out of the leaders’ heads? How can a ‘leader’ be respected who has taken money to allow someone in who coddles pedophiles? I don’t get it because these members have children to protect, not to serve up as offerings to these cultic monsters. It’s unnatural. Unloving for sure, but where there is a rabid spirit that is not ‘of Christ’ introduced by leadership into a congregation, that IS something to fear.
Just ‘why’? (?)

BL wrote:

That article was absolutely disgusting. And the pugnacious responses from the author even more so.
Amos Love repeatedly and completely destroys the author’s assertions regarding the use of Matt 18 as the go-to proof text for his concept of ‘church discipline’ in the comments section.

Go Amos Love! He has repeatedly raised these points over at Spiritual Sounding Board
and reminded us all of these points.

@ Christiane:

Oh, one more point: The pastors/elders in these churches are masters of manipulation and controlling the narrative. since people have seen them in respected roles throughout the church, teaching classes, etc., why wouldn’t they be believed when they spout lies about a church member and control the narrative? Members are intentionally NOT given the other side of the story.

Anonymous wrote:

I also have problems with their approach on membership, membership covenants, biblical manhood and a host of other cultural issues.

Seems like you recognize they have a lot of problems.

So: play starts in a few minutes’ time at Chester-le-Street. Will Alastair Cook make it past 19 this time?

#10000RunsInTestCricket

Anonymous wrote:

dee wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
In my view, the movements or unhealthy things to which 9 Marks was reacting are the trends and characteristics of the continued presence of theological liberalism, the health and wealth and prosperity Pentecostalism, the “Seeker” movement which was dominant at Willow Creek and other places, and some church movements which believe in the Bible and are in the “Baptist” camp (so to speak), but which through poor exegesis may have strains of legalism (an over emphasis on certain cultural behaviors) and an imbalance in the pulpit of emphasizing a “decision” every week (sometimes rooted in the Gospel, but sometimes not) without the balanced discipleship of people of by going through the entire Bible and trying to help a proper understanding.
There are also some particular polity descriptions (e.g. plurality of elders) that accompany their recommendations.
But these were present in my nonCalvinistic churches throughout my life. I believe the real reason for 9Marks is to promote NeoCalvinism. If it wasn’t, they would have joined with other groups that truly care about similar issues.

I would add that it seems to me the 9Marks movement IS a reaction – but not to the seeker movement or the prosperity movement, but rather to the emergent movement. Among other things, the emergent movement encouraged more time engaging our world and less time in the church subculture bubble and the deconstruction of institutional church hiearchy. The key word being “authority.” Instead of Christ is the head we are the body, it’s Pastor is the head and will tell the body what to do.

lynn wrote:

I write this with such sadness as my husband has been a pastor for thirty five years and during that time, so much change has taken place. Years ago one could not be a senior pastor until about 45 years of age with experience as associate pastor required, as well as with age generally comes wisdom. Now at 55 you are too old for ministry. Also, the Pastor visited the sick, preached, and cared for the flock. Now the Pastor is the CEO of a corporation where money and people are needed to keep this machine going. Many pastors are big fish in a very little pond. The theology reinforces their personality…which is Type A, and that personality are the only one that are wanted in most churches. The love, joy, peace , patience, has been replaced with high energy, control and manipulation, and growth is in many ways happening because people are leaving smaller churches to go to larger mega ones. My heart is grieved.

What you write is mirroring our culture in general

Velour wrote:

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

I repeat again…. This concept that M Devers, and his “flavor” think they hold the keys to our salvation is setting off all sorts of warning bells in my brain… Especially when connected with their authoritarian bent…. Thank G$d we have separation of church and state!!

Totally agree.

In this system tithes + showing up + obeying your leaders = indulgences?

@ Lea:
Well here is another example of how prescriptive 9Marks is. It reminds me of the Pharisees whom Jesus upbraided for placing intolerable, unnecessary, and unlawful burdens on the backs of the ordinary man and woman. It is legalism gone mad.
Pay particular attention to the advice on how to deal with egalitarians – essentially “repent or be disciplined or excommunicated”.

https://9marks.org/article/4-ways-to-categorize-complaints-in-the-church/

@ lowlandseer:
Thought police. They have their own brand of political correctness. Even if a member wondered about mutuality, they would not dare bring it up at church. The environment is stifling. There is no spiritual growth or iron sharping iron. It is all conformity.

One just wants to throw the windows open and let light and fresh air in for people in these systems but it doesn’t work that way. They are in it because it provides something for them.

lowlandseer wrote:

@ Lea:
Well here is another example of how prescriptive 9Marks is. It reminds me of the Pharisees whom Jesus upbraided for placing intolerable, unnecessary, and unlawful burdens on the backs of the ordinary man and woman. It is legalism gone mad.
Pay particular attention to the advice on how to deal with egalitarians – essentially “repent or be disciplined or excommunicated”.

https://9marks.org/article/4-ways-to-categorize-complaints-in-the-church/

Whoa! Baptism is an opinion and egalitarianism is a conviction? What?

Lea wrote:

Whoa! Baptism is an opinion and egalitarianism is a conviction? What?

That is essentially Carl Trueman’s take. And he is complementarian.

Gram3 wrote:

Lea wrote:

Whoa! Baptism is an opinion and egalitarianism is a conviction? What?

That is essentially Carl Trueman’s take. And he is complementarian.

Although now that I’m thinking about it, is trueman Presbyterian? Maybe that’s why a system that came out of a ‘baptist’ church now thinks that your different opinion on baptism is no big deal. Just go on your meery way. They can sell to more people.

But if you think women are equal you are divisive and hurting the church. Insanity.

Gram3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I believe he does a very good job with much of what he teaches.

Anonymous wrote:

I Cor 5 is there – but it applies to a heinous situation that “even the Gentiles” recognized was wrong.

Agreed. Even the unbelievers generally understand that protecting a child predator is morally wrong. And I believe most unbelievers understand that covering up for someone who has systematically covered up such sin is wrong. Such clarity of principle is lacking in 9Marks and in the YRR movement in general. The north star of the Gospel Glitterati is who you are. They cannot deny the numerous examples of cronyism and nepotism. That is certainly not exclusive to 9Marks and the YRR, but when someone is hectoring everyone else about how to do church right it just as certainly neuters their message. Some might say that it does worse than neuter their message.

I am curious which of 9Marks teachings you find attractive enough to counter all the negative and anti-Gospel teaching, and what positive results do you thing justify the abuses within the System? ISTM that adding to the Gospel and adding to the text are two things which should be categorically unacceptable to *any* conservative evangelical who can make a connection between a half-dozen brain cells. For “leaders” to endorse and promote such unEvangelical ideas is nearly unimaginable in any sane world, but here we are talking about those very things.

Top-down polity should be anathema to Baptists. And most certainly, a supra-LocalChurch organization that effectively dictates what local churches do is un-Baptist by definition. And let me assure you that 9Marks reaches into local Baptist churches directly by supplying them with “resources” and via informal networks and formal networks.

Gram3:

I agree with you totally about top-down policy be anathema to Baptists. We believe in autonomy, which is an extension of the Priesthood of the Believer. 9 Marks believes in that – to my knowledge.

Sovereign Grace Churches (SGM) does not.

Where I believe that Mohler and Dever do a good job is on the topics that have been central to Christian teaching throughout the centuries. Take the Apostles Creed, for example. I believe that you could take any of the doctrines mentioned in that creed, and I believe that Mohler and Dever would each do an excellent job of presenting that.

Where I part company with Dever (am not sure of Mohler – because I have not heard him speak on these topics) is the membership and church discipline stuff.

There is also a cultural aspect to some of the Reformed culture that really bothers me. I was asked above, but our church is more reformed on soteriology, but not totally or truly reformed. We have rejected that.

And because we started completely outside the orb of 9 Marks and all of that, we don’t have that in our DNA. There are doctrines that we would share and agree with, and therefore would be seen as being in affinity with them. But there are significant areas of disagreement.

Also, the unqualified defense of Mahaney and SGM is another area where I strongly disagree with Mohler and Dever. It does not make sense to me. Even with all of the possible explanations I have heard, it still does not make sense.

