Your articles are always so helpful as well as the conversations they produce. I wanted to thank you for all the effort hope all is well with you both and your families. brian

NAMB no longer funds church plants in North Carolina. Their focus is on the SEND cities. They are not receiving funding from the state convention either, they are not listed on their website of funded churches.

Deb and Dee, praying for y’all and the ailing mother-in-law (Deb’s?? Sorry, I am old and senile).

S.F Davis wrote:

NAMB no longer funds church plants in North Carolina. Their focus is on the SEND cities.

What’s a send city?

Brother Darville could have benefited from the strategy used by a young reformer who recently took over a traditional SBC church near me. After he lied his way past the search committee about his theological leaning, the new “lead pastor” (they love that title!) promptly launched a campaign to educate the church on proper church governance. He expressed his desire to follow the “Biblcal” pattern by stripping congregational polity from the church to bring in elder-rule. When the congregation voted that down (they were onto the scheme by this time), he recruited enough like-minded members from a nearby reformed church to swing the vote his way a few months later. Surely, Brother Darville could have recruited enough SEBTS students into membership to work his magic this way. Not much of an expert on how to work the pastoral search process to takeover a church … take the staff with you and start a new church when you don’t get your way is juvenile behavior, not the work of an expert. Likewise, blindly bringing in a Calvinist to a non-Calvinist church is not exercising wisdom by the search committee … you just can’t trust all pastoral candidates these days folks – sad, but true … vet them rigorously, check their social media for reformed chatter, ask tough questions, but above all pray your guts out for discernment.

@ Max:
Right out of the Neo-Cal playbook…

Deb wrote:

There is a Neo-Cal playbook, and we now recognize many of their moves, although we’re still learning…

Outright lying to gain control of a pulpit should never be in any Christian’s playbook! Forcing your belief and practice on a people who don’t want it is never right. Working behind the scenes to take staff and members with you to a competing work across town cannot be found in any “how to” Scripture. Somewhere/somehow, these new reformers have got it in their minds that stealth and deception are OK when its for the good of the movement. They must believe that since all of Christianity, besides them, are suffering in theological famine, it’s OK for a season to control, manipulate, and intimidate the planting of your theology by whatever means is necessary. That birthed in rebellion in Jesus’ name never prospers.

Great analysis, Deb. I’ve seen this type of story play out locally, more than once, and it’s always tragic. Good thing we don’t have a local seminary.

And I’m not surprised to see Maranantha in his background.

Calvinist theology has for some reason been prone to a top-down authoritarian approach (Geneva). I don’t see a direct theological link but it might have to do with seeing two class of people: one special group loved by God, and one created for eternal torment. Maybe combine that with the sovereignty of God (“I’m right with God, and whatever I do has already been pre-determined, here we go, more control to fulfill my / God’s vision)! Islam (not just political Islam, every variant from the Levant to the Turks to Central Asia and the Maghreb) has very very similar tendencies.

Deb wrote:

Perhaps churches need to have pastors sign an agreement that they will not attempt to change the polity of the church, and if they do they’re fired!

Excellent idea.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Try being a man and being subjected to this condescending BS.

Exactly. The movement is very condescending to men *and* women because it assumes that we cannot figure anything out for ourselves without their rule book and their teaching “ministry”, even with the Holy Spirit to teach us. I think the root of this is a spirit of elitism, as Roland Peer noted. The men of the church must heed the Top Men who are the ones in the know, and, in exchange, the lower men get to rule over the women. Sick and twisted.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

How anyone can think it is OK to do what Darville and the staff did in setting up a competing church is beyond me in light of what John 17 says. Wolves among sheep.

Classic case of sheep-stealing. It really sounds like Darville planned to divide and then to alienate so as to come away with a core of the original Church members (sheep) to start his own little fifedom.

When DEB wrote “Perhaps it’s best to start at the beginning… “, I knew this case had history and ‘Wow’ did it ever. All the props were present: ‘man camp’, ‘elder rule’, ‘Church discipline’, and once the stage was set, the work of division (carving up) of a faith community began in earnest ….. and so we see how neo-Cals roll. It’s a vivid, ugly story that needed telling, and I congratulate DEB on her research. ‘WOW’ is right.

Roland Peer wrote:

Calvinist theology has for some reason been prone to a top-down authoritarian approach (Geneva). I don’t see a direct theological link but it might have to do with seeing two class of people: one special group loved by God, and one created for eternal torment. Maybe combine that with the sovereignty of God (“I’m right with God, and whatever I do has already been pre-determined, here we go, more control to fulfill my / God’s vision)! Islam (not just political Islam, every variant from the Levant to the Turks to Central Asia and the Maghreb) has very very similar tendencies.

Your are on track with the theological link. Here is today’s blog from John MacArthur’s site: http://www.gty.org/Blog/B160617. In this blog we find MacArthur’s view of God:
“As Creator, He is entitled to rule over all His creatures any way He pleases. The Potter quite simply has power over the clay to fashion it any way He desires. He makes the laws; He determines the standards; and He judges accordingly. He created everything for His own pleasure; and He has every right to do so. He also has total power to determine the principles by which His creation must function. In short, He has the absolute right to do whatever He determines to do. And because He is righteous, He rules in perfect righteousness, always holding to the highest standard of truth and perfect virtue.”

If it’s true that we become like that which we worship, a pastor who believes in this view of God is moving himself to be like this as he strives to become godly:
“As a pastor, he is entitled to rule over all his church members any way he pleases. The pastor quite simply has authority over the church to fashion it any way he desires. He makes the laws; he determines the standards; and he judges accordingly. He planned everything for his own pleasure; and he has every right to do so. He also has total power to determine the principles by which his church must function. In short, he has the absolute right to do whatever he determines to do. And because he is ordained, he rules in perfect righteousness, always holding to the highest standard of truth and perfect virtue.”

Is this what is happening with the YRR “leaders” or am I making something out of nothing?

Here’s something else that is very important. John MacArthur says this about God’s justice in this blog: “Justice is a legal term that describes the righteousness of divine government. God is a just God. His justice is as unchanging as any other aspect of His character. God cannot change His mind or lower His moral standards. Since He is utterly perfect, any change at all would diminish His perfection—and that would be unthinkable. So His justice is inflexible; His holy nature demands that it be so. … If any creature chafes under God’s rule or rebels against divine government, that creature then falls immediately under the judgment of God. Anyone who does not conform to the will of God incurs the inflexible justice of God.” MacArthur is wrong. I’ve read quite a few articles on this that pretty much say the same thing. Here is one example: http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/06/06/how-the-bible-understands-justice/32339. The Calvinist view of justice is legal retribution. The “Biblical” view of justice is restoration and wholeness. That is a ginormous difference. It’s this small view of God and his justice combined with a fatalistic view of sovereignty and the special status of the elect that seems to fuel the YRR tactics.

The link you provided for Darville’s post on “The Calling of God and Pastoral Search Process” provides an accompanying guide for search committees. I found the following sample questions interesting – I wonder if Calvinist candidates for non-Calvinist church pulpits would answer them honestly. The playbook they have been using in my area suggests not.

Question 21: Describe your understanding of elder-led congregationalism.

Question 25: What do you consider to be nonnegotiable theological issues? Do you hold any unique theological views or personal convictions that have been controversial in your other ministry experiences?

Question 32: What is the role of women in the church and ministry in general?

Question 37: Who are your favorite living theologians, pastors, and authors? Why?

Question 38: What are the most recent books you have read? Who are your biggest
influences in preaching, theology, and leadership?

@ Max:
I read some of those questions to Dee yesterday during our phone conversation. She will be discussing that packet of information on Monday and will share some questions that we believe should be asked. Looking forward to that post!

JYJames wrote:

Common. Lie low for a year or so and then begin to dismantle and reconstruct according to the “agenda”. Most parishioners have a life, need to support their own families, and are naive to dealing with schemes at church of all places.

Has anyone looked at what parts of the country and what types of churches make this tactic more successful than in other places? I’ve been suspecting that it works better in the South by taking advantage of Southern gentility. Their focus seems to be on Southern Baptists, but that does not necessarily mean it’s a Southern thing. I don’t have any hard facts.

Dee,

Praying for your MIL and your family. I’m sure I is a difficult time. Remember to rest and refresh when you can.

@ Ken F:
Don’t know of things beyond the South. However, I do not think the appeals are effective because of Southern gentility. What I have seen are appeals to the Southern Baptist traditional concern over missions and evangelism, concerns over the cultural decline, and many SBC members’ concern over a lack of Biblical literacy in the SBC. Of course, the remedy to these is presented as books by “reliable” teachers and formulas.

Deb wrote:

@ Dave (Eagle):
No. I doubt they would entertain my questions since I am the wrong gender.

All this elder polity is certainly a convenient way to remove some from the decision making process entirely…

@ Lea:

Sorry some = women.

Deb wrote:

Great analogy!

And it ties in with earlier comments about father wounds. King David was not a stellar father figure for Absalom. It does not excuse what he did, but perhaps it helps to explain what we are currently seeing.

@ Ken F:
Same here regarding personal experience. In order to take over an existing traditional church, it is necessary to reassure older members and appeal to their concerns. The appeals I listed are the ones that were effective in taking over a traditional SBC church and turning it Calvinista. Many staff and members were left wondering what happened. Then they left because they were put off by the changes or they were invited to leave or they were “encouraged” to leave or they were disciplined.

dee wrote:

@ Deb:
They have SWAT teams prowling the roofs to watch for our approach.

Hilarious. Da big manly men have to have SWAT teams to protect them against a couple of lowly wimmen!

Lydia wrote:

I recently heard if a local church that hired a full-time Seminary professor to work in a church 20 hours a week for $40,000. In addition to his full time gig at Seminary. I have come to the conclusion they probably don’t do much in either job except wreck havoc.

I led worship at a church that had a full-time seminary professor as a pastor. It wasn’t Calvinist. He just worked a lot. I also went through full-time at SEBTS working a 30-hour a week job. It was crazy hard, but possible. I don’t think it’d be possible at a large church, but could be done at a smaller one.

As a former SEBTS student, I’m so disappointed after reading this. I didn’t even know how to respond. I’m not familiar with Rocky Mount, but while I was there, I and other students were certainly alarmed at the forced move toward Calvinism.

I will say that SEBTS, when I was there 10 years ago, was very slow about getting things done and sometimes a bit unorganized. They could have put that video up before all this happened, and just never got around to taking it down. I would hope that as this gets out, they take it down.

ishy wrote:

I led worship at a church that had a full-time seminary professor as a pastor. It wasn’t Calvinist. He just worked a lot. I also went through full-time at SEBTS working a 30-hour a week job. It was crazy hard, but possible. I don’t think it’d be possible at a large church, but could be done at a smaller one.

Moore, Setzer, and other big and not so big names have been doing this for years. What is the reason? Money? Moore and Setzer make 6 figures in their day jobs. Moore was main teaching pastor in a well heeled mega (Ezells former church)

They claim to be churning out qualified candidates for such positions. The pew sitters end up paying them twice through church salary and also the CP. But the pew sitters are thrilled to have a Seminary man.

I am obviously not talking about the full time Seminary student working part time at a church.

Max wrote:

When the congregation voted that down (they were onto the scheme by this time), he recruited enough like-minded members from a nearby reformed church to swing the vote his way a few months later.

Knock-and-drag and bus them in from The Projects?

Max wrote:

you just can’t trust all pastoral candidates these days folks – sad, but true … vet them rigorously, check their social media for reformed chatter, ask tough questions, but above all pray your guts out for discernment.