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I believe he does a very good job with much of what he teaches.
Anonymous wrote:
I Cor 5 is there – but it applies to a heinous situation that “even the Gentiles” recognized was wrong.
Agreed. Even the unbelievers generally understand that protecting a child predator is morally wrong. And I believe most unbelievers understand that covering up for someone who has systematically covered up such sin is wrong. Such clarity of principle is lacking in 9Marks and in the YRR movement in general. The north star of the Gospel Glitterati is who you are. They cannot deny the numerous examples of cronyism and nepotism. That is certainly not exclusive to 9Marks and the YRR, but when someone is hectoring everyone else about how to do church right it just as certainly neuters their message. Some might say that it does worse than neuter their message.
I am curious which of 9Marks teachings you find attractive enough to counter all the negative and anti-Gospel teaching, and what positive results do you thing justify the abuses within the System? ISTM that adding to the Gospel and adding to the text are two things which should be categorically unacceptable to *any* conservative evangelical who can make a connection between a half-dozen brain cells. For “leaders” to endorse and promote such unEvangelical ideas is nearly unimaginable in any sane world, but here we are talking about those very things.
Top-down polity should be anathema to Baptists. And most certainly, a supra-LocalChurch organization that effectively dictates what local churches do is un-Baptist by definition. And let me assure you that 9Marks reaches into local Baptist churches directly by supplying them with “resources” and via informal networks and formal networks.

I might add, in my 50 years in fundamentalist Baptist, evangelical, campus ministry, and mainline denomination, I NEVER heard that my pastor “holds the keys” to my salvation!! Nor did I hear that he could he could withhold communion from me?? This is not minor doctrinal differences!

Jeffrey:

I agree with you about the whole “Keys” thing.

Churches with hierarchies believe that. And what Dever and Leeman teach about that is that the Church, not the pastor, holds those keys, and those keys are communion and membership in the fellowship.

Law Prof wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I do not agree with the basic framework of their view of discipline per Matt 18 and I Cor 5, though I believe that church discipline is important.

I agree with church discipline also, and it is always, in every single circumstance without exception in the NT something for the entire church to practice, not a select group of elite to do and then foist as a fait accompli upon the church. That method is not biblical and I sincerely believe not of God. This is why I believe you’re enormously foolish to support Dever in much of anything, because the biblical model of church discipline is absolutely anathema to Dever’s paradigm.

What I would tell you, anonymous, is to repent, perhaps meet Jesus for the first time, and reject the poison you’ve been swallowing.

Law Prof:

Wow!

Unbelievable.

Do you really think this way and relate to people like this?

Deb wrote:

@ Bill M:

Agreed. I have met Anonymous, and he is a sincere Christian.

Even though he’s reformed, I still consider him to be a brother in Christ.

Thanks, Deb and Bill M.

Eeyore wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would not characterize everything Mark Dever says as radioactive or toxic. I believe he does a very good job with much of what he teaches.

Although even at the time, I thought his sermons were VERY short on grace. I often remarked then that CHBC and the church I had left to attend there would both be served very well if Dever and my old pastor switched pulpits for a month – my old church was too wealthy and too comfortable, whereas CHBC could stand to hear some Lutheranesque “You ARE a sinner, but Christ saves you anyways!” a bit more often…

Eyeore:

That is a really wise hypothetical suggestion, and drives at one of the points of my original comment.

Ted wrote:

Law Prof wrote:

What I would tell you, anonymous, is to repent, perhaps meet Jesus for the first time, and reject the poison you’ve been swallowing.

Law Prof, isn’t that a bit harsh? Anonymous has been giving a very sober and practical report on 9Marks, from first-hand experience. If you think he’s too generous to Mark Dever, please don’t question his faith in Jesus.

Ted:

I appreciate your thoughts and support.

Lydia wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you totally about top-down policy be anathema to Baptists. We believe in autonomy, which is an extension of the Priesthood of the Believer.

Oh. My. Word. You are protected here so I will back off but this is Barbra Streisand.

Barbra Streisand believes in the Priesthood of the Believer? I am so glad to know that 🙂

Anonymous wrote:

And what Dever and Leeman teach about that is that the Church, not the pastor, holds those keys, and those keys are communion and membership in the fellowship.

That may be what they say, but practically speaking, the pastor holds the keys because the elders are carefully vetted yes-men and the congregation receives recommendations from the elders. In other words, the pastor’s authoritarian ruling is laundered through an elders meeting and an essentially pro forma congregational vote in order to maintain the convenient fiction that it is the church which holds the keys. And that is *assuming* the “keys” are what they say they are. I think they are gravely mistaken about that.

@ Lydia:
I agree with you here, Lydia. But I’m not sure it applies to my comment to Law Prof. I don’t see Anonymous as someone who is trying to control or deceive people–rather, he (or she) is telling us firsthand about 9Marks and how they may be doing that.

Anonymous wrote:

Gram3:

I agree with you totally about top-down policy be anathema to Baptists. We believe in autonomy, which is an extension of the Priesthood of the Believer. 9 Marks believes in that – to my knowledge.

Anonymous, I’m also in an American Baptist Church, very conservative, and we’ve recently gone through a process, very 9Marksian, to move toward an elder-led (male-only) complementarian government. Thank God the proposed by-laws failed for lack of a 3/4 vote, although it was a majority.

The more I hear about “The Authority of the Local Church” (what I call the Sixth Sola) the more I understand that “The Priesthood of the Believer” has been flushed down the toilet.

Ted wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Gram3:

I agree with you totally about top-down policy be anathema to Baptists. We believe in autonomy, which is an extension of the Priesthood of the Believer. 9 Marks believes in that – to my knowledge.

Anonymous, I’m also in an American Baptist Church, very conservative, and we’ve recently gone through a process, very 9Marksian, to move toward an elder-led (male-only) complementarian government. Thank God the proposed by-laws failed for lack of a 3/4 vote, although it was a majority.

The more I hear about “The Authority of the Local Church” (what I call the Sixth Sola) the more I understand that “The Priesthood of the Believer” has been flushed down the toilet.

Ted:

That is interesting. I did not know that the American Baptist Church was going through that.

I have said for a long time (though very few people seem to want to entertain the idea – either Reformed or not Reformed) that what has generated a renewed interest in Reformed Soteriology (though not Reformed in all things – Baptist Churches, for example, can never be reformed) have been cultural developments related to Evangelical efforts at evangelism.

There is an increasing divide between the secular and the sacred. And there seems to be resistance to many of the “programs” and approaches tried by evangelicals.

I believe this has created a desire to understand why that is. And I believe that the younger generation has discovered and more closely examined doctrines related to the sovereignty of God.

In a previous generation, if evangelism wasn’t working, there must be a problem with the approach being used. Hence, we get the seeker movement and other countless ideas about how to make a more effective pitch.

The younger generation often sees this as craven and ineffective. And they find some alternate explanations in Reformed Soteriology.

On the “Priesthood of the Believer”, I tend to believe that traditional congregational evangelicals are reaching out to try and bring better order to the church. I believe it is that simple.

I know that when we started our church in 1992, that we all came from traditional congregationalism that was highly politicized and dysfunctional. It basically gave the loudest and most obnoxious and uninformed person in the room the right to hold everyone else hostage.

I have come down on the side of saying that when it comes to polity, the NT gives very little guidance. I believe that elder rule, congregational rule etc. are all acceptable options. All can be done abusively. All can be successful.

The goal is to recognize the Priesthood of each believer, but also to provide a structure where people are heard but there is order at the same time.

Much of this is dependent on things that cannot be written down. But exist in the spirit of people. It’s a very hard thing to script.

@ Gram3:
Better words were never spoken.
What irks me about the top-down stuff where we are the peons and they are the know-it-all’s, is that a large number of pastors are recent seminary grads. Not only do many of them have little knowledge of Scripture other than parroting back what they were told in class, but most of them have never 1. dealt with the death of a parent, or a baby, or a spouse; 2. had the life experience to understand how people can “con” other people; 3.had licensed training in counseling; 4. held down a real job. Most can get their kids’ Christian schooling paid for by the congregation while we peons have to pay $7-10K/year to send kids to Christian school. And sometimes if we use public school they are looked down upon, but peons live in the real world. The good young ministers are few and far between.

Anonymous wrote:

And I believe that the younger generation has discovered and more closely examined doctrines related to the sovereignty of God.

Even frank Arminians believe in the sovereignty of God. The question is how God exercises his sovereignty. God is the only non-contingent being. How can he not be sovereign? Sovereignty does not demand control-freakery on the part of God. So, I think we are really talking about is what God’s sovereignty necessarily entails.

I absolutely agree with you about the Seeker Sensitive movement. However, I believe that the YRR kiddos have jumped headlong into the fire without thinking about the consequences of that and without considering other possible solutions to being in the frying pan of late 20th century evangelicalism. And I know a few of them…

Gram3 wrote:

Having been in a church heavily influenced by 9Marks, I can assure you that the Priesthood of *every* believer was never taught when I was present, and I was present when the doors were open. Mohler worked to change the BFM to muddy that point, IMO. I think that they believe in a de facto priestly class though, obviously, as Baptists they cannot come out and say that. Everything must be carefully couched. Also, it is important to note that what an organization *formally* embraces and what it *informally* promotes or suppresses may be very different things.