Have the search committee submit the final candidate to a complete psychological exam by a trained professional. If your search committee is not doing this, explain why they should. If they don’t, offer to pay for it yourself. If they still don’t have the pastor candidate evaluated, it is time to ready a lifeboat and abandon ship when needed.

There is a better then 30% chance of getting saddled with a narcissist and I would bet this guy is an NPD. Tearing apart a church to gain unbridled authority is a near guarantee of an NPD at work. It is time for pew sitters to wise up, this is now common place.

dee wrote:

They have SWAT teams prowling the roofs to watch for our approach.

This is only very marginally related to your comment, but –

(Warning. The following clip contains zombie brains/blood shots, and at least two cuss words):
Dawn of the Dead (8/11) Movie CLIP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS6_Y6r5r-8

These guys are like warring tribal chieftains. Native American or the blue-painted Picts of old, alpha male dominance is the name of the game.

Ken F wrote:

(Quoting J Mac)

“As Creator, He is entitled to rule over all His creatures any way He pleases.

It’s kind of sad and telling how much some preachers obsessively focus on rule and authority.

I suppose it’s true that God can rule over all his creation any way he sees fit, but even in the Bible, God lays out (or we’re told, or we can deduce from some stories) that there are some things God will not do.

God also chooses to summarize his essence as being love (1 John 4:8), not authority.

I know that some people stumble over some of the Old Testament stories of God ordering the annihilation of some foes of ancient Israel and so forth, but if you really stop to think about it, God also showed mercy at times in the OT.

God repeatedly sent prophets to warn even foreign nations – he gave them a chance to change, rather than wipe them out.

God chastised Jonah for lacking compassion on Israel’s enemies (whom God spared in that case, since they repented), see Jonah Ch 4,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah%204

Then you have things like Genesis 18:16-33, “Abraham Pleads for Sodom”.

Abraham whittles God down to ten men, and the text says God was willing to spare the cities:

Then he [Abraham] said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

In other words, as I see it, there were plenty of instances in the Bible where God was not (or is not) AS consumed with authority, rulership, and power, as some of these preachers are.

One of the things I take away from the Bible is that if you lack love and compassion for people – but are all-powerful, or really educated, and have great doctrine – is that you are a big nothing. (Paul gets into this in 1 Corinthians 13:1-2.)

My understanding of Satan is that he was very powerful (not as powerful as God), but one thing that made him a big jerk, is that all he wanted was even more power, worship, and to rule over others. Satan didn’t care about loving people.

It looks to me (again, based on my understanding of the Bible) as though God is more interested in having relationships of affection and mutuality with his creation, than he is in throwing his weight around and being The Boss.

God wasn’t so much into authority, but some preachers today are certainly preoccupied with having authority.

ishy wrote:

I’m sure the big names have enough staff to do much of the day-to-day stuff.

That does not exactly sound good in a non profit ministry venue. Take Moore, for example. What does a Seminary Dean do? I am familiar with what they do at secular universities.

It is all so personality driven. It is all about being front and center. They honestly believe that whatever comes out of their mouth is brilliant and God inspired.

Daisy wrote:

(Quoting J Mac)

“As Creator, He is entitled to rule over all His creatures any way He pleases.

I wouldn’t know MacArthur from Adam, but he sounds like he has the authority to lay down the rules for God, as to what God can and cannot do. This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of result of smug unbridled pride, that some man would claim to know the mind of God.

Daisy wrote:

It looks to me (again, based on my understanding of the Bible) as though God is more interested in having relationships of affection and mutuality with his creation, than he is in throwing his weight around and being The Boss

I spent a good deal of time trying to understand Islam through reading and discussions with Muslin friends. The Calvinistic view of God is very much like the Islamic view. In Islam, God is so transcendent and unknowable that it results in practical agnosticism. They have 99 names for God (like the 99 topics in The Gospel Project?). One of their names for God is deceiver. They say that there is no such thing as inherent goodness. Rather, God declares what is good and what is bad. Sounds pretty much like Calvinism.

I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I’d just like to say there is far more disclosure in a merger or purchase of a bank (havng been through several successful purchases/mergers and one explosively failed merger, which was virtually unheard of). Is it possible that evil, too big to fail financial institutions have more morals than sealth Calvinista pastors?

Bill M wrote:

Have the search committee submit the final candidate to a complete psychological exam by a trained professional.

Well, one thing’s for sure … some of these folks are not in their right spiritual mind. There is nothing holy and pure about church takeover behavior, even if the New Calvinist big dogs say it’s necessary to restore the “right” theology.

Daisy wrote:

It looks to me (again, based on my understanding of the Bible) as though God is more interested in having relationships of affection and mutuality with his creation, than he is in throwing his weight around and being The Boss.

God wasn’t so much into authority, but some preachers today are certainly preoccupied with having authority.

This is a big aspect of the ESS debate i.e. how the word “head” is defined. In modern English it is taken to mean “boss” or “authority,” but this isn’t what it means. The original language coveys Christ’s headship (and used as a model for husbands) as one of servanthood, who provides life and growth. Jesus is head of or to the church, but never head “over” her in the sense of a ruler or a boss. But the guys who promote male rulership can’t seem to sacrifice themselves, take on the role of servants, letting go of their “authority.” Funny how they claim to simultaneously be following Christ.

Max wrote:

There is nothing holy and pure about church takeover behavior, even if the New Calvinist big dogs say it’s necessary to restore the “right” theology.

Ask the Killing Fields of Cambodia about what’s necessary to restore the “right” Ideology.

Lydia wrote:

Deception in the SBC is now the normal.

They have learned Deception well from their Master, the Father of Lies.

BL wrote:

They remind me of Absalom standing outside the gate, unbeknownst to David, greeting people who were coming to see David, and giving them help & advice himself (while denigrating David and his way of doing things).

For a good case study on bad parenting and family dysfunction, start reading in 2 Samuel 13. Absalom (David’s third son) killed his half-brother Amnon (David’s first son by a different mother), over the ‘the late unpleasantness’ committed against Absalom’s sister. David never confronted either son, but seemed glad that Absalom took care of the problem. What a mess.

Christiane wrote:

This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of result of smug unbridled pride, that some man would claim to know the mind of God.

CHRISTIANE, especially since Rome is the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

Christiane wrote:

Daisy wrote:

(Quoting J Mac)

“As Creator, He is entitled to rule over all His creatures any way He pleases.

I wouldn’t know MacArthur from Adam, but he sounds like he has the authority to lay down the rules for God, as to what God can and cannot do. This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of result of smug unbridled pride, that some man would claim to know the mind of God.

It also sounds really Islamic to me. As a Muslim scholar once insisted to Scott Hahn, “Allah is not a father. He is Master!”

siteseer wrote:

It’s so inconsistent.

The in consistencies are everywhere. John Piper, who is one of the most quoted of the YRR leaders, is probably the most inconsistent. Everything he write is a confusing mess of gibberish. I don’t know why more people don’t see through this. Maybe they assume they don’t understand him because he is so intelligent. I look at his site almost everyday. I guess by now I shouldn’t be so surprised by how much he contradicts himself daily. For example, this is what Piper posted today in his daily devotional: “When we believe in the sovereignty of God — in the right and power of God to elect and then bring hardened sinners to faith and salvation — then we will be able to pray with no inconsistency, and with great biblical promises for the conversion of the lost. Thus God has pleasure in this kind of praying because it ascribes to him the right and honor to be the free and sovereign God that he is in election and salvation.” Did he say anything meaningful?

@ Paula Rice:
have I offended a McArthur fan?

I was part of all this at FBC-rocky mount. The story is accurate. Most of the people who left are/were “mesmerized” as you put it. I can’t argue with Darville’s teaching from the pulpit. There was nothing that raised red flags to me. It was the behind the scenes stuff that was scary. He has his “yes men and women” surrounding him. They do the dirty work. The way he puffs up and builds up those in his immediate circle is amazing to watch. Constant flattery….he’s a master. One of the pastors was quoted as saying numerous times they couldn’t stay at a church where the congregation was not submissive to leadership God had ordained.

molly245 wrote:

I am not a Baptist and am unaware of all the nuances….Can anyone explain the significance of the New Calvinists leaving the NIV version and going to the ESB?

Crossway. It’s all about Mammon.Ken F wrote:

The Calvinistic view of God is very much like the Islamic view. In Islam, God is so transcendent and unknowable that it results in practical agnosticism

Yes. Which is why they rarely dig into Jesus except for passing references. Jesus does not fit the determinist model God they promote.

Ken F wrote:

He is much more consistent in his theology than John Piper, which is one of the reasons he is seen as an authority on theological matters. His study Bible is quite popular.

Which I’m told is very similar to the study materials at a Madrassa in Pakistan.

@ Christiane:
CHRISTIANE, yet another subterfuge?

SUB’TERFUGE, noun [Latin subter and fugio, to flee.] Literally, that to which a person resorts for escape or concealment; hence, a shift; an evasion; an artifice employed to escape censure or the force of an argument, or to justify opinions or conduct.

Ken F wrote:

Did he say anything meaningful?

Haha! Piper wore me out years ago trying to get through his books. Sheesh! Wish I had had someone like you to talk to back then. I was surrounded by Piper fans, many of whom were non calvinist!

Listening to or reading Piper always made me think of a John Wayne quote: the only way he could say more would be to talk less.

:o)

@ Paula Rice:
Hi PAULA,
I’m not the one evading my question. 🙂

Christiane wrote:

I’m not the one evading my question.

Hi CHRISTIANE, you are entertaining to observe. Please, carry on. I’m amused!

Ken F wrote:

“As Creator, He is entitled to rule over all His creatures any way He pleases.”

Let us remember that God cannot ‘please’ to sin, though. God is love.

Psalm 25:10
“All the paths of the Lord are lovingkindness and truth”

I think you are right, Ken.

@ DustInTheWind:
Very sorry for your experience!

Lydia wrote:

If Only They would learn from other people’s experiences because I was the same way. It never dawned on me early on that I was dealing with complete deceivers.

I totally agree. I had to experience it first hand but then had to step back to see it clearly. Those on the periphery thought all was well, much of the corruption was only visible from within. Unfortunately those on the inside were flattered by the deceiver. They were being groomed and were unable to see him for who he is.

It still amazes me still that this con works so well. At first I didn’t even think it possible and had nagging doubts but now after a few years I have read the same story over and over and over.

molly245 wrote:

Can anyone explain the significance of the New Calvinists leaving the NIV version and going to the ESB?

The ESV is the sword of choice by New Calvinists for several reasons. It has been approved by New Calvinist icons; it is published by Crossway, the Calvinist publishing house; carrying it is a sign that you are in the reformed movement; the ESV Study Bible contains lots of Calvinist commentary. Other than that, it is a fairly harmless version comparable to the NIV in translation.

DustInTheWind wrote:

I can’t argue with Darville’s teaching from the pulpit. There was nothing that raised red flags to me. It was the behind the scenes stuff that was scary.

Well said and fairly easy to find elsewhere, too.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

I don’t have anything against the guy, or even his theology, but I struggle to understand how he has a platform. He is not a good communicator.

I’m with you on this. The more I read and listen to Piper to more stunned I become. His theoflawgical teachings should be sounding all kinds of alarms, but people keep buying his books. Maybe the point is to lull us into some kind of hypnotic submission.

@ Ken F:
But seriously, I think the internet exposed a lot. I think Piper’s early books had a good editor. Once he started trying to create regular web content any semblance of beauty or order disappeared from his works.

DustInTheWind wrote:

One of the pastors was quoted as saying numerous times they couldn’t stay at a church where the congregation was not submissive to leadership God had ordained.

Creepy!!

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
It’s the old Reisinger Founders playbook that is so ingrained by the leaders the YRR don’t even have to read it. It is SOP.

What horror that these men believe they are glorifying God by deceiving people. How there can be any trust or unity with these types is beyond me. I would not trust them with my family recipe.

There have been disasterous movements in history that followed a similar path. They are the perfect example of blind guides.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
How far back are you going to ‘sane Piper’? I go back to 1995 and “Future Grace” which read like a black hole of mazes.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

Daisy wrote: “At this point in time, I just wanted to comment on…
“Man Camp.” Lame. Super lame. insert rolling eye emoji here.”

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote: “Try being a man and being subjected to this condescending BS.”
+++++++++++

at least you’re not invisible & can tell them it’s condescending BS and they would hear you.

@ DustInTheWind:
So sorry you had to go through that, but also thankful that you did get through it. We know exactly what you mean about the behind-the-scenes flattery and sometimes intimidation. It is a false power religion.

@ roebuck:
The ESV is a revision of the RSV. My understanding is very little was changed between the RSV to the ESV. My thought which I didn’t make clear enough is that the more “ivory tower” accepted translation before the ESV was the NASB. John MacArther Study Bible was NASB for years. So the NASB was the Bible of choice by those who thought themselves to be “serious” Bible students. Now the ESV holds that distinction because the neoCals consider themselves to more “serious” and needed a new translation to show just how serious and superior they were. It’s just marketing. It’s not like anybody has found anything knew to translate in the last fifty years.

@ roebuck:
When I do studies I have several translations I like to look to (which I would recommend everyone do) but for just my day to day reading I love the NKJV. But I do have a literal stack of Bibles available. I want a new amplified Bible and I’m thinking of buying one of Joyce Meyer’s because those are the nicer ones and it would make me feel good knowing I’m buying something that would make a Calvinist head explode.

@ Christiane:
A church plant? That’s like calling an awful divorce a “family plant”- Also members were hand picked and only certain members received an invitation to the “church plant”

mirele wrote:

Is it possible that evil, too big to fail financial institutions have more morals than sealth Calvinista pastors?

Yes. What are they teaching at Mohler U?

Celia wrote:

But I do have a literal stack of Bibles available.

So do I, including a couple of off-beat ones. I have a beautiful hardbound New Testament in 2 volumes, newly translated by Orthodox monks at a monastery out in Colorado. It purports to very accuarely convey the feeling of the Greek verb tenses, and is quite diffent from anything else I’ve encountered. You know, instead of ‘do this’, it’s ‘be doing this!’.

But for day to day, yes, the NKJV for me…

Dee, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family during this difficult time. {{{HUGS}}}

I have posted a new update on the open discussion thread…

http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-10/#comment-260214

Christiane wrote:

He sounds confused, like he has taken his God of Wrath and created a Jesus of Wrath. It’s not what I expected to read from someone so prominent in the evangelical world. Did Piper have a breakdown? Is he okay? It happens sometimes.

I keep wondering why he hasn’t shot his mouth off (over Twitter) regarding the Orlando Nightclub Massacre. He’s usually been first with the itchy Twitter finger whenever something like this happens. I can only conclude one of his subordinates disabled his Twitter account before he could Tweet something really stupid and Truly Reformed with his Fluttering hands.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Lydia wrote:

It never dawned on me early on that I was dealing with complete deceivers.

I had a SBC pastor who is now a professor at a Neo-Cal seminary who outright told his young sycophantic seminary lemmings that they should essentially lie to gain control of a church before introducing Calvinism.

The Cause so Righteous it justifies any evil whatsoever to bring it about.

Citizen Robespierre and Comrade Pol Pot would agree.

Lydia wrote:

Which is why they rarely dig into Jesus except for passing references. Jesus does not fit the determinist model God they promote.

As in passing reference to the Prophet Isa?

DustInTheWind wrote:

He has his “yes men and women” surrounding him. They do the dirty work. The way he puffs up and builds up those in his immediate circle is amazing to watch. Constant flattery….he’s a master.

“RULERS OF TOMORROW! MASTER RACE!”
— Ralph Bakshi, Wizards

Lavender wrote:

The situation at FBCRM is sad. Families split, going to FBC or the new church “split.” Friends no longer friends. You run into one another in town and feel really uncomfortable, unable to discuss real issues. Praise God FBC is really healthy financially (especially after the departure of the large salaries). How does this church explain what happened to the Body? There are lots of folks that are confused as to what took place.

Been there. I’m so sorry, it hurts and to be honest with you, it’s something you never really get over all the way. At least in my experience.

You know, it just occurred to me why the Neo-Calvinists seek to take over non-Calvinist churches. They're lousy at Evangelism. After all, when you don't believe that Christ died for the sin of everyone, what kind of gospel can you offer people? Oh, that's right. They don't even believe that the gospel of Christ is an *offer* to begin with!

Lavender wrote:

outright

That is a great point about the departure of the big salaries. This is one way they pillage churches that are financially sound or debt free. They bring in comrades and put them on staff. Many of them are paid elders who are given some title.

I still cannot figure out how the Acts 29 Neo Cal planted Sojourn churches here pay their huge staff of pastors and elders. NAMB? There are so many like this!

@ Darlene:
It’s about converting the converted to Calvin. That is how their brand of evangelicalism works in pracice.

@ Celia:
Until I started asking questions. I had no idea how political translations were. It is big money. Think of all the churches buying pew Bibles. A LifeWay manager told me years back the Holman was commissioned because of NIV royalties they did not want to pay. But this was before the Calvinistas started Hawking the ESV. They have good reason to help Crossway by promoting it.

Lydia wrote:

@ roebuck:
Some call it Chrislam.

I am beginning to see that. And I am beginning to see new manifestations of ancient heresies. I suppose it never ends… until it ends…

Darlene wrote:

They’re lousy at Evangelism.

Evangelism to the reformed mind is harvesting the elect, not reaching the lost. I can go anywhere on planet earth, look any person in the eye, and say “God loves YOU – Jesus died for YOU.” A Calvinist cannot do that and stay true to his theology. What love is this?

Here’s an example of “evangelism” by a “lead pastor” at an SBC-YRR church plant near me. I listened to his sermon podcast after he had returned from a mission trip to West Africa. During his “sermon”, he noted that a young man had approached him in a village and told him that he had been reading a New Testament given to him by a previous American visitor. He said he had some questions about John, chapter 3 and basically asked the pastor “What must I do to be saved?” To which the young reformer responded “You don’t have to do anything. God’s grace has been extended to you.” What?!! No message of the Cross, nothing about Jesus dying for him, no praying a sinner’s prayer with him, no repentance, no accepting Jesus into his heart?!! What gospel is this?

roebuck wrote:

Calvinism is not Christianity.

The central message of Christianity points folks to Jesus. There is a scarlet thread woven throughout Scripture. Calvinists talk a lot about God, but very little about Jesus.

@ Celia:
I have only seen one adult leader guide on the first release of TGP which used the ESV. I do know there was a lot of push back to its Reformed roots and slant so they might have mixed up the translations used in subsequent releases.

The Gospel Project was a losing battle. It was kept under wraps and then had a media blitz with evangelicals. The non Cals did not know what hit them.

I am former SBC myself. My view is once you know what is going on, you can’t unknow. Besides, at ground zero they now own all the SBC churches. Successfully infiltrated by overripe boys. Most pew sitters have no clue. They mistake their totalitarian niceness and top down changes as just youthful ministry zeal….at least for the first 1-4 years. By then, it is too late so they either leave orjust drink the kool aid because it is easier and they are accepted by those still there. It is sad to watch.

I wish more split like the one in the story. It is actually more healthy in the long run.

roebuck wrote:

Darlene wrote:

You know, it just occurred to me why the Neo-Calvinists seek to take over non-Calvinist churches. They’re lousy at Evangelism. After all, when you don’t believe that Christ dies for the sin of everyone, what kind of gospel can you offer people? Oh, that’s right. They don’t even believe that the gospel of Christ is an *offer* to begin with!

Darlene, I think you’re on to something. I just had a sudden realization of my own… Calvinism is not Christianity. There, I said it.

You better get your mithril coat on…

Max wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Some call it Chrislam.

Rick Warren has been hanging out in that camp.

So has Paige Patterson and Ronnie Floyd. It’s where the fame and money is.

@ Lydia:

I wonder how they justify paying royalties for the ESV when the whole purpose of the Holman was to avoid that expense in the SBC literature? We've experienced a Calvinist takeover and watched several through friends. We knew exactly what was happening and tried to sound the alarm but people could not believe that these wonderful young men would do the things they eventually did. I knew enough about their MO that I was predicting each step of the way and still people were surprised. Now that poor church has zero staff because once some of the old stubborn deacons realized they were going to lose their power if they didn't start pushing back the three young staff members resigned all at the same time.

@ roebuck:
Calvinists don’t grow their churches by evangelism They grow churches by taking members from other churches. It’s all about conversion to Calvinism. Look at the SBC. How many church plants in the last many years and yet membership and baptism continues to decline. All those new church plants are not converting new Christians they’re just stealing members from other churches.

Celia wrote:

@ roebuck:
Calvinists don’t grow their churches by evangelism They grow churches by taking members from other churches. It’s all about conversion to Calvinism. Look at the SBC. How many church plants in the last many years and yet membership and baptism continues to decline. All those new church plants are not converting new Christians they’re just stealing members from other churches.

It’s all so sad. Who are these members they are stealing? What kind of Christians are they? Who are the mega-church Christians anyway? Etc.? The term ‘Christian’ seems to mean just about anything and nothing any more. Seems like very strange times to me…

Ron Oommen wrote:

Too true. We’re not important enough for the rings of power to worry about.

Until we are. Like the Hobbits.

That is an uplifting thought… 🙂

Ron Oommen wrote:

We’re not important enough for the rings of power to worry about.

Until we are. Like the Hobbits.

“For the time will soon come when Hobbits will shape the fortunes of all.”
(Galadriel, LOTR)

@ Ron Oommen:

There was a guy around these blogs a while ago who explained that the whole paradigm that Western Christianity has been based on is wrong because it starts with Augustinism. This is why Calvinists believe that only their definitions of words like Sovereign are the only definitions.

@ Celia:
You know what is so sad? People who sent their hard earned money to the CP– trusted their seminaries. They trust them to prepare young men for ministry.

I don’t buy into that model anymore but I understand the thinking that goes with it. And the confusion people have in churches going through this who don’t know the history or the bigger picture.

I honestly don’t think it can be fixed. We are talking about something seriously sinister. The SBC has churned out thousands and thousands of young men with indoctrinated personality disorders who believe God has called them to deceive people.

I just think we need to call it what it is. It is not a simple matter of doctrinal differences. We have coexisted with the frozen chosen and social gospel Cals for a long time. They did not pick pockets or try to deceive.

It is much more serious than doctrinal differences. They simply want power for the sake of power. They were taught that they are entitled to it. That they are special. For this to end, the money has to dry up.

Linda wrote:

“oh no I reject them and adhere to Biblical theology.”

Yes, I’ve heard that baloney. They are the same young reformers who claim to be “historical” Baptists. Yet another smoke screen to deceive the pew.

Celia wrote:

I personally prefer NKJV – love the language – still beautiful but somewhat more modern than KJV.

Doth thou sayeth that thine NKJV is more modern than sayeth the KJV? Hark! Upon my word! I do sayeth that thou has spoken truly! And I must also declare that I, too, along with my kinsmen, believeth it to be so as well! Upon my oath! I find the beauties of the New King James Version to be of unestimatible worth!