[Boldface added.]

This entire quote from Gram3 captures the espresso of what my wordy explanation above on symptoms versus systems was trying to get at. When behavior diminishes the face value of stated doctrines, or outrightly contradicts it, there is a system problem — and there is also a problem with transparency and truth-telling.

R2 wrote:

That’s pure drivel as just a half mile away from SBTS you’ll find LPTS, which is for the most part flaming liberal. On the other hand, the Assemblies of God denomination, which ordains women, is hardly a liberal organization.

Their very peculiar form of logic is that liberal denominations ordain women. Therefore, conservative denominations cannot ordain women. Obviously there are some logical leaps there.

Another path is that ordination of women resulted from a denial of inerrancy. Therefore, ordination of women leads to a denial of inerrancy which then leads nowhere good. More logical oddities. Never is any consideration given to the fact that people can reach the same conclusion–the full participation and freedom of women within the church–via very different paths and for very different reasons.

Logic is not their strong suit though their Ph.D.s were supposedly earned.

Eeyore wrote:

The problem with the 9 Marks system is, however, exactly what Bea just pointed out – it’s trying to accomplish by rules what is best (only?) possible by a move of the Spirit – and I say this as a total NON-charismatic.

There is another huge issue I have with their system and that is the “accountability” model.

When James 5 mentions confessing our sins to one another, I believe the message is clearly about being genuine, being open about it and owning it when we offend someone; not pretending to be perfect or to be someone we’re not.

These guys have turned that simple statement into a weird system of bondage where one person is beholden to another human being and made to confess their deepest, darkest secrets to that person or persons. This is so unhealthy and destructive! I believe this may be a big part of what keeps people stuck in these systems, the fact that there are others who own a part of you that no other person should. It’s a source of pressure and downright blackmail. It is the shepherding error all over again.

I honestly believe the accountability model is not only will-worship and using the flesh to try to accomplish spiritual growth, but I believe it is satanic.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Back to 9Marks: In terms of the wonky doctrines about covenants and memberships and complementarianism and such like, in my assessment, their underlying way of processing information is to divide everything while analyzing it into categories by separating this from that, men from women, those supposedly supposed to be in authority from those supposedly supposed to be in unconditional submission, etc. That hyper-analytical processing style links to a divisionary mindset that affects everything, not just the bones we see that need to be picked out or spit out.

Amen

I always got the sense a lot of these guys have massive psychological problems they’re rationalizing away. Their zeal is just baptized anger at some core wound.

Gram3 wrote:

the pastor holds the keys because the elders are carefully vetted yes-men and the congregation receives recommendations from the elders. In other words, the pastor’s authoritarian ruling is laundered through an elders meeting and an essentially pro forma congregational vote in order to maintain the convenient fiction that it is the church which holds the keys.

Unfortunately what is now clear to you and me is not clear to almost everyone still within these “churches”. I’ve heard many a metaphor used to assert the need to spread the gospel, “intervene to save the perishing!!”. I find it ironic that those who wish to save others can’t see themselves drowning in an abusive Christian sub-culture.

Anonymous wrote:

That is interesting. I did not know that the American Baptist Church was going through that.

Oops. It was another commenter, not you, who said that he was with an American Baptist Church.

As a denomination, I don’t think ABC-USA is going through a 9Marks challenge, only individual churches, and we’re all over the spectrum, liberal to fundamentalist.

There is an increasing divide between the secular and the sacred. And there seems to be resistance to many of the “programs” and approaches tried by evangelicals.

Yes, exactly. And that, I think, is what has been driving a move toward authoritarianism in my church and others. Same-sex marriage, the Boy Scouts’ new policy to allow gay members (our church had hosted the Scouts, but no more because of that) etc, have caused churches to circle the wagons and crack down on sin. It’s not going well.

Jack wrote:

The irony is the 9 marks crowd craves an audience & has tried to soften the church discipline angle.

I am not sure what you mean by soften the “discipline angle” because they have promoted it a lot, bringing it up in the most unusual places. I’ve visited many of their church websites and their documents are full of submission and discipline. Are some now beginning to camouflage it?

@ BL:
What would you say were the 9 (or whatever number) marks of the shepherding movement? Is there a way to sum it up? I can’t seem to get my head around it. I don’t know if there is a CliffNotes version, or not.

@ Cousin of Eutychus:
I couldn’t help thinking of the Borg Collective when you described the conversation with your old friend, and your description of his mindset.

It sounds as if he has been assimilated.

@ Jack:
Meant to say “sounds like church discipline has gone a bit off the rails”

Another very prominent characteristic of authoritarian leadership is that their attempts at correction and discipline often devolve into inflicting punishment; they are seeking vengeance rather than correction in love. My last go-round (I have been banished from two authoritarian church systems in my 43 years in the Kingdom) was surreal.

Elders in these type of systems imprint onto their denominational or extra-church leaders rather than Jesus. I was always creeped out by the shaved heads in the church leadership of SGM churches. But is it is the attitudes more than appearance (though the appearance ought to have made people wonder) that are dangerous.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

In my way of thinking, this is not merely about doctrinal statements (which are symptoms), but underlying presuppositions and paradigms (which are systems). Basically, all Christian traditions hold to the Apostles’ Creed, so that isn’t much of an indicator of anything except perhaps adherence to the broadest possible threshold of “orthodoxy.” It’s the other stuff where we find the presuppositions played out, as they build a paradigm system of beliefs and values, of organizational strategies and structures, of cultural lifestyles of modes of collaboration styles. All those items are in a paradigm, even if most of them are out of sight, hidden underneath behaviors.

Exactly. You would not get very far in fishing without any bait. The hook must be baited with something not just palatable to the fish but inviting, alluring. What lurks under that bait is the purpose of the whole exercise, the hook.

Of course every false teaching contains enough truth to snare the unwary, otherwise it would not progress very far. There is no reason to look to Dever for some acceptable teachings that can easily be found elsewhere without the underlying hook.

refugee wrote:

couldn’t help thinking of the Borg Collective when you described the conversation with your old friend, and your description of his mindset.
It sounds as if he has been assimilated.

Refugee, your analogy totally makes sense; one of the things I tried to emphasize with the leadership that struggled with my questions is that unity does not necessarily mean uniformity. When I look at 9 Marks or SGM, I see uniformity in behavior as the goal rather than a unity in love.

@ Anonymous:

If you ever make it out to the Washington, D.C. area I would love to buy you coffee and chat.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

This, totally–my experience with authoritarian systems is that a question to them is not a question–it is filtered by their ‘systemic thinking’ to be rebellion. A critique of their way of doing things, no matter how mild or respectful, is filtered by their ‘systemic thinking’ be to slander, or gossip and slander. Words no longer have objective meaning; the meaning is assigned by their system–it is impossible to get a fair, objective hearing.

This is why someone who claimed to love me turned around and claimed I was a threat to his family. He couldn’t deal with the questions and was threatened by them. Thus an Air Force Officer had to use his position and claim I was a threat to his family and how nervous he was around me. This happened at work, and he took aim at my name, reputation and more. Because of that I learned why rape is a serious issue in the US military. Its about power and control.

Many people in these churches are insecure and frightened about questions. Questions cause harm. Actually if I took their POV and didn’t ask questions I never would have pushed back from Mormonism earlier in my life.

Deb wrote:

Here’s a post from 2010 that seems just as relevant today.
Nine Marks of an Abusive Church
Those Nine Marks are:
(1) Control-oriented style of leadership
(2) Spiritual elitism
(3) Manipulation of members
(4) Perceived persecution
(5) Lifestyle rigidity
(6) Suppression of dissent
(7) Harsh discipline of members
(8) Denunciation of other churches
(9) Painful exit process
A number of these do seem to apply to some 9Marks churches.

You have just described the church we left, which, oddly enough, was not a 9Marks church. Though towards the end they were passing around the “Church Elder” book.

ION:

Dr Henry Heimlich (now aged 96) yesterday saved a woman from choking using, naturally, the famous Manoeuvre that he invented. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada.

IHTIH

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for offering your perspective. I’m glad to know that more and more people are listening to the experiences of 9Marx and their victims.

Anonymous wrote:

I would not characterize everything Mark Dever says as radioactive or toxic. I believe he does a very good job with much of what he teaches.

“Not everything he says is toxic”… Not exactly a ringing endorsement…

My own opinion of the man: He’s a hopeless hypocrite. He’s broken his own precious 9 marks by helping Mahaney to run from the All-Important church discipline, and by giving him a new pulpit. And if Dever’s a hypocrite, why listen to him at all?