Celia wrote:

So the Calvinists exploit this by first telling them what they actually believe – “you think you save yourself”

This one infuriates me. It stops people cold.

I just ask them why they think I am Jesus Christ. :o)

(That statement is a first step in getting control. Getting people to stop thinking about and living out sanctification, to use a churcy word. It works! But, It is ridiculous. Fire back, folks. They are really little cowardly bullies)

@ Lydia:
Personally, I think they’ve sown the seeds for the collapse of the SBC the way they’ve indoctrinated the YRR. These kids are not going to be able to handle real life for any length of time and it’s only going to lead to a lot of destroyed lives.

@ dee:
They’re eventually going to run out of members to steal and won’t be able to replace the members who leave their churches after they experience all the abuse.

@ Celia:
Oh I agree. I have seen major cracks already. I have seen one totally sold out to SBTS and all things Neo Calvin later become athiest because real life tragedy happened and they could not handle such a hateful God who determined what happened to them. Left ministry.

The Puritans died out for a reason. Their descendants became Unitarian, Universalists, etc.

It is an exhausting religion full of vitriol and injustice.

Lydia wrote:

We have coexisted with the frozen chosen and social gospel Cals for a long time. They did not pick pockets or try to deceive.

I agree with that. I actually do not think that the *main* problem with the YRR is Calvinism. I think it is a lust for power of a relatively few men who have persuaded legions of young people that YRR is the way for them to be authentic, serious Christians who can make a difference and recover the Gospel. That is ridiculous, of course, but young people are vulnerable to a Grand Narrative with them at the center. For all the talk of avoiding “man-centered religion” the YRR movement is nothing but man-centered. And male-centered.

The reason I say that Calvinism is not the *main* problem is that I have seen the exact same behavior by a pastor who had strictly congregational rule. No elders. He is not a Calvinist. He is, I believe, narcissistic and rules *his* church. That is what I am most afraid of. Pure narcissism in the name of Jesus.

@ Gram3:

Just some thoughts. I think Calvinism makes that lust for power a prerequisite. The interpretive filter behind it is inherently about power and control. Their God is all about power. Calvin himself, was all about power and control. Power is the life blood of that ST. History is a pretty good teacher on this. From Geneva to the Boers to the pro slaver Boyce.

Conversely, I saw the seekers had to hide their ruthlessness. They were all about stage personas, the show, whipping up emotion and entertaining. Church discipline would not work there to the extent it has worked with the Neo Cals. It was more of a social club with a plastic Jesus. All feel good stuff.

@ Muff Potter:
Never had contact with Calvary Chapel, but I hear it was a tightly run ship.

Christiane wrote:

Daisy wrote:
(Quoting J Mac)
“As Creator, He is entitled to rule over all His creatures any way He pleases.
I wouldn’t know MacArthur from Adam, but he sounds like he has the authority to lay down the rules for God, as to what God can and cannot do. This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of result of smug unbridled pride, that some man would claim to know the mind of God.

John MacArthur was sold to me by other NeoCalvinists as “Biblical” and solid and in The Word, and not like the entertainment mega churches. I went to a new church plant about a decade ago that was started by a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary in Southern California.

I witnessed authoritarian control over members, punishment for dissent (being called in to meetings by the pastors/elders and not being told what it was about), public denouncements, excommunications, and shunnings.

I witnessed good and godly families flee the church, elders and their families who helped start the church, the conservative, married church secretary left, singles left, couples, and just many solid people — never to be heard from again.

John MacArthur’s college (The Master’s College) and seminary really utilize a great deal of mind control over the students, constant questioning, etc, according to the reports of those who planned their escapes from such insufferable control.

I have come to see JMac as a brand and his seminary as a franchisee training ground. The young men are basically being trained to start a franchise like JMac’s.

There’s a complete lack of love in the system. (There are loving, decent people who get caught up in it, of course.)

Gram3 wrote:

Heart broken wrote:

Also members were hand picked and only certain members received an invitation to the “church plant”

The Elect of the Elect. How special they are!

The Inner Ring of the Inner Ring.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Celia wrote:
@ roebuck:
Calvinists don’t grow their churches by evangelism They grow churches by taking members from other churches.
AKA “Sheep Rustling”.
And just who is it who enters the sheepfold to Steal?

I wouldn’t describe it as sheep rustling. I think that people are dissatisfied with problems at one church and go looking for another church. I went from a mega church (where I’d been invited by a friend) to what seemed like a much smaller, more stable church (several hundred people).

Like Gram3 has pointed out on other threads people frequently miss the red flags/warning signs at the new church, that seems so much different than their former church. I did. I went from an anonymous, superficial mega church to a controlling, authoritarian, Comp-teaching, NeoCalvinist church complete with excommunications and shunnings for the slightest dissent. It was Salem Witch Trials II.

Ken F wrote:

Has he been set up as a distraction to confuse people so that the dirty pastors/elders can do their work?

Last night I posted some links showing Piper’s contradictory teachings. I think his teachings are purposely meant to confuse the flock. That’s bad enough, but this morning I checked his site – the feature article is by Voddie Baucham. It’s been a while since Piper has featured Baucham. He is among the best of the best when it comes to abuse. Here’s one example of many articles about him:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistparenting/2016/05/parenting-advice-that-correlates-with-abuse/.

I think my kindle bible is an esv because it was either free or really cheap. I have nivs, nkgb and a precious moments bible at home (and I have no idea what that translation is 🙂

Lydia wrote:

social club with a plastic Jesus. All feel good stuff.

You’ve just described an SBC-YRR church plant near me. Cool preacher, groovy band, feel good – sway to the beat, coffee shop, free donuts, come as you are, nothing expected, plastic Jesus and cookie-cutter followers. But, if you step out of line, the elders will come knocking to discipline, shun and/or excommunicate.

Deb wrote:

I also use the NASB quite a bit. I don’t need to go out and buy ANOTHER Bible.

I prefer the KJV – the version the Apostles carried 🙂

Actually, I have several translations in my library for Scripture comparison, but keep retreating back to my KJV Thompson Chain Reference Bible where I have a lifetime of underlines and marginal notes.

As noted earlier, I’m sure Crossway is tickled to death (laughing all the way to the bank) when New Calvinist icons (who they publish) promote their ESV.

mot wrote:

As long as you stay in line all is well. Step out of line and you are in big trouble.

John Piper even excommunicated his own son, Abraham! (true story)

Another son, Barnabas, wrote a book entitled “The Pastor’s Kid” where he talks about growing up in the Piper household. In an interview pertaining to the book, he noted “Those who are huge fans might be surprised to know that our family has a lot of tensions and quirks. We have dysfunction and conflict. We don’t always get along very well. It’s not the idyllic repository of peace and knowledge they might have painted a picture of in their heads.”

Beware of smoke and mirrors in the ministries of New Calvinist leaders.

Lowlandseer wrote:

The ESV Study Bible suggests that it is permissible to conceal truth in order to mislead. In the section Biblical Ethics: An Overview it asks that very question. This is the answer – “..whether or not one believes that God ever approves of false statements, there are surely conditions under which it is appropriate to tell someone less than one knows or believes.

Whoa! There it is! Now we know why these young Calvinists have no qualms about lying to non-Calvinist church search committees about their theological persuasion! If it’s for the good of the movement, it’s OK.

In an upstream comment, Lydia made a comment about Chrislam. If you’ve ever done any reading about Muhammad, you may know about his treatment of the Quraysh tribe to gain control over them. When they outnumbered his own army, he formed a (false) peace treaty with them and then broke it when his army was of sufficient strength to overpower them. To this day, “The Quarysh Model” is used in the Middle East … it’s OK to lie to your enemy. (America take note when you sit down at the peace table).

To the YRR, I borrow an Abraham Lincoln quote “It is never right to do wrong.”

Max wrote:

To the YRR, I borrow an Abraham Lincoln quote “It is never right to do wrong.”

And from Jesus, I borrow the following. Regarding those who operate by stealth and deception in the church, Jesus said “You are of your father the devil, and it is your will to practice the desires [which are characteristic] of your father … When he lies, he speaks what is natural to him, for he is a liar and the father of lies and half-truths” (John 8:44 AMP).

Just what have these folks been “elected” to?!

Max wrote:

But, if you step out of line, the elders will come knocking to discipline, shun and/or excommunicate.

You will get put on a “care” list like Karen Hinckley so you can be “cared for” if you allow yourself to be “pushed under” “care.” But your alternative is to “resign into thin air” and the elders must not let that happen.

Gram3 wrote:

But your alternative is to “resign into thin air” and the elders must not let that happen.

Lord, you would think there would be enough horror stories floating around in communities where this occurs that those churches would be empty by now! One thing I’ve noticed about sheep on the farms in my area – when one sheep moves, the rest follow, even if it is not a good idea. But in this case, it would be a great idea to take the lead of a sheep which goes astray (rebels against the patriarchy). Too many stay, I guess, because sheep need a shepherd and will trust them to the bitter end.

Lowlandseer wrote:

To say to the pastor bluntly ‘Your sermon was terrible’, would not be edifying but destructive

I actually did that once on the way out of a church I visited. It was true – that sermon was terrible and filled with error! But, of course, I told that pastor the truth in love. He looked at me like a raccoon caught in the headlights of a car when I pointed out what Scripture ‘really’ said about his sermon topic. It was not time to edify, but time to rebuke and correct the brother. I always hoped he found my comment to be helpful in future sermon preparation.

Nancy2 wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Their God is all about power.

And their two-faced, backstabbing God delegates power to them.

Because they are conforming themselves to His image.

Max wrote:

Just what have these folks been “elected” to?!

Holding the Whip by Divine Right.

Celia wrote:

@ Lowlandseer:
Ok. The ESV as a Bible translation is not bad but the neo Cals have added “study helps” that are bad. It’s the actually Bible part but the added helps.

Should read It’s NOT the actually Biblical text but he added study helps that are bad.

Lydia wrote:

I am trying to remember exactly how Voddie phrased it but he basically taught that older men need the attention of young females and that is why their relationship with their daughter was important. It was in some series he did on male authority.

I remember it as something like “As a man gets old, his eye turns to younger women. That’s why God gives him daughters.”

Go down that road without the word salad and you get “Incest is Best!” and Craster’s Keep:
http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Craster

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:

Just some thoughts. I think Calvinism makes that lust for power a prerequisite. The interpretive filter behind it is inherently about power and control. Their God is all about power. Calvin himself, was all about power and control. Power is the life blood of that ST. History is a pretty good teacher on this. From Geneva to the Boers to the pro slaver Boyce

“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort

“The only goal of Power is POWER. And POWER consists of inflicting maximum suffering among the powerless. Do you want to see the Future, 6079 Smith W? A boot stamping on a man’s face. Forever. LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!”
— Comrade O’Brian, Inner Party, Airstrip One, Oceania, 1984

“For the hearts of Men are easily corrupted, and a Ring of POWER has a Will of its own.”
— J.R.R.Tolkien(?)

Witness wrote:

Rather than having the belief that God did not will it for the church at this time, they have the arrogance of deciding that we were all sinners and not the Elect.

Whatever would God do on J-Day without Pastor Wormtongue at His right hand to tell Him who’s Really Elect and who’s NOT?

Max wrote:

In an upstream comment, Lydia made a comment about Chrislam. If you’ve ever done any reading about Muhammad, you may know about his treatment of the Quraysh tribe to gain control over them. When they outnumbered his own army, he formed a (false) peace treaty with them and then broke it when his army was of sufficient strength to overpower them. To this day, “The Quarysh Model” is used in the Middle East … it’s OK to lie to your enemy. (America take note when you sit down at the peace table).

From an unpublished SF novella of mine:

She looked up at Tan with blazing green eyes. His ears started to drop.

“And not just attempted assassination. The way they attempted it. Under cover of a peace overture. Do you know the human word ‘Hudna’?”

Tan didn’t, but Astrid continued, emphasizing each word.

“Old Arabic for ‘ceasefire’ or ‘truce’. Since the Islamic Wars, Chinglish for ‘Pretend to make peace with the Infidel, then when his guard is down, strike and kill!”

siteseer wrote:

been

You just hit the nail on the head. It’s the hurt that is really difficult to get past. How did your Church move forward. There are so many hurting. Ezekiel 34

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I am trying to remember exactly how Voddie phrased it but he basically taught that older men need the attention of young females and that is why their relationship with their daughter was important. It was in some series he did on male authority.

I remember it as something like “As a man gets old, his eye turns to younger women. That’s why God gives him daughters.”

Go down that road without the word salad and you get “Incest is Best!” and Craster’s Keep:
http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Craster

That was such a creepy quote!!

Also kind of reminds me of a song on crazy ex girlfriend ‘I love my daughter but not ina creepy way: https://youtu.be/wSj2wy7ZJVo

Christiane wrote:

I’ve wondered for years HOW this great and secret knowledge of ‘being elect’ is conveyed. LOL, your comment gives one perspective: the neo-Cals will tell God who’s in and who’s out.

My ex-church was a NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church. The pastors/elders sneak in The Elect brain-washing in a variety of ways. When they introduce new members they say that God knew before the beginning of time that this person was among The Elect, chosen to be saved.

If anyone disagrees with them, asks a question, has critical thinking skills, they are called into meetings with the pastors/elders, not told what it’s about, not permitted to bring a witness, and bullied behind closed doors by pastors/elders, screamed at, etc., and the chairman of the elder board reads a Scripture that you “must not be one of us”, and basically to get ready to be shunned/excommunicated.

Then the pastors/elders hold closed door meetings, after the Sunday church service, with all members present. They announce that [name of man or woman] is under church discipline, how long they’ve worked with that person to no avail, lie to church members, tell everyone to “pursue that person” (basically criminally harass them/stalk them) “to repent”, and/or ‘have nothing to do with them, they aren’t one of us.’

A godly, sweet, kind (volunteers with the elderly at convalescent hospitals and with the mentally ill at group homes), giving, middle-aged, married, professional woman had it with this bizarre, authoritarian church and left for a saner denomination. The senior pastor went to her home and screamed at her, according to my interview with her. He told the congregation that she “wasn’t submissive to her husband” who was still going to the church.

This dear woman responded to this harassment by moving out of the family home to an undisclosed location not even known to her husband, disconnecting her cell phone, and disconnecting her email account.

The pastors/elders did the same to a godly doctor, a personal friend of pastor John MacArthur’s, a man in his 70’s, faithful and loving husband and father. He’d questioned how the pastors/elders were leading the church in private, using the Scriptures. And they made him pay for it.

And finally it was my turn to be excommunicated over the issue of child safety, and the pastors/elders bringing their friend a felon (convictions involve kids), telling no one,
and giving him membership and access to kids. I found him on Megan’s List by accident!

Celia wrote:

Should read It’s NOT the actually Biblical text but he added study helps that are bad.

Not strictly the case. The ESV refuses to properly translate gendered pronouns from Greek to English. For example, while the pronoun “andros” is masculine, all the other koine literature shows us that “andros” just refers to “human” (in much the same way that English refers to “MANkind”). In fact, andros is used to refer to Nefertiti in one reference (which I forget just now). The ESV translators, however, chose to translate this word as male gendered. I don’t know if this was influenced by by their patriarchy or was just a throwback to when English could use male gendered substantives to refer to both (actually, “all” is the better term) genders. The fact remains, however, that the meaning of the text is sometimes obscured by this poor translation.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
Can you point to one of the word for word translations which isn’t using the male gendered substantives to refer to both? It’s been a while since I’ve looked at how translators translate but I’m pretty sure your criticism would apply to all those who are in the word for word category.

@ Lydia:

Synopsis well put Lyds. It’s a land of extremes for sure. It explains why some of their former and most fervent devotees jump ship and become atheists. We used to have a guy visit us here at TWW who at one time was an apologist for reformed thought and who is now a full-on atheist.
In my area there’s a guy on ixtian talk radio who brags about how he used to be a new-age practitioner of sorts and who now claims to be “on fire for the Lord”.
You know it’s funny, but for all the bad-mouthing of the bad-old-days, and don’t get me wrong, there was indeed a lot of bad stuff, but they seemed to have a better handle on balance, reason, and common sense.

@ Lydia:

I’m a little confused as to what the Neo Calvinist motive is to sneakily take over so many churches and win people to Calvinism.

In their theology, doesn’t God make all choices? Doesn’t God predetermine who is the elect or not, etc, and so on?

If so, what is the point in doing anything? What is the point in trying to plant Calvinist churches, or take over churches in the name of Calvinism?

If God wanted John Doe to be a Calvinist, then doesn’t God do that on his own, rather than having to rely on Joe Calvinist to do the converting?

If God controls everything, and God wants 90% of churches in America to be Calvinist, then he’ll find a way and doesn’t need Calvinists trying to steal churches.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

He even quoted Psalm 18:26 and other scriptures to demonstrate that it is ok by God to use deception.

Either he is VERY confused (my guess), or he is a heretic having created a ‘god’ who actively creates evil, rather than a God who permits evil but does not commit evil deeds. In any case, in thinking that God authors evil, Piper is departing from orthodox Christianity big time.

I think he is confused. Old age doesn’t always bring ‘wisdom’, sometimes it can bring medical changes that affect judgment. Someone mentioned ‘fluttering hands’ and maybe that is a medical symptom.(???) I’d want to give him the benefit of the doubt before I’d call him a ‘heretic’, assuming he ever believed in the God of traditional Christianity, but he is in error, here.
I wish he had a group of honorable people around him to help him instead of what sounds like a bunch of sycophants who praise his every word. He needs help.

Lydia wrote:

Now there is a name that gives me the creeps. I am trying to remember exactly how Voddie phrased it but he basically taught that older men need the attention of young females and that is why their relationship with their daughter was important. It was in some series he did on male authority.

Here’s a link: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/11/the-role-of-doug-phillips-daughters.html.

Voddie Baucham was a rising start in the YRR crowd until people started getting too creeped out by the things he was teaching. A few years ago he ended up leading a ministry somewhere in Africa. It thought he was pretty much a YRR has-been. That’s why I was so surprised to see him get the top billing on Piper’s site on Father’s day. Piper should be distancing himself from Baucham, not endorsing him.

As someone who watched this from the outside and attends neither church, perhaps I can lend some facts to the speculation: this was a sad state of affairs, for sure, as it is sad when any church is rent in two. I think God weeps at this. However, since everything you’ve written has been “we’ve heard” or “it seems,” I think it’s irresponsible to place all the blame on people following one leader in a cult-like way. There is a divide in ways of thinking in baptists that spans generations (not just the last few years) that separates those who believe different things about church government. Assuming that people that believe one way about it are being led astray while others are thinking rightly about it sounds self-righteous and hopefully that’s not what all these commenters mean. I know for a fact that this new church (I agree with not calling it a church plant) was not planned over the span of a year. I also know that they are not receiving funding from namb or otherwise. When you have a church of 300+ from the jump you don’t have to take a pay cut; the members tithe like usual.

As a former pastor’s kid who has been through public family disgrace, I have a very sensitive BS monitor. Though Dennis is smooth like some say, he has been honest with FBCRM from the beginning and not the liar people are claiming. I’ve witnessed his honesty with this congregation on multiple congregations. The rumors and lies that the members of FBCRM have circulated have hurt a lot of people and I hope that they and you (Dee, Deb, and anyone else commenting) will remember that when you’re discussing ideas that’s one thing, but when you begin to speculate and gossip about people’s fathers, brothers, sisters, moms, etc, you can really hurt people.

Velour wrote:

I think that people are dissatisfied with problems at one church and go looking for another church.

This often does happen, and people certainly should move on if a congregation is harming them and unwilling to treat the flock better.

However, some churches do set themselves up as New! and Exciting! just like retailers–and people follow fashion.

My least favorite are the churches that set themselves up as Righteous, Not Like Those Churches Full Of False Teaching And Sinners And Yes I’m Talking About YOU.

Max wrote:

John Piper even excommunicated his own son, Abraham! (true story)

Even that story has details that make me wonder. Here’s how Piper relates it: http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-a-pastor-continue-in-ministry-if-one-of-his-children-proves-to-be-an-unbeliever.

I read somewhere that Piper said he continued to meet his son for lunch even after the excommunication. Meeting him for lunch is not excommunication because excommunication means “out of communion.” Another word for that is “shun.” All he did was let the elders kick him out of the church so that he would not have to step down as the senior pastor. It strikes me as crass for him to make such a public spectacle of it.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

don’t know if this was influenced by by their patriarchy or was just a throwback to when English could use male gendered substantives to refer to both (actually, “all” is the better term) genders.

I wouldn’t mind so much their using ‘man’ as in mankind if the ‘get back in your place woman’ folks didn’t make so much hay of it.

@ Deb:

I currently have 25 Bibles in my study. From the Geneva Bible 1599, Companion Bible,ESV Study Bible, Reformation Heritage KJV, Zondervan NIV Study Bible, NASB, RSV, RV, to the Catholic Study Bible. They all speak to a part of my life that's gone before. Pride of place though goes to an old Family Bible that records the marriage of my great, great grandfather in 1832 in Carlisle, England.

@ Gram3:
Speaking of “hand picked” They “handpicked” people to “plant” new church…Sent out letters inviting who they wanted. And I wouldn’t call it a church plant- more like ripping a beautiful garden and taking as many fruits with you as possible. (Or what you consider the “best”) It’s like someone divorcing abruptly to “plant” a new family?????

Elizabeth wrote:

Though Dennis is smooth like some say, he has been honest with FBCRM from the beginning and not the liar people are claiming. I’ve witnessed his honesty with this congregation on multiple congregations.

I appreciate what you are saying, but the fact is that too many of us have seen behind the curtain in churches where there are still people who say the same things you are saying. I hope you can understand how that perspective shapes how we interpret what we hear.

A church split is always tragic, and people are always hurt. The responsibility for seeing that this does not happen is on leadership. There is a new philosophy of ministry, and it has nothing to do with either Jesus Christ or the New Testament. There are lots of people like me and Gramp3 who are Dones. Perhaps that is because we are too old. Or perhaps it is because we remember a time when Baptist churches were not ruled from above but from Above via the Holy Spirit. That is no longer trendy, and too many people seek after the latest trend.

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:
This dear woman responded to this harassment by moving out of the family home to an undisclosed location not even known to her husband, disconnecting her cell phone, and disconnecting her email account.
Dear God, what a terrible account of what happens when the Baptist tradition of ‘soul freedom’ is replaced by the neo-Cal authoritarian model of human male sovereignty. I hope that poor woman survived her ordeal. Is it known if her husband ever stood by her in the end? Very sad story, this.

The married couple almost divorced over this. Her husband proudly stood with the senior pastor who ran his wife into the ground, saying that she wasn’t “submissive” to her husband. Her husband has bought the Comp/NeoCal brain-washing. A real man would have never permitted his wife to be treated like garbage, in my opinion.