Nancy2 wrote:

Sallie Borrink wrote:

OT Comment crash! I’m in a conversation with someone and I need a quote. Where is the quote that says if you get the comp thing wrong you get the Gospel wrong? I’ve tried searching and cannot find it. Does anyone have that link and who said it? I’m thinking Piper? Thank you!

https://9marks.org/article/why-complementarianism-is-crucial-to-discipleship/
Here’s an article I just read. Maybe not the one you are looking for, but maddening, all the same!

That’s not the one I was thinking of, but it will work. Thank you so much!

@ Ted:
Words are not praxis. It just kind of irks me when i know there is deception going on.

Bridget wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
I think the Karen Hinckley situation was deeply embarrassing to them. Not enough to make them change, but enough to generate a PR breakout session.
And it was implemented by one of the most glittering of the gospel boys who is supposed to be so awesome.

I saw a video of him recently, teaching from one of the epistles. The guy sure yells a lot.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Since I was the one who brought up Fukushima and “radioactive fish,” I wanted to try to expand on my earlier comment.

That comment brought to mind a much earlier (and possibly even worse) chapter from Japanese history. Namely, Minamata disease. Ordinary people poisoned and sickened over decades, from eating shellfish and sea life contaminated with mercury, courtesy of industrial pollution. And ignored by the greedy and heartless executives at a local corporation.

That reminds me even more of 9Marx.

siteseer wrote:

@ Sallie Borrink:

Sally, on this page http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/04/26/complementarianism-a-primary-doctrine-at-together-for-the-gospel/ check out Piper’s comments esp “If you do the kind of gymnastics that I think you have to do in order to escape Ephesians 5, you’re gonna get the Gospel wrong.” I know there are others I can’t think of now. Owen Strachan said the gospel has “a complementarian shape.” HTH

Thank you! 🙂

Lydia wrote:

Words are not praxis. It just kind of irks me when i know there is deception going on.

Agreed. It drives me wild. There’s a lot about the 9Marks movement that you know is wrong, but it’s hard to put your finger on—like trying to pin a jellyfish to the wall. They keep using works and calling it grace, law and calling it gospel.

siteseer wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You are right to note that I disagree with them. And you are right to note that the way I would view them more charitably than many readers here.

Anonymous, you have shared that your church does not actually accept or follow a large part of 9marks or Dever’s teaching, nor do you, personally, agree with much of it. I am confused; what exactly are you defending about 9marks? And why?

Anonymous wrote:

I understand that several readers on here have had bad experiences at the hands of these churches, and other churches. I have not experienced that, fortunately.

Have you looked into the bad experiences others have had and empathized with those persons? Have you connected the results to the teachings? Do you see these results as evidence of the fruit the teachings bear or do you see them as just some random aberrations? Surely, you do not need to suffer personally before you can recognize the errors that lead to others’ suffering? I mean no offense in asking this, I am confused as to what exactly you are trying to communicate.

Siteseeer:

Thanks for asking.

First, just to clarify again, I know absolutely nothing of SGM or Mahaney other than what I have read. I have read the survivor blogs, and it sounds awful. My take on it is it is a lot like the Independent Baptist Fundamentalism that I experienced from about age 19 to 22. They were truly sincere people, and were trying to do the right thing. They believed the Bible and essential Christian doctrines. But they went to seed on the doctrine of separation and legalism.

I still have wonderful memories from that time in my life, and I admire the good part of what they did, but not the bad. And I think the bad was so bad that I would not want to organize a church around that.

My perception is the SGM is a lot like that – only a newer, cooler version, with Pentecostalism thrown in.

I say all that to again distinguish my experience and feelings. I have no experience with or feelings for SGM.

I separate them from 9 Marks. So it’s important for me that people understand that.

Many people will disagree with this, too, but I was a big supporter of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC. That does not mean that I support everything that went on in the name of that movement. It means that I supported an intentional effort to see that the SBC seminaries were teaching in accordance with essential Christian doctrine and the SBC’s Confession of Faith – the Baptist Faith and Message.

I met Al Mohler through that before he became President of Southern. I am supportive of the changes at Southern. But again, as in the case of my time with IBF, it would be a mistake to assume that I agree with everything that goes on there or with every cultural aspect of Southern. I do not understand or agree with it’s connection to Mahaney and that baffles me.

My exposure to Mohler and Dever has been in the context of the recovery and promotion of essential Christian doctrine and what I believe to be the proper view of Scripture.

So, when 9 Marks promotes things that relate to that, I am in full support.

When 9 Marks supports its particular brand of Membership or Discipline theories, I am not supportive of that.

I hope that this makes sense to you. I realize I have opened another can of worms but discussing other matters, but it may help you understand how I have met people in one context and enjoyed and appreciated what they do, but do not agree with them in other ways.

I also count among dear friends people who disagree vehemently with some of the views of Reformed theology and the Membership and Discipline issues.

I also count among dear friends people who are very liberal theologically. I believe it is awful to fail to recognize the Christian doctrinal essentials. But I don’t judge those people’s salvation or say they are devilish, though I would not want my church to organize around certain aspects of what they believe.

I hope this makes some sense to you. I can look at Al Mohler and Mark Dever and tell them where I think they are wrong and where they are right and remain friends with them. But I do that with people of all stripes in my life.

This is somewhat off topic but the following link is from The Baptist News regarding Baylor University decisions following the findings of the investigation regarding sexual assaults on campus. Hope the link works. I don’t think anyone else posted this yet.

http://www.bpnews.net/46941/baylor-fires-coach-briles-demotes-pres-starr

lynn wrote:

I write this with such sadness as my husband has been a pastor for thirty five years and during that time, so much change has taken place. Years ago one could not be a senior pastor until about 45 years of age with experience as associate pastor required, as well as with age generally comes wisdom. Now at 55 you are too old for ministry. Also, the Pastor visited the sick, preached, and cared for the flock. Now the Pastor is the CEO of a corporation where money and people are needed to keep this machine going. Many pastors are big fish in a very little pond.

I would attend a church your husband pastored and be glad to have such a humble servant, who truly shows the love of Jesus. This mean-streak of NeoCalvinism and authoritarianism that Mark Dever/9Marks, Acts 29, John MacArthur, Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood, T4G espouse is not of God. They repeat the verses of Scripture and know not what it means in practice. The greatest commandment – Love – they all fail at.

siteseer wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, when 9 Marks promotes things that relate to that, I am in full support.

When 9 Marks supports its particular brand of Membership or Discipline theories, I am not supportive of that.

Thanks much for your honest answer, Anonymous. I wonder why you find it necessary to support 9marks for the few things you agree on when those things are found elsewhere (most notably, I hope, in the scriptures). Since 9marks comes as a system, as a whole (support for Mahaney included, a natural outgrowth of the philosophy), why speak in support of the system when in fact it seems like the only thing you agree on is some portion of reformed theology?

It’s been a while since I looked through the 9 Marks stuff, but I think Marks 1-5 and Mark 8 are fine, generally. But, again, don’t credit me with knowing too much.

@ lifelongfling:
Interesting. Sounds plausible, especially when protecting the male hierarchy is an issue – one of the factors in why Complementarianism is the hill Kevin DeLong, for one, is going to die on. Complementarianism keeps women subjugated and in the place these guys assign, roles lacking authority which they only ascribe to men. Which, essentially, takes the Sword out of their hands and tells women, “Welcome to the church. Us men fight the battles here so you can tend the garden. Lay down your swords. Let us warriors protect you and your dainty petals. Do not argue, fuss or fight; it’s unbefitting for a woman. Here, let us disarm you since we don’t allow you to enlist. There, there, that’s a good girl.”

Anonymous wrote:

Churches with hierarchies believe that. And what Dever and Leeman teach about that is that the Church, not the pastor, holds those keys, and those keys are communion and membership in the fellowship.

In 9Marxist churches anything – the slightest dissent and not even any kind of gross, unrepentant sexual immorality – gets a person subjected to *church discipline* by the pastors/elders including being threatened with you *must not be one of us*, banned from church property, excommunicated and shunned. Dever and Leeman believe that the local church [pastors/elders] can determine if a person is saved or not, by their unwillingness to be in lock-step obedience to the pastors/elders. There is NOTHING Christian about Dever or Leeman, they teach outright heresy. They are two pompous, arrogant men who have happily destroyed Christians’ reputations, lives, families, friendships, marriages, and churches across the land. Dever and Leeman have harmed the name of Jesus Christ before outraged unbelievers who don’t even subscribe to this level of viciousness. Quit trying to mitigate the damage Dever and Leeman have done and giving them a pass.

FW Rez wrote:

Meet your reformed competition: http://www.missionalwear.com/
Missional Wear began in 2010, with the aim of blending theology with apparel in order to create a truly unique product.

The drinkware includes an item with this description:

“Pint glasses with minor defections that need a home!”

Minor defections. In other words, if you’re under church discipline and locked into the church, you can smuggle yourself out in a beer glass with a picture of Charles Spurgeon on it.

Velour wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Churches with hierarchies believe that. And what Dever and Leeman teach about that is that the Church, not the pastor, holds those keys, and those keys are communion and membership in the fellowship.

In 9Marxist churches anything – the slightest dissent and not even any kind of gross, unrepentant sexual immorality – gets a person subjected to *church discipline* by the pastors/elders including being threatened with you *must not be one of us*, banned from church property, excommunicated and shunned. Dever and Leeman believe that the local church [pastors/elders] can determine if a person is saved or not, by their unwillingness to be in lock-step obedience to the pastors/elders. There is NOTHING Christian about Dever or Leeman, they teach outright heresy. They are two pompous, arrogant men who have happily destroyed Christians’ reputations, lives, families, friendships, marriages, and churches across the land. Dever and Leeman have harmed the name of Jesus Christ before outraged unbelievers who don’t even subscribe to this level of viciousness. Quit trying to mitigate the damage Dever and Leeman have done and giving them a pass.

I appreciate your beliefs and feelings about this, and I am sure it is born by some experience you or friends have had. Christians don’t all share the same opinions, as I think we have established, and that, too, is part of the Priesthood of the Believer. You and I can feel differently about something, and we have to process that directly with the Lord. Neither of us can demand that the other must feel a certain way or do a certain thing.

But we can remain cordial, internet friends.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

This mindset is why it makes sense to me to question the idea that the Church holds the keys in terms of discipline, because functionally speaking, the leaders of the local church, being those in authority and thus to be submitted to be subordinate laypeople, hold and turn the keys. If you look only at the surface doctrine of the Church holding the keys, that seems to resonate with Scripture and be truly biblical. However, if you look at the entire system — and the behaviors of those who are its followers — the surface statement is contradicted when the elders act as if they are the Church. Looking at the ways adherents seem to function (as seen in multiple case studies posted on survivor blogs) the overseers in effect replace the Holy Spirit’s role in discernment and decision-making, and they replace Jesus Christ by assuming the role of mediator between God and people.

Home run post, Brad.

Anonymous wrote:

I appreciate your beliefs and feelings about this, and I am sure it is born by some experience you or friends have had. Christians don’t all share the same opinions, as I think we have established, and that, too, is part of the Priesthood of the Believer. You and I can feel differently about something, and we have to process that directly with the Lord. Neither of us can demand that the other must feel a certain way or do a certain thing.
But we can remain cordial, internet friends.

Thank you for your reply and sharing your views with all of us, including about your acceptance of a wide variety of people on the Christian spectrum. I have watched Salem Witch Trials II, courtesy of Mark Dever’s 9Marks, and all of the lives and relationships destroyed. And it’s NOT funny.

Putting Mahaney aside, what do you have to say about all of the damage that Mark Dever has done to the lives of Christians at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.? Those are well-documented, by the scores.

R2 wrote:

They have rationalized their problems. They have patched up their wounds with out of context Bible verses and sanctimony. If they had to face themselves or their presuppositions (as Dr Fundystan suggests) they would have to face the damage at the core of their psyche.

To expand on this, my personal observation of some of the men reviled on here is that they do not strike me as controlling or demeaning of their wives and daughters. I have seen them with their families in person and have spoken to some. My suspicion is more toward them having had a controlling and domineering mother, which gave them a deep suspicion of women and a belief that they need to be held in check. Also they can rationalize their mother’s illness by saying “she’s just a woman.” That’s my $0.02.

R2 wrote:

There is a reason why some are so hostile to psychology and push nouthetic counseling.

Just like Lydia pointed out about their views about Comp doctrine (if that goes than so does their whole does their power structure), the same is true of Nouthetic Counseling (“the Bible is sufficient counsel for all problems”) which is one more enforcer in their authoritarian power dynamic. If pastors/elders humbled themselves and admitted that they don’t have the education, training, and licensing to diagnosis and treat church members and referred them to outside professionals the pastors/elders would lose their *authority* and *power*. And why would they do that?

As someone pointed out over on Spiritual Sounding Board, why is it that pastors/elders who claim the “Bible is sufficient counsel for everything” wear prescription eyeglasses and didn’t treat their vision problems with Scripture verses?

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Well, to be fair to him, he’s right on both counts:
1) Any attender unwilling to sign a blasphemous and idolatrous agreement renouncing the sufficiency of Jesus’ own covenant, sealed with his own blood, obviously isn’t part of such a company;
2) God hasn’t called anybody to join a counterfeit church, but rather, to have nothing to do with it.

Yes, Nick, I came to view it as a blessing in disguise. Some visitors would get up and walk out during the sermon and didn’t even stay for the entire thing. In retrospect, I wish I had been like them.

refugee wrote:

What would you say were the 9 (or whatever number) marks of the shepherding movement? Is there a way to sum it up? I can’t seem to get my head around it. I don’t know if there is a CliffNotes version, or not.

I’ll give a shot at an overview of what I know & experienced.

Late 60s – early 70s and the Charismatic Movement swept through the US – impacting all ages (though the largest percentage were highschool & college age) AND all denominations.

People who were not believers as well as people who had been believers and church members for years. These people encountered God, and it changed them. They had tasted and seen that the Lord was good.

I know heroin addicts who stopped overnight and never went back.

I know church members that had been content with feeding on their Sunday sermons, that began voraciously reading Scripture.

I know highschool students who gathered together in groups of 3 or 4 to worship and praise God, to pray to Him and to seek His face.

People continued going to their denominational church, and would meet with other charismatics at other times. Young people who had not been church members, would go wherever they could find a church – to a Southern Baptist church on Sunday mornings, a Methodist church Sunday evening, an Assembly of God on Wednesday night.

And when there wasn’t an official church meeting somewhere, they would get together (again across all denominational lines) in homes, or offices, or the back of a motorcycle shop to worship, to share what they learned that week, to pray for each other, etc.

I say all this to point out that no man was in charge. No organization was determining who did what when.

And in response, several men already in various ministries decided that something needed to be done. There was concern that people were not being held accountable, they might not be maturing.

These were already nationally known speakers and authors, and had established relationships among themselves (that sounds familiar).

It is within the above that the Shepherding/Discipleship movement was launched.

I’ll continue in a following post on what came next.

Anonymous wrote:

It’s been a while since I looked through the 9 Marks stuff, but I think Marks 1-5 and Mark 8 are fine, generally. But, again, don’t credit me with knowing too much.

Anonymous, you continue to confuse me. It’s “been awhile” since you’ve “looked through” the 9marks stuff, you “think” marks 1-5 and 8 are fine “generally” but you “don’t know too much” and yet you are here defending them. I can be kind of dense, it’s true, but I’m missing something here.

Are you simply trying to say that you are friends with the proponents though you aren’t really conversant on or subscribe to the teachings? Which is fine if that’s how you feel, I’m just trying to understand. I’m not really clear on your message.

Velour wrote:

Yes, Nick, I came to view it as a blessing in disguise. Some visitors would get up and walk out during the sermon and didn’t even stay for the entire thing. In retrospect, I wish I had been like them.

I wish I had realized that when you see the older believers, especially, start disappearing from the congregation, it’s a big, fat warning signal.

siteseer wrote:

These guys have turned that simple statement into a weird system of bondage where one person is beholden to another human being and made to confess their deepest, darkest secrets to that person or persons.

In Marxspeak, “Enlightened Self-Criticism before Party Commissars and The Masses”.

Gram3 wrote:

Their very peculiar form of logic is that liberal denominations ordain women. Therefore, conservative denominations cannot ordain women. Obviously there are some logical leaps there.

Actually, no.
The logic goes “ENEMY ‘CHRISTIANS’ DO X, THEREFORE *WE* TRUE CHRISTIANS *MUST* DO THE OPPOSITE OF X”. “Protestsnt” carried to its theoretical ultimate.

Communism begets Objectivism — total opposites on the surface, identical at the core.

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

Ted they are re-defining words. Love is now discipline, etc…. That is the problem.

As Headless Unicorn Guy would say:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Orwell was a genius.

Anonymous wrote:

They believed the Bible and essential Christian doctrines. But they went to seed on the doctrine of separation and legalism.

Anonymous, that is exactly the problem I had with one of the chief proponents of the elder-led, male-only movement that recently failed to be adopted in our church.

Separatism is a huge factor in fundamentalism, and I’m convinced that the new calvinism is merely the old fundamentalism but in a reformed instead of a dispensationalist style.