The wife refused to return to this abusive NeoCalvinist church and the senior pastor had to announce during the yearly members’ meeting that they had to “let her go”. No kidding.
It’s America, pal. She can go to whatever place of worship she wants to.

I personally think that these NeoCal pastors should be arrested and criminally prosecuted for stalking, criminal conspiracy, etc. I think that getting arrested and prosecuted might be the wake up call they need.

Friend wrote:

My least favorite are the churches that set themselves up as Righteous, Not Like Those Churches Full Of False Teaching And Sinners And Yes I’m Talking About YOU.

Welcome, to my ex-NeoCalvinist/9Marks/John MacArthur-ite church. Hindsight is 20/20 as the saying goes. I wanted a smaller, more solid church from a big mega church. I didn’t realize, as Gram3 has pointed out, that in leaving one bad church I completely missed the red-flags/warning signs about the new church, which on the surface seemed so different than the old church.

The mega church require no accountability. The small church had Membership Covenants, elder-led, Matthew 18:15-17 (Biblical church discipline), and we were told that the “pastors/elders watched over our lives.” They had Nouthetic Counseling/Biblical Counseling. I didn’t realize that the “watch over your lives” was the heavy-Shepherding movement from the 1970’s in a new disguise and just as toxic, that Membership Covenants were about Authoritarian control and didn’t apply to the church leaders or the inner circle, that “church discipline” was applied capriciously to any one that disagreed with the leaders (no matter how benign the disagreement), that Biblical Counseling was just a bunch of untrained, uneducated, unlicensed quacks/leaders running their mouthes about serious life problems and having to sit there and listen to their insufferable arrogance.

mot wrote:

Velour wrote:
Then the pastors/elders hold closed door meetings, after the Sunday church service, with all members present. They announce that [name of man or woman] is under church discipline, how long they’ve worked with that person to no avail, lie to church members, tell everyone to “pursue that person” (basically criminally harass them/stalk them) “to repent”, and/or ‘have nothing to do with them, they aren’t one of us.’
These pastors and leaders are evil people as far as I am concerned! I’m not sure they would know Jesus if he stood right in front of them.

The NeoCalvinist Pharisee pastors/elders would kick out Jesus too.

Elizabeth wrote:

I think it’s irresponsible to place all the blame on people following one leader in a cult-like way.

Why do you say ALL the blame? Re-reading the comments the blame was put on the Darville. People following this divisive “pastor” is a secondary question. Darville divided the church in only three years and I have not seen an explanation that makes his actions sound reasonable. I often hear similar allusions to “I don’t know the rest of the story”, if there are specifics please supply them. I simply cannot connect honesty with this outcome.

okrapod wrote:

Should ‘unity’ be preserved at all costs?

No, but when the congregation is upset, the first impulse should not be to grandstand about leaving. When my denomination was having problems, agitators among the parish mothers’ group said that we should either storm off to All Straights Church or withhold donations we had pledged to the parish. (Pledges are included in the annual budget, so this gesture was intended to harm.)

There was an illusion that we had to pick a side and fight. I tried to bring about reconciliation within the group, but the group eventually foundered. Parish survived, did not leave the denomination, and slowly recovered. I genuinely miss the dissenters, who gradually left for one reason or another.

Christiane wrote:

except that the ‘husband’ fell for the neo-Cal line willingly, so HE bears the responsibility of breaking his solemn marriage vows in participating in his wife’s torment.

Agreed.

I also don’t know how these pastors/elders’ wives can stand their husbands. I would have ZERO respect for a man that lied, bullied, and threatened people – including in public.
I wouldn’t want a guy like that touching me. I would just despise him.

Going through the split at FBCRM is heartbreaking what has been the most heartbreaking is watching families who were extremely close torn apart. Also people who have been friends for 20, 30,40 years- who have walked through life together – birth of children, marriages, deaths etc, NOT even able to really speak to one another. There are some ppl who know EXACTLY what happened, how it happened, and then there are others who know some, then there are still others who know nothing. At the very heart of this mess is one person. One man and it all stems from him. His name is Dennis Darville.

brian wrote:

Your articles are always so helpful as well as the conversations they produce. I wanted to thank you for all the effort hope all is well with you both and your families. brian

Friend wrote:

No, but when the congregation is upset, the first impulse should not be to grandstand about leaving.

Oh, yeah. That reminds me of ‘I am going to take my dolls and go home’ out of the mouth of a child. She may need to do that, but not before efforts have been made for a better solution.

Max wrote:

Here’s the first one that should be asked by the search committee in an SBC non-Calvinist traditional church:

“Are you a Calvinist? Don’t lie to us, boy. Are you a Calvinist?!”

As my favorite teen’s UNC t-shirt says, “HEEL YEAH!”

Lavender wrote:

@ Elizabeth:
When a pastor is not forthcoming with a church regarding his Calvinistic beliefs prior to taking the job, that’s deception. Especially when he applies his doctrine to church polity. This is dangerous and the result is a church split in many cases.

Or a Coup from Within, followed by a Purge/Cleansing in the Name of Calvin.

Velour wrote:

I also don’t know how these pastors/elders’ wives can stand their husbands. I would have ZERO respect for a man that lied, bullied, and threatened people – including in public.

How did Camille Cosby stick with a husband who was not only a womanizer, but proved to be a rape-drug sexual predator?

The money, the perqs, and the CELEBRITY of being the Big Man’s Little Woman.

Re: what Elizabeth said regarding Darville’s integrity is interesting; don’t know how you reconcile starting a competing church and taking a significant portion of the congregation with him. Splitting a church is beyond the pale for me–a beyond words selfish act, especially over polity.

Elizabeth, at what point in his tenure there did Darville inform the congregation of his intent to leave the church, start a new one in the area and essentially split the congregation? I am doubting they would have hired him had he been forthright with his plans in the beginning.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Max wrote:

“Are you a Calvinist? Don’t lie to us, boy. Are you a Calvinist?!”

I keep hearing that in Mel Blanc’s Foghorn Leghorn voice…

“Boy, I said Boy, are you a Calvinist?”.

mot wrote:

These pastors and leaders are evil people as far as I am concerned! I’m not sure they would know Jesus if he stood right in front of them.

“CRUCIFY HIM!!!!!”

Celia wrote:

Can you point to one of the word for word translations which isn’t using the male gendered substantives to refer to both? It’s been a while since I’ve looked at how translators translate but I’m pretty sure your criticism would apply to all those who are in the word for word category.

Well for starters, I think the ESV translation committee would be offended by your characterization of their work as “word-for-word”. Perhaps you did not mean it as a pejorative, but that is how it would sound to a translator (this is because it is fundamentally impossible, so anyone claiming to do so would be ignorant, a liar, or possibly both). A phrase that the ESV translation committee does use, however, is “essentially literal”. Among the essentially literal translations that properly interpret male gendered substantives that refer to all genders include the NASB and NIV in some places. The KJV is probably the best here, but it is masked because the male gendered substantives in English at the time referred to both genders. However, the conversation would not be complete if we didn’t add that we have learned quite a bit about how koine works in the last 30-50 years, so the ESV and newer translations should be held to a different standard than the translators of older versions.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Velour wrote:

The NeoCalvinist Pharisee pastors/elders would kick out Jesus too.

Plus turn him over to the Magistrates for Crucifixion.

HEADLESS, go ahead and blame them!
Reason? Well, the Crucifixion has eternal implications in that all of humanity’s sins of all time put Our Lord on the cross, so the sins of the Neo-Cal Pharisee pastors are INCLUDED in that, by virtue of transcending time and being as much a part of the Crucifixion as if they WERE there …. we modern Christians like to think ‘our’ sins didn’t nail Christ to the cross, but we need to get over that, and deal with the reality of Christ crucified.

“This thought should keep us humble:
We are sinners, but we do not know how great.
He alone knows Who died for our sins.”
(John Henry Newman)

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

your characterization of their work as “word-for-word”.

Maybe she meant formal equivalence (vs. dynamic) (?)

Either term is just a way of describing the approach the translators used.

Christiane wrote:

Well, the Crucifixion has eternal implications in that all of humanity’s sins of all time put Our Lord on the cross, so the sins of the Neo-Cal Pharisee pastors are INCLUDED in that, by virtue of transcending time and being as much a part of the Crucifixion as if they WERE there

The strange thing about NeoCalvinists, and this whole argument about being The Elect of God, chosen before you were born, is that why would God have to bother with Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection? If God already knew where everybody is going – Heaven or Hell – and it was all predetermined that it makes Jesus redundant.

Velour wrote:

The strange thing about NeoCalvinists, and this whole argument about being The Elect of God, chosen before you were born, is that why would God have to bother with Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection? If God already knew where everybody is going – Heaven or Hell – and it was all predetermined that it makes Jesus redundant.

Calvinists are not deep thinkers. The whole system is a house of cards.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

Do you have a link or a reference? I would like to read on this. Both andro- and gyne- are used in words to indicate male and female in medical vocabulary. So I checked on line dictionaries and they say for andro- male, man, masculine, and also I got the information that it was from classical Greek.

The thing is, it was not just bible translators who were dealing with this issue. So, sure, everyday usage may differ when a language becomes rather a linqua franca, I get that, but it seems strange that this information is just now coming forth. It is not that I don’t believe you; it just seems odd.

Thanks.

Ken F wrote:

I’m wondering if a restraining order could be obtained if one attempts to leave a church but they won’t let you and continue to hound you. But in that case I would think the restraining order(s) would be against particular people. But even a well written letter by an attorney to the church could make a difference. Once a person is legally represented in a manner it is against the law to personally contact them.

I think a restraining order would be appropriate, although the NeoCalvinists will accuse you of going to court before unbelievers (gasp, manipulation).

Ken F wrote:

Velour wrote:
although the NeoCalvinists will accuse you of going to court before unbelievers (gasp, manipulation).
But at that point it wouldn’t matter because they would already think you are a non-elect goat. I would think it a badge of honor to be accused by such dishonorable people.
Also, I continued my nearly uninterrupted streak of typos. I meant to type matter, not manner.

Yes. Anyone that disagrees with them is not among The Elect. I know. It happened to me too.

@ Christiane:

Is it not a basic tenet of Calvinist thought that God is the author of evil? At least I have come across a fair bit of material from Calvinists that suggests that. Eg. RC Sproul Jr explicitly claims that in a book he wrote.

God is the author of evil and sin and caused the sin of Adam and Eve, so I was preached to by a know-it-all. But we are under judgment for our sin, even though God caused it because it glorifies Him. You can't make this up….

@ Ron Oommen:

I believe there are two or three places in the OT where God allegedly claims to be the author of evil. I looked this up last time this came up, but this time somebody else can do it if they want.

Gram3 wrote:

Witness wrote:

Since the Elder Led vote a year ago,the attitude from pastoral staff and their followers was that the majority of the members were in direct disobedience to God because of not following the pastor’s leadership.

So when 9Marks says elder-led but congregational-ruled, they actually mean elder-ruled. What is the point of even taking a vote except for appearances? Seen that before in multiple totalitarian regimes, but those were explicitly not the church.

Kind of like “elections” in communist countries. All about appearance in the end.

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

Some of this is addressed in the ESV and Wayne Grudem post I wrote.

@ Elizabeth:

Why doesn't Dennis come on here and give his side of the story? Explain the facts. I am open to hearing that side of the story.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Lol! You’re a riot HUG!

roebuck wrote:

Velour wrote:
To me the Third Commandment against misusing God’s name is really not about cussing but the larger and more serious issue of dishonoring the character of God.
Yes, so do I. That’s why I think these people are in grave danger…

Yes.

roebuck wrote:

Ron Oommen wrote:

@ Christiane:

Is it not a basic tenet of Calvinist thought that God is the author of evil? At least I have come across a fair bit of material from Calvinists that suggests that. Eg. RC Sproul Jr explicitly claims that in a book he wrote.
God is the author of evil and sin and caused the sin of Adam and Eve, so I was preached to by a know-it-all.
But we are under judgement for our sin, even though God caused it because it glorifies Him.

You can’t make this up….

Oh my. I don’t know what to say, except that people who promulgate this nonsense are going to find themselves in deep doo doo. I didn’t realize Sproul was such a wack-job.

He of the “I left an old email address on Ashley Madison and never used its services” fame. For which Ligonier ministries (run by his daddy) disciplined him by placing him in paid leave until June/July this year.
Why the need for discipline if God authored his sin?
And discipline for his sin is a ln extended paid vacation?
Tis all about the money.
And nepotism too. But that’s about money too.
But God authored it all, so who are we to protest?

I was there at FBCRM every step of the way during those dark times preceding the split. I can tell you that it was not the remaining members, of whom I am one, who lied and mistreated people, but the leadership who left. I was one of those who was on the receiving end of a lesser attack, but know others who were viciously attacked. FBCRM is being blessed now with unity of mission, and joy in worship and fellowship that we have not experienced in a very long time. We may not have an interim pastor yet, but we keep the doors open, the pulpit filled, the committees working, and the programs running. We are happy in our new situation because we are finally free to simply worship the Lord in love and joy. I am not afraid of the future for us, and from the moment the leadership left, I have never doubted we would survive, and I am not alone in that feeling.

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

@ Elizabeth: Why doesn’t Dennis come on here and give his side of the story? Explain the facts. I am open to hearing that side of the story.

That's an easy one. They do not explain anything because everyone who disagrees with them automatically is unworthy of their time and effort. Been there, done that.

Gram3 wrote:

After which I give myself some ice cream to make myself feel better

I hope you make a Sacred Cow Sundae, like you suggested once before to me!

@ Catherine:
So very sorry you had to go through that, and thank you for the encouraging report of how the remaining church is healing. Maybe y’all could go all Bent Tree Bible and test Anonymous’ assertion that it would be OK for an autonomous church in the SBC to have female leadership. 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

Maybe y’all could go all Bent Tree Bible and test Anonymous’ assertion that it would be OK for an autonomous church in the SBC to have female leadership.

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Thank you! So far so good! We feel very blessed right now, and eager to see who God sends to lead us.

It should be known that the new church was in motion long before the covenant study and the confidence vote. It was conceived as soon the church voted down elder led governance. They were shams to give them time, and use our resources. None of it was to further the church.

@ Catherine:

“We may not have an interim pastor yet, but we keep the doors open, the pulpit filled, the committees working, and the programs running. We are happy in our new situation because we are finally free to simply worship the Lord in love and joy.”
++++++++++++++++

good for you! in all sincerity. what a positive, encouraging comment.

and i am really wondering… what’s the interim pastor / pastor for??

look at you! you’re doing it! faith in action. if ‘pastor’ is a function, a verb, it’s happening at your church, no man-at-the-top-with-a-title and brass nameplate on office door required.

giftings are being being utilized, instead of being snuffed. you are setting the example for all. you’re the church. why do you need a man with a title who demands a hefty salary?

think of what you could do with the $. how you could impact your community & beyond on a practical level.

i am very proud of you.

elastigirl wrote:

giftings are being being utilized, instead of being snuffed. you are setting the example for all. you’re the church. why do you need a man with a title who demands a hefty salary?

Yes, Catherine’s church is doing an awesome job without a pastor.

okrapod wrote:

Do you have a link or a reference?

This is in any Biblical greek textbook written in the last 15 years, but a quick Google search will also answer your questions. I suppose it would be cliche to refer you to BDAG.

Linda wrote:

Just a caution: we have experience with Calvinist take over of a traditionalist SBC church. You have to have your terms theologically precise or they (YRR) will walk all over you.
Properly speaking, not all the YRR are Neo-Cal. That is a specific subset of beliefs and is actually quite old. Some YRR are Calvinist and some are Neo Calvinist. It has nothing to do with “new” meaning what is happening now. Don’t ask a YRR if he is Neo Cal unless you really mean that specific subset. He will just say no and let you believe he is no Calvinist at all. The reverse is also true. Many Calvinists embrace John MacArthur and SGM and 9Marks but reject Neo Calvinism.
And then there is new Calvinism, which tends not to be Neo at all.
And there is Puritanism and New Puritanism and Neo Puritanism, all nuanced and with just enough difference to allow them wiggle room answering your questions.
And be sure to google TULIP and the 5 Solas. They most definitely are not the same thing. Many Wesleyans hold the Solas but not the TULIP of course. As do many Baptists. Here again they may know what you mean but will answer what you say.
Which can allow a Calvinist Puritan to deny they are Neo Cal New Puritans and indeed run the latter into the ground so a search committee thinks they have a trad.
And be very specific on the definition and operation they give for each Sola and each petal of the TULIP. They will try to skate with “oh no I reject them and adhere to Biblical theology.”
Horsefeathers.

I’ve encountered this sort of doing the soft shoe and squirming when talking to Calvinists on a Facebook. I’ll quote Calvin from his Institutes, or explain the implications of their doctrine – very clearly laid out mind you – and they will play some kind of hide ‘n’ seek game. They would rather not use the term Calvinist, but Christian. Or, they don’t agree with everything Calvin said. Or some other such thing. It’s a squirming tactic. I recently posted something from the Babylon Bee at the Calvinist Fb site, that was titled “Local Calvinist’s Sense of Superiority Visible From Space.” One of the folks commenting took offense at the article, to which I responded: “Are you aware that it is Calvinists who post at the Babylon Bee? I think those within your camp are quite aware of the problem of superiority.” The fella responded: “No, I wasn’t aware. My camp? I didn’t know I had one.” To which I replied: “You are a Calvinist, correct?” To which he replied: “I am a Christian who most certainly and unapologetically holds firmly to the doctrines of Grace which the Bible teaches. It has a nickname as I suppose, yes..Calvinist.” I’ve had to pin Calvinists down in conversations more than once to admit that they are Calvinists. It’s a strange phenomenon. I don’t quite get it. Look, if you are so darned proud of being a Calvinist, then WHY NOT ADMIT IT? Why not boldly proclaim in all situations that this is your identity? It seems they are covert about their identity when they want to hide their motives. Such as taking over a church. Or perhaps convincing someone against their will of Calvinist tenets, without telling the person that you’re preaching Calvinism. Come to think of it, I recall hearing Calvinist minister on a program once say that he doesn’t generally come out and tell people that he is a Calvinist because he knows the negative reaction he’ll get. Then he went on to say his approach was to teach people the Scriptures (which was really Calvinist tenets) but not mention that its Calvinist teaching. Oh, the sleight of hand and duplicitous methods to bring people to Calvinism.

I can assure you there is nothing hidden about his beliefs. He was interim there for a year before they "called" him as pastor. So if they couldn't hear what he was saying from the pulpit for a year I guess they weren't listening? @ Lavender:

Those were not his plans. He had no plans to “plant” in the area. It’s not a big area and there are several healthy churches that do not make the need great. I think leadership realized they had a significant portion of the congregation that would not budge, come hell or high water, and they decided these people didn’t want the same things they wanted for the community and city. But Dennis did not have plans to plant a small church in RM (why would he when he had a great job at southeastern and already lived in the wake forest area?). He came to serve and love the people of this church I honestly believe, i think he may have tried to implement change too quickly and there are many old families at FBCRM that care about tradition before many other things.@ Cousin of Eutychus:

I can tell you have been hurt by this and trust me I am so sad for you. I think this whole this is horrible. I actually do know what has gone on and do know facts but I won’t tell you exactly how. I know that there have been many injustices and wrongs on both sides and I hate that there have even been sides. I hope you will go forth in love and not bitterness. @ elastigirl:

I’d just love to know how you know their heart motives to “take over a church” I guess, since a couple of these men worked for 15+ years at or below the poverty line as pastors at FBCRM. Doesn’t seem very cut throat or conniving to me. But I don’t think we will agree on it which is fine! I just see so much speculation on their motives from your end. You have already mentioned being disillusioned by church leadership so that’s ok if it’s where that’s coming from. @ Gram3:

Elizabeth wrote:

But Dennis did not have plans to plant a small church in RM

Evidently not. I think that “planting” the church with the people who “would not budge” was his fallback position. Why did he and the deacons instruct the ones who “would not budge” that they were tearing the church apart that *they* should pursue unity? I am quite certain that any pewpeon who created that much chaos in the church would not have been granted nearly the grace that you are granting to these leaders. Said pewpeon would be decried as divisive, argumentative, contentious, contumacious, and hell-bent.

Nope! Definitely not friends 🙂 but thanks @ Catherine:

Elizabeth, it’s simply not wise to continue to tell someone who experienced the ugliness first hand that it didn’t happen, when you are not in either church. You have your beliefs, but I have facts about what actually transpired. Where do the ideas you have originate from?

Just that you yourself said he preached there for over a year. Why would they call him if the content of his sermons was something they were offended by or didn’t want? The point being they didn’t go into this blindly like you seemed to be suggesting (that his motives or ideologies would have been hidden to the congregation) @ Deb:

You are correct, and trying to push people out at our church was attempted in different ways, but was unsuccessful. I follow no man before Christ. I was told by my family to leave, but God never told me. I stayed and fought for what was right.

I am not hurt at this point. I am, along with the rest at the church are at peace with our situation. I am also not in rebellion against all church leadership, just that which attempts to control our lives in and out of church. Christ is a better gentleman than that.

Christiane wrote:

How do Piper and McArthur try to sell that one to Southern Baptists?

Through “Eternal Subordination of the Son” theology.

I love how Elizabeth, and those whose eyes have scales, believe their “facts” are indeed true but our “facts” are hurtful lies. I don’t know how ANYONE on the outside looking in could say that going through with a vote of confidence on the whole staff when they had already decided to leave is right. Then, for ALL of them to resign on the spot…from the pulpit…. in such DRAMATIC fashion…..each taking their turn to say how much they love the church but that they were resigning……100% designed to divide.

Max wrote:

How do Piper and McArthur try to sell that one to Southern Baptists?

Through “Eternal Subordination of the Son” theology.

But Christ didn’t ‘lay aside’ His Divinity when He was incarnated. I realize that ESS is above all an attack on Christ AND on the Holy Trinity, but do Piper and MacArthur teach that Jesus is not fully God, as well as fully Man? I’m not getting their teaching on the Incarnated Jesus Christ. ?

Max wrote:

The Calvinists don’t like that “free will” part, so sovereign God killed Jesus.

Theirs is a sick and twisted god.

Gram3 wrote:

I am quite certain that any pewpeon who created that much chaos in the church would not have been granted nearly the grace that you are granting to these leaders. Said pewpeon would be decried as divisive, argumentative, contentious, contumacious, and hell-bent.

Yes

elastigirl wrote:

@ Catherine:

“We may not have an interim pastor yet, but we keep the doors open, the pulpit filled, the committees working, and the programs running. We are happy in our new situation because we are finally free to simply worship the Lord in love and joy.”
++++++++++++++++

good for you! in all sincerity. what a positive, encouraging comment.

and i am really wondering… what’s the interim pastor / pastor for??

look at you! you’re doing it! faith in action. if ‘pastor’ is a function, a verb, it’s happening at your church, no man-at-the-top-with-a-title and brass nameplate on office door required.

giftings are being being utilized, instead of being snuffed. you are setting the example for all. you’re the church. why do you need a man with a title who demands a hefty salary?

think of what you could do with the $. how you could impact your community & beyond on a practical level.

i am very proud of you.