Gram3 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I hope this makes some sense to you. I can look at Al Mohler and Mark Dever and tell them where I think they are wrong and where they are right and remain friends with them.

Do you think that they are qualified to be elders according to the Biblical texts? This particular point does *not* make sense, at least to me. The comment you made about the CR in the SBC I totally understand. Gramp3 and I were absolutely in favor of that and probably damaged some relationships because of our support. I infer that our reasons for supporting the CR were probably
similar to yours. We are conservative, and we *assumed* that these men were conservative and were bringing correction. What we have since learned from personal observation and experience and also from people who have lived behind the curtain is that the CR no longer appears to have been about the truth. Or at least it became a movement that was not God-honoring and which routinely employs worldly means to their supposedly Godly ends.

You may already know that the “can’t we still be friends” with these men is one of the most frequently offered excuses for continuing affiliation with men who have facilitated or directly caused the pain and alienation from the church and from Christ. These men have failed in their most basic functions: to guard and protect the flock. Instead of that, they have embraced the abuser and condemned the victims. For the supposed sake of the Gospel, according to Mohler.

These are not the actions of men who are being guided by the Holy Spirit, IMO. That does not mean they are unbelievers, but it does mean that their *behavior* over multiple years and unknown situations is counter to the Gospel message and to the example of Christ. That is a point I intend to continue to emphasize.

You can befriend anyone you choose to befriend. But be aware that others are going to wonder why you continue to support men who have *objectively* disqualified themselves from leadership according to what the texts actually say. They are preaching another gospel, and that dishonors Christ’s atonement. Yes, it does because it diminishes what he came to do and what he did and who he is.

I’m coming down hard on you in this comment because I really want you to see what you are covering for (I am speaking of their continued behaviors and false teaching.) It is “nothing less than” (my favorite Mohlerism) gross dereliction. It is not a mistake. It is a willful series of decisions that these men have made despite the cries of the victims who have been abused and misled by their cronies. Many have left the church, and some have left Christ.

You are inviting people to drink from a poisoned well. I am not condemning you because I could have written and have said every single thing you have written and more. For *years* I and others trusted these men, our Usual Suspects. I know one of them, Gramp3 has met another one, and we are within one degree of separation about a zillion different ways from several of the Gospel Glitterati. I know disillusioned young seminarians who were appalled at what they found at seminary. They refused to turn a blind eye and spoke out and were accused.

I have given up on the conservative church, and not because I have given up on Jesus. Right now, I think God has given the conservative church over to its desires including the desire to be great, the desire to be influential, the desire to be part of something Big and Important, the desire to be more Christian than Christ himself, the desire to be wealthy in the name of the One who became poor for our sakes. These men have brought shame upon the name of Christ and upon the names of people like me and Gramp3 who supported them.

You should be their friend. And you should be a faithful friend who is willing to wound them with the truth and call them to repentance before they hurt any more people. Before they drive any more away from the church and the true Gospel because the unknowing have imbibed their false gospel believing that it was the water of Life.

I am an older woman, and I realize that in your world (my former world) my words do not carry any weight, but thankfully in the Kingdom women are not subordinate persons who lack basic human agency. IOW “humans” created in the derivative image of God. I have been freed, and I refuse to put on the yoke of slavery these men are commanding me to wear.

For the sake of the Gospel, I implore you to examine *all* that these men are teaching and doing and speak out. I believe that your intentions are good, and from what I can glean from what you have written, I think that you are a caring individual, perhaps an elder or pastor. You have very serious and weighty responsibilities to warn the flock as well as to warn the false teachers, and *especially* if they are your friends.

Sermon over.

Thanks for these words, which I can tell were meant in great sincerity. I am working on something, and will give you a substantive response later. Did not want you to think if it took a while that I was ignoring you. Thanks.

siteseer wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s been a while since I looked through the 9 Marks stuff, but I think Marks 1-5 and Mark 8 are fine, generally. But, again, don’t credit me with knowing too much.

Anonymous, you continue to confuse me. It’s “been awhile” since you’ve “looked through” the 9marks stuff, you “think” marks 1-5 and 8 are fine “generally” but you “don’t know too much” and yet you are here defending them. I can be kind of dense, it’s true, but I’m missing something here.

Are you simply trying to say that you are friends with the proponents though you aren’t really conversant on or subscribe to the teachings? Which is fine if that’s how you feel, I’m just trying to understand. I’m not really clear on your message.

Good question.

No. It’s not as you surmise – that I am friends but haven’t read the 9 Marks stuff.

I read it. Years ago. I don’t keep up and don’t remember what they say exactly, but when I read it, I don’t remember them saying anything heretical in those chapters.

I read the 9 Marks material on the web from time to time. When they are on Membership and Discipline, I find lots I disagree with. When they are not, I don’t.

Does that help?

If there are particular passages in those chapters (Marks 1-5 and 8) that you think are heretical, I would be very interested to know. I would be glad to give you my thoughts.

siteseer wrote:

I honestly believe the accountability model is not only will-worship and using the flesh to try to accomplish spiritual growth, but I believe it is satanic.

I COMPLETELY agree. A little more than a year ago I put together a paper on this topic, but it’s a bit too long to post as a comment. Evangelical Christianity has bought into a lie when it comes to accountability. There is no passage in the Bible telling us that Christians are accountable to each other. Not one. Check out this list of synonyms for “hold accountable” – http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hold+accountable. What I think we mean when we talk about Christian accountability is something more along the lines of mutual support. Interestingly, “support” is one of the listed antonyms of “hold accountable.” I don’t know how this word came to be so Christian. It appears to have come out of the diet fads of the 1970s. But I could be wrong. But I do know that “accountability” is used to shame people into submission by the YRR crowd.

Nancy2 wrote:

It relegates wives to the status of glorified plantation slaves. They just choose flowery words to say it, hoping we won’t really see what they’re up to!

The “spiritually correct” flowery word is “Winsome” as in “winsomely glorified plantation slaves.” If that doesn’t work, then add “for the Lord’s sake” or “for/to the glory of God” to the end of the sentence.

Nancy2 wrote:

“for the Lord’s sake” or “for/to the glory of God” = flowery words for “sanctified testosterone”?

I was thinking more along the lines of “I’m right, your wrong, and to argue with me is to argue against God.” It’s called “taking God’s name in vain.”

Ken F wrote:

I was thinking more along the lines of “I’m right, your wrong, and to argue with me is to argue against God.” It’s called “taking God’s name in vain

Tee hee. I though it was all the same ……. at least that’s the idea I got from the last T4G conference!

Ken F wrote:

But I do know that “accountability” is used to shame people into submission by the YRR crowd.

It was also used by the shepherding discipleship crew to get all the pewishioners lined up under their hierarchical structure. Fear was also a motivating factor.

Failing to submit to their authority in order to held accountable meant that we would never mature as believers. Choosing to question or ‘rebel’ against their authority over us, meant that we would be easy pickins’ for Satan & Co, vulnerable to God’s wrathful judgement for our disobedience, and was clearly an indication that we were already deeply deceived.

Definitely fear.

BL wrote:

shepherding discipleship crew

And there we have some of the key words: shepherding and discipleship — two authoritarian movements that constantly misuse Bible words/concepts like “submit” and “obey” and “authority” to pressure followers to conform to those in authority if they want to “prove” they are truly serious about following God.

This is a heresy, is it not? At least, that appears to be the consensus of Christian books on cults and on spiritual abuse and recovery published over the last 25 years. And that is why it is crucial to identify that the functional reality of these authority figures is that they take the place of the Holy Spirit by imposing law on those who seek to follow Jesus, and take the place of Jesus Christ as the supposedly authorized mediator between the everyday disciple and the Father. It’s insidious … and it contradicts the gospel, turning it inside out so people are supposedly saved by Grace — and yet required to live by Law.

Bill M wrote:

I have come to agree with your conclusion and find it interesting that the 9Marks folks see the need for accountability for everyone but themselves as leaders. If you believe in the need for leaders and believe in the need for accountability, then the ones that need the most accountability are leaders.

“But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.” (1 Timothy 5:20, NIV) Seems the whole context of the passage involves special accountability — and consequences — for leaders who act irresponsibly.

Also, even if that weren’t there in the Scriptures, if a U.S. church is registered as a non-profit entity, it is subject to accountability via IRS regulations. You don’t want that accountability, then don’t sign up for tax breaks that require you to have transparency, good governance that disallows for conflicts of interest and excessive benefit to board members, staff, their families, and their friends.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

and it contradicts the gospel, turning it inside out so people are supposedly saved by Grace — and yet required to live by Law.

Where the Gospel Glitterati and the Federal Vision agree. No wonder the YRR like Doug Wilson!

@ BL:

“They view pewishioners as ‘dumb, directionless, & defenseless.” … So it is their job to control those sheep – tell them what to think, tell them where to go.

They think they are doing what’s best for the pewishioners.
++++++++++++

well, I sort of appreciate whatever goodness is in their motives 😐 — and of course there are oodles of reasons to doubt their benevolence.

benevolence aside, this is the deal: I didn’t get born into the free world growing up learning all manner of varied things into a mature, highly capable, gifted (just like everyone) & educated adult only to end up turning my decisions and thoughts over to a male human being wearing a Christian leader’s hat to manage for me so they can receive a paycheck.

memo to the man wearing the Christian leader’s hat (who’s probably young enough for me to be his mother): you are pleasant, and kind. now take your hands off my life.

Ted wrote:

Separatism is a huge factor in fundamentalism, and I’m convinced that the new calvinism is merely the old fundamentalism but in a reformed instead of a dispensationalist style.

As someone who went from the frying pan into the fire, I quite agree with you!

Ken F wrote:

The Bible stresses the importance of involvement, even including rebuke and reprovel. But that is not accountability. That’s where is can seem complicated. But since the Bible does not use language about being accountable to each other then we also need to be careful how we use it.

My experience is, as soon as the word “accountability” gets brought out, it is some variation on shepherding error.

Anonymous,

Thank you for responding to me (and to siteseer).

Anonymous wrote:

I separate them from 9 Marks. So it’s important for me that people understand that.

Separate SGM from 9Marx? I don’t see why. After all, Dever and Mohler don’t have the sense or the conscience to separate themselves from Mahaney. Why should anyone else treat them as distinct?

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

But this is definitely an important topic to explore, as “accountability” is misapplied to disciples and puts false burdens on them, while authoritarian leaders act is if they are biblically off the hook from consequences and can do whatever whenever whyever.

There are very many Christian web sites that talk about Biblical accountability. What I find interesting about these sites is that they consistently emphasize the “one another” type of passages rather than the actual meaning of the word, and most emphasize making accountability voluntary and relational. It’s probably a noble attempt to Christianize the word, but it completely changes the meaning of the word as the rest of the world understands it. The problem with redefining words to mean something different in church is the confusion it creates for those who don’t know exactly what we mean by the word. How can any of us know for sure what the other person means by this word when the church meaning is almost the opposite of the non-church meaning?

However, there is a place for accountability within the church: when church people behave illegally or unethically. In those cases they should be reported to the appropriate authorities so that they can be appropriately held accountable for their conduct. Examples include abuse, extortion, tax evasion, stealing, drug use, fraud, bribery, and kick-backs. The important distinction is that these are offenses against the civil legal system, not moral lapses that are otherwise legal.

Muff Potter wrote:

Ken F wrote:
There is no passage in the Bible telling us that Christians are accountable to each other. Not one.
The Bible has a long history of supporting or not supporting just about anything its readers fancy or don’t fancy.

At many authoritarian churches they use the “confess your sins to one another” verse to justify intrusive, unwanted, boundaryless “accountability”.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I was always creeped out by the shaved heads in the church leadership of SGM churches.

Shaved heads among YRR pastors/elders are common in my area. I think it has something to do with appearing more dominant and masculine, as compared to naturally balding guys. Oh, how these guys love anything that makes them appear more dominant and authoritarian, you know! Creepy, for sure.

Max wrote:

I think it has something to do with appearing more dominant and masculine, as compared to naturally balding guys. Oh, how these guys love anything that makes them appear more dominant and authoritarian, you know! Creepy, for sure.

Reminds of the King of Siam character 😉

@ Bill M:

“…It is so important to be right that relationships are abandoned and people are pushed aside all in the name of their church. A prideful authoritarian is a sickening sight.”
++++++++++++++

i’m very sorry for the horrible and rotten way your wife was treated. these people…. did they never mature emotionally or does their church culture cause them to regress to petty playground behavior?

‘principle over people’. reminds me of Christian men going to a Christian venue where a woman was due to speak (ie, Anne Graham Lotz, Jill Briscoe), and turning their chairs around with their backs facing her when she stepped up to the podium. what dix. what is it about our silly religion that causes people to be so cruel? is it not the most ironic thing.

even in my most recent egalitarian church experience (which truly was the best of churches), i was very surprised to observe ‘principle over people’ in very hurtful ways. it hammered the final nail in the coffin for me.

elastigirl wrote:

what is it about our silly religion that causes people to be so cruel?

People who have a genuine relationship with the Lord are not cruel; “religious” people can be. Some of the meanest people on the planet go to church (little “c”). The Church (the real one) operates in love and kindness; the Bride of Christ is not mean-spirited, but filled with the Holy Spirit. Jesus came to redeem and work through individuals, not institutions. The institution we call church is OK if it is fulfilling the Great Commission in love to reach ALL men with the message of Christ … and then equipping ‘them’ to do the work of the ministry. The genuine Church focuses on a relationship with the living Christ, rather than devotion to religious teachings and traditions of men. Personally, I hope to live long enough to see religion’s funeral preached!

BL wrote:

the miscarriage we experienced a few weeks afterward was actually used from the pulpit as an example of what happens to those who leave ‘the church’.
Can’t you feel the love?

That is just disgusting.

I am sorry you went through such an awful experience at the hands of a church, BL.

@ BL:

What kind of church / what denomination / what church is this?

(whatever you feel comfortable sharing, even if it’s nothing)

@ Max:

“People who have a genuine relationship with the Lord are not cruel; “religious” people can be.”
++++++++++++++++++++

well, I suspect they started out with a genuine relationship with God. church stupidness infected them with a virus that is eating away at it. they must still possess a modicum of genuine relationship — I mean, I don’t see how it could all erode away in all of such people.

so… the question at this point is…. (my brain is shutting down)… what is it about church that makes people cruel?

or, what is it about Christians that they can have both somewhat of a relationship with God and yet be so blind to their cruelty?

or,…. anyone? anyone?

@ BL:

wouldn’t be part of MFI, would it? (ministers fellowship international)

elastigirl wrote:

wouldn’t be part of MFI, would it? (ministers fellowship international)

No, the church referenced no longer exists, nor does the shepherding/discipleship movement (at least by that name and with those leaders).

I googled “Ministers Fellowship International” and found it is led by Frank Damazio, who appears to be running the same “join our network and we’ll keep you accountable” scheme employed by the shep/disc folks as well as a similar focus on conferences, networking, training and materials for young leaders as the YRR folks.

Have you had a close encounter with MFI?

The freakiest info is that he and his MFI is connected with C. Peter Wager’s National Apostolic Reformation pinheads.

All the leaders and organizations associated with Wagner & his NAR are pushing their version of dominionism on the world.

Wagner & associates have been working hard and have established a network of networks with global reach headed by self-appointed ‘Apostles.’

I’m more familiar with NAR’s work in the US (via their Seven Mountain Mandate) and more specifically their push to unite all churches in every city/town, by networking the pastors under various “city transformation” ministries.

The goal of this particular endeavor is to have the equivalent of one church in each city, one church but multiple congregations. And an apostle of the city to oversee them, of course.

This same dominionistic thread also ran through the shep/disc movement. Why would anyone want to argue against unity?

Because the goal isn’t unity in and of itself. The same frustration expressed by today’s YRR that people just leave one church and go to another was expressed back in the 70s & 80s.

Unified together, pastors across denominations networking would prevent a member ‘under discipline’ to be able to attend or join another church in the city.

So, the purpose of the unity was/is… control.

elastigirl wrote:

what is it about church that makes people cruel?

The devil goes to church, too. He’s in the cruel business.

@ Ken F:

“We can only love others to the extent that we feel loved by God.”
++++++++++++++++++++

i’m afraid I have to say this is not true at all. the people in my life who are agnostic, atheist, and muslim love me great. they are the kindest, most sincere and loving people. with regard to their fellow human being.

perhaps they feel loved by God (on a subconscious level for those of an agnostic and atheist bent). I believe my muslim friend feels loved by God.

perhaps Christianity (or certain strains of it) is what clouds if not walls off the experience of God’s love.

like, people are introduced to God and how wonderful God is. then Christian churches chime in and say “Now, lesson 1: You’re a worm. Lesson 2: you’re worthless. Lesson 3: you’re incapable of doing anything good. Lesson 4: whatever goodness is in your life is more than you deserve.

I think there’s truth to this. and irony of all ironies it is.

elastigirl wrote:

perhaps Christianity (or certain strains of it) is what clouds if not walls off the experience of God’s love.

And perhaps people go looking for a version of God that fits them (authoritarian, angry, judgmental, condemning, hate-filled, arrogant)…because that’s what they are and anything else is too threatening and they might have to change.

elastigirl wrote:

our mutual ‘friend’, when I knew him, was fun-loving, kind, goofy, sincere. your description is like, no, it can’t be. something about the environment he went into changed him.

I’ve told you this before but he was raised by a very violent, abusive father. I think he’s never worked on those issues and has turned out just like dear old dad.

He went to John MacArthur’s The Master’s College and The Master’s Seminary in Southern California, as you probably know. That cultic environment certainly could brain wash anyone. Adding on all of the Patriarchy teachings, homeschooling (more of the Rushdoony and Gothard and Philips garbage coming through) that he and his wife did, Council on Biblical Manhood Womanhood (more of the same Patriarchy obey and submit stuff), Young Earth Creation (he believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old, even though there are some 56 different Hebrew meanings for the word in the creation story including for the meaning “a long time”)…I don’t know what happened to him. He also believes that the Bible is sufficent counsel for everything, i.e. Nouthetic Counseling. He’s poorly educated, not licensed, and gives dumb and dangerous advice to people about incredibly serious things that they should see a licensed professional for. He could also use some really good psychotherapy to work on his own messed up life, but he doesn’t believe in that. (As several people have pointed out, his wife seems “wound very tightly”. I would want to live with someone like him.)

He certainly has deceived many people about his background. A ministry position that he claimed that he had at John MacArthur’s church, JMac said is a lie and that he was never on staff at the church and was ONLY in a volunteer position.

He told all of us about defending The Gospel before liberals in a Southern California college while he was taking classes to become a teacher. The State of California Teacher Credentialing said they’ve never credentialed anyone with his name to teach in California.

He seems pretty dishonest about himself and has been by countless people of lying to them, lying about them, and abusing them. Behind closed doors, he’s a thug. A bully. Screaming. Put-downs. Countless church members describe being reduced to tears by him.

elastigirl wrote:

yes, went to an MFI 1st Church of Dysfunction. It’s been 10 years — I think i’m done detoxing. but i’ll never be the same. in some ways that’s good.

It doesn’t seem to matter when or where or what the name might be – spiritually abusive leadership in churches follows the same pattern.

As you say – good and bad. My rose-colored glasses were broken, clearing away a susceptibility to someone’s soaring words and claims of authority.

I found out that MFI was actually founded by Dick Iverson who was involved in the Latter Rain Movement from the 40s – as was several of the Shep/Disc leaders.

He and they were members of various ministry network groups for decades. Simpson & Iverson were both members of the Apostolic Presbyters of the Network of Christian Ministries.

The multiple connections probably explains the commonality between our experiences.

elastigirl wrote:

perhaps Christianity (or certain strains of it) is what clouds if not walls off the experience of God’s love.

like, people are introduced to God and how wonderful God is. then Christian churches chime in and say “Now, lesson 1: You’re a worm. Lesson 2: you’re worthless. Lesson 3: you’re incapable of doing anything good. Lesson 4: whatever goodness is in your life is more than you deserve.

That’s where I’m thinking a particular view of God causes people to be jerks. But as you suggest, their attitude could be the cause of their beliefs rather than the effect. I don’t know how to speak for an atheist, but I would think that someone who does not believe in God would not believe in the Calvinistic view of God and would therefore not be drawn to that type of behavior.

@ Ken F:

“I would think that someone who does not believe in God would not believe in the Calvinistic view of God and would therefore not be drawn to that type of behavior.”
+++++++++++++

indeed.

wouldn’t said atheist, then, be less adulterated in his/her ability to feel/express/have love for other human beings?

certainly many things can interfere with a person’s experience of love (trauma, a less-than nurturing childhood, lack of emotional skills to get through hurts and disappointments, clinical depression, etc.). but without the virus of religious groups that tear down the individual (whether doing so with sweet smiles or not), isn’t an atheist in a better position to feel/express/have love for other human beings?

you had said, “We can only love others to the extent that we feel loved by God.”

I have to counter your statement with this: it is a true statement that my atheist friends have been as loving and kind as the best Christian person I’ve ever known. they have been self-sacrificing, generous, patient, and so sincere.

God is great. but, to be honest, knowing God is not a prerequisite to love. or any other kind of strong character. it just isn’t so.

(i’ll go further by saying I see the goodness in my atheist friends as down to them having been created in God’s image, whatever that means)

thank you for your thoughtful reply. I do appreciate it.

BL wrote:

Quoting Dever:
There are a lot of pastors who I think have very quickly tried to be obedient to what they see in scripture, but they’ve done it without a lot of wisdom in knowing how to implement things in their local churches, and it’s caused a lot of unnecessary pain. They’ve drawn lines in the wrong places and they’re misunderstanding things.

Following is the initial apology that came from the shep/disc that is so very similar to what Dever said above.

“We realize that controversies and problems have arisen among Christians in various areas as a result of our teaching in relation to subjects such as submission, authority, discipling and shepherding. We deeply regret these problems and, insofar as they are due to fault on our part, we ask forgiveness from our fellow believers whom we have offended.

We realize that our teachings, though we believe them to be essentially sound, have in various places been misapplied or handled in an immature way: and that this has caused problems for our brothers in the ministry. “

It’s deja vu all over again!

elastigirl wrote:

have to counter your statement with this: it is a true statement that my atheist friends have been as loving and kind as the best Christian person I’ve ever known. they have been self-sacrificing, generous, patient, and so sincere.

God is great. but, to be honest, knowing God is not a prerequisite to love. or any other kind of strong character. it just isn’t so.

That is a very good point that I have to think about. I was looking at this from the perspective of Christian. We Christians believe that God is love. So if we think that God is like how I described above in the Calvinist sense, then we will end up treating others like that. I think that was my main point.

I honestly don’t know what motivates atheists to love. If atheism is true, then the universe (or potentially multiverse) is nothing more than a freak accident with no design or purpose because a design or purpose would imply designer, which implies an underlying intelligence, which is exactly what atheists reject. So if there is no design or purpose, evolution has no design or purpose. Similarly, there is no moral standard because a moral standard would require a standard bearer. Since there is no ultimate meaning or purpose, then morality, as quaint as it may be, has no meaning because it has no standard on which to compare things as good or bad. It would mean there is no such thing as good or bad/evil. The most foul crime against humanity would be nothing more than a mere accident of a certain combination of subatomic particles. It would have no moral value. Likewise for love. One could argue that love is an evolutionary response to benefit the species. But even this is completely accidental since evolution can have no goal since there is nothing meaningful to shoot for since the universe has no underlying purpose. Love itself is just another random accident that has no ultimate meaning. It’s just like what the writer of Ecclesiastes stated: “Everything is meaningless,” says the Teacher, “completely meaningless!” How cheery.

This is why I wonder if there are any true atheists. I’ve not yet met one who in practice buys into the logical conclusion that everything is utterly meaningless. I’ve not met anyone who believes life is utterly devoid of meaning.

I think you are right that all of humanity expresses God’s image, whether we know it or not. I think atheists can love well because they have not been infected with such a horrific view of God.

BL wrote:

Following is the initial apology that came from the shep/disc that is so very similar to what Dever said above.
…
“We realize that our teachings, though we believe them to be essentially sound, have in various places been misapplied or handled in an immature way: and that this has caused problems for our brothers in the ministry. “

OK…
Is that “Communism failed only because The Wrong People were in charge”?
Or Joseph Smith’s “The Bible, Insofar as it is Translated Correctly”?

Max wrote:

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

I was always creeped out by the shaved heads in the church leadership of SGM churches.

Shaved heads among YRR pastors/elders are common in my area

Fanboys trying to Be Just Like The HUMBLE One.
“HE shaves His head (SQUEEEEEEE!) So WE Must Shave Our Heads.”

Gram3 wrote:

brad/futuristguy wrote:

and it contradicts the gospel, turning it inside out so people are supposedly saved by Grace — and yet required to live by Law.

Where the Gospel Glitterati and the Federal Vision agree. No wonder the YRR like Doug Wilson!

That and it promises THEY get to be the Commanders of Gilead, Penetrating/Colonizing/Conquering/Planting their Handmaids.

Ted wrote:

Separatism is a huge factor in fundamentalism, and I’m convinced that the new calvinism is merely the old fundamentalism but in a reformed instead of a dispensationalist style.

“The new Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.”
— John Milton

The reason Dever is saying do not do it right away is because a new pastor needs time to teach properly on this subject as like many things it is often misunderstood and misrepresented. A pastor needs three to five years in a church before trust is established.@ Gram3:

I wonder at what point they will decide to change it to 10Marks and add Complmentarianism to the list. Clearly they consider it at least as important as any of the others.

@ Junkster:
Hi Junkster! Welcome back!