I asked a similar question further down without realising you’d already asked it.
Second this!

Elizabeth wrote:

Thanks for your wisdom! Certainly not implying that you don’t have your own experience. I actually do have facts not just beliefs, and have many friends at both churches. But again, not trying to diminish your hurt and heartache bc I think any time a church is torn apart it is an absolute tragedy and I hope the best for you and your church. Like I mentioned in my original comment, I have an unfortunate lot of experience with this kind of sadness and wouldn’t wish it on a single soul, that’s where I’m coming from. Just hope you can see that to make someone into a monster and stay angry doesn’t hurt the other person it only eats away at you (in my experience).

“A false dilemma (also known as a false dichotomy) is a logical fallacy which involves presenting two opposing views, options or outcomes in such a way that they seem to be the only possibilities: that is, if one is true, the other must be false, or, more typically, if you do not accept one then the other must be accepted. The reality in most cases is that there are many in-between or other alternative options, not just two mutually exclusive ones.”
[Rational Wiki]

@ Elizabeth:

“I can tell you have been hurt by this and trust me I am so sad for you. I think this whole this is horrible. I actually do know what has gone on and do know facts but I won’t tell you exactly how. I know that there have been many injustices and wrongs on both sides and I hate that there have even been sides. I hope you will go forth in love and not bitterness.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

you presume much. i haven’t been hurt by this — i couldn’t be more far removed from any of this (thousands of miles away geographically, no SBC affiliation, etc.) i have no bitterness against anyone or anything.

what i do have is objective observation here. you claim to be the expert on what happened without having had any direct experience. your ‘facts’ have come to you through the biased filters of others. you do not even acknowledge that there are other perspectives beyond the one you have received second-hand. you go so far as to call the people with direct experience liars.

i simply find your comments unfair, patronizing, & covered with sugar syrup.

Elizabeth wrote:

Just hope you can see that to make someone into a monster

If people in leadership lied, or others did, then they need to make amends. They sinned and did damage and they need to go clean it up.

If they wanted to leave in peace, God called them to start a new church, they could have done so in a loving manner.

roebuck wrote:

I didn’t realize Sproul was such a wack-job.

Check out this post on the Spiritual Sounding Board https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/01/03/the-christian-patriarchy-movements-dark-secret-of-wife-spanking/

@ Velour:
9Marks suggest that it is easier to take over a small church than a large one. See here

https://9marks.org/article/church-reform-when-youre-not-necessarily-the-pastor/

@ Ken F:
Wrong. The context is ecclesiastical shunnning, not personal or social shunning. It means they cannot be a member of the assembly.

Catherine wrote:

At some point later programs disappeared with no discussion or knowledge by the membership.

This is the creepiest common theme of these guys. Cancel Sunday school. Cancel potluck. Cancel anything they can’t control.

Creepy.

Velour wrote:

If God already knew where everybody is going – Heaven or Hell – and it was all predetermined that it makes Jesus redundant.

Some have taken the “doctrines of grace” to their logical conclusion and have taught “eternal justification” which is a form of hyper-Calvinism.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Velour:
9Marks suggest that it is easier to take over a small church than a large one. See here
https://9marks.org/article/church-reform-when-youre-not-necessarily-the-pastor/

How to steal a church?

First Baptist Church of Rocky Mount was organized in 1880. We are associated with the Southern Baptist Convention, the North Carolina Baptist State Convention and the North Roanoke Baptist Association.

I wonder how many other churches in the North Roanoke Association have been similarly “reformed.” The same process can occur within Associations as well. I have heard of informal networks of like-minded pastors meeting outside of regular Association meetings. It seems like a logical extension of the strategy to “reform” the SBC church by church.

SEBTS website posts video represented as “recent” with presumably full knowledge that it was no longer representative of the current situation with the pastor and church in question? I’m beginning to think I may not be able to trust everything I read on the internet.

Mara wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:

I’d just love to know how you know their heart motives to “take over a church” I

What?
Heart motive?
Not trying to discern their hearts.
Their actions speak loud and clear as to their sneaky, underhanded, divisive actions

Also note how Elizabeth phrases everything in thick Christianese Newspeak.

Gram3 wrote:

Evidently not. I think that “planting” the church with the people who “would not budge” was his fallback position. Why did he and the deacons instruct the ones who “would not budge” that they were tearing the church apart that *they* should pursue unity?

I am reminded of an abusive family singing in unison “We’re One Big Happy Family/As Ozzie & Harriet as We Can Be” with a big side order of “It’s All THEIR Fault! It’s All THEIR Fault!”

Did any of these MenaGAWD ever grow up beyond age three Center of the Universe?

Blue wrote:

http://www.brnow.org/Opinions/Guest-Columns/July-2012/Is-there-a-Calvinist-agenda-to-reform-traditional

Wow! “The majority of these Southern Baptist Calvinist pastors are coming from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Ky.) and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, N.C.). In North Carolina, small rural churches have been particularly vulnerable to Calvinist graduates from these seminaries because of their close proximity to churches in our state.”

DustInTheWind wrote:

Blue wrote:
http://www.brnow.org/Opinions/Guest-Columns/July-2012/Is-there-a-Calvinist-agenda-to-reform-traditional
Wow! “The majority of these Southern Baptist Calvinist pastors are coming from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Ky.) and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, N.C.). In North Carolina, small rural churches have been particularly vulnerable to Calvinist graduates from these seminaries because of their close proximity to churches in our state.”

“Is there an issue with pastoral candidates not being truthful to search committees about their beliefs? Apparently it is an issue that Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary, thought was worthy of comment. [In an article published on the Between the Times website] he wrote:

“Act with personal integrity in your ministry when it comes to this issue. Put your theological cards on the table in plain view for all to see, and do not go into a church under a cloak of deception or dishonesty. If you do, you will more than likely split a church, wound the Body of Christ, damage the ministry God has given you, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone. …”

Is there a Calvinist agenda to reform traditional Southern Baptist churches? Absolutely.”

I thought this might be of interest to some of the readers here:

Meticulous Sovereignty Meets Morality
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/20/meticulous-sovereignty-meets-morality/

… I think the Book of Hebrews prohibits our thinking of God in terms of meticulous providence (God being the agent and cause of all things, including tragedies and deaths and birth defects and sexual abuse of children), and I join Roger Olson in arguing that such a view of God fatally crashes against the rocks of God as love…

DustInTheWind wrote:

Apparently it is an issue that Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Seminary, thought was worthy of comment. [In an article published on the Between the Times website] he wrote:
“Act with personal integrity in your ministry when it comes to this issue. Put your theological cards on the table in plain view for all to see, and do not go into a church under a cloak of deception or dishonesty. If you do, you will more than likely split a church, wound the Body of Christ, damage the ministry God has given you, and leave a bad taste in the mouth of everyone. …”

Also, you couldn’t be a more terrible ‘witness’ for your reformed religion than doing it by deceit and cloak of darkness…Assuming you care about those things. Maybe they just write you off as ‘not elect’ if you don’t get in line?

Elizabeth said that two of these men “worked 15+ years at FBCRM at the poverty line or below”
Elizabeth, this is not opinion but a fact, the federal government defines the poverty level as an annual income of $23,283 or less for a family of four.
The two pastors who worked at FBCRM made around $74,000 base salary. They made six figures package(benefits: medical,disability,retirement etc)
This does not include all the extra benefits the congregation supported over the years BC WE LOVED these pastors and WE were HAPPY to do it such as, remodeling their home, buying Christmas trees,fixing their air conditioner when it broke, paying for dinners,lunches,breakfasts,buying them a car,paying for diapers,and providing a low interest loan…so please, Know your facts before you paint them as “impoverished”.

@ DustInTheWind:
Frankly, reading how things transpired (and being well informed concerning the tactics) I am thrilled there was a vote at all. And that people know the outcome.

I know of a situation of a vote to hire a pastor that the super majority was exactly two votes over. Yet many left after the vote. The congregation was told by an interim on day of vote they should not be voting because the Holy Spirit has chosen that person (I kid you not)

So the vote was counted by committee who wanted the guy. And the ballots destroyed right after count.

And yet, those who stayed did not want to look mean by suggesting things could have been more above board. The totalitarian niceness is turning people into Stepfords.

Peter wrote:

Know your facts before you paint them as “impoverished”.

Thank you for the information! Elizabeth kind of sounds like one of those ‘you don’t know the whole story’ people who popped up about the TVC debacle. IOW, we do know the story and it is as reported…

Elizabeth wrote:

I’d just love to know how you know their heart motives to “take over a church” I

A man’s actions reveal a man’s heart.

That is not rocket surgery.

Man robs a bank? Greed in his heart.

Man kills random person in the street? Murder in his heart.

Man beats his wife? Violence in his heart.

Man splits a church? Desire to rule in his heart.

“Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.”

Elizabeth wrote:

You said in your article that he was interim there for over a year? @ Deb:

Quoting you:

” So if they couldn’t hear what he was saying from the pulpit for a year I guess they weren’t listening? ”

I believe Deb’s question was how do you know what he was saying from the pulpit, when you had already identified yourself as an outsider who is not affiliated with either church?

Since you weren’t there, how would you know what he was teaching during that year? Are you asserting that he spent the whole year teaching on ‘elder rule’ & Calvinism?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Max wrote:

“Are you a Calvinist? Don’t lie to us, boy. Are you a Calvinist?!”

I keep hearing that in Mel Blanc’s Foghorn Leghorn voice…

I say, I say, I say son! 🙂

@ Ken F:
No idea.
However, we are not Southerners and we see this happening at churches – with folks who do not accept climate change, think Obama is not American, public school is evil, women require male supervision, etc.

Perhaps the place to look is where there is a need for thoughtful and intentional people to look beyond rhetoric at facts regarding science, education, media, church, and leadership.

Elizabeth wrote:

As someone who watched this from the outside and attends neither church,

and

Though Dennis is smooth like some say, he has been honest with FBCRM from the beginning and not the liar people are claiming. I’ve witnessed his honesty with this congregation on multiple congregations.

Perhaps you just misspoke (when you stated that you do not attend either church), but these 2 statements are mutually exclusive.

Did you mean to say that you are not a member of either church but that you have attended them?

DustInTheWind wrote:

“The majority of these Southern Baptist Calvinist pastors are coming from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, Ky.) and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary (Wake Forest, N.C.)” … Les Puryear.

There are six SBC seminaries:

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary(SBTS) in Louisville, Kentucky;
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary(SWBTS) in Fort Worth, Texas;
New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary(NOBTS) in New Orleans, Louisiana;
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary(GGBTS) in Mill Valley, California;
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary(SEBTS) in Wake Forest, NC; and
Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary(MWBTS)in Kansas City, Missouri

Southern & Southeastern are particular hot-beds for New Calvinism. Southern has the honor of being known as Ground-Zero for New Calvinism and home of the infamous New Calvinist icon Al Mohler. Midwestern also draws students with a reformed leaning (or they get it while there). While Southwestern has stood firmly in the past against Calvinism due to Paige Patterson’s past anti-Calvinist influence, it appears to have moderated on the issue. Bottom-line, SBC seminaries are cranking out lots of YRR heading eventually toward traditional SBC pulpits – usually after short tours of duty in SBC’s church planting program. Much has been said in upstream comments about how they employ stealth and deception to do their part in the new reformation.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Which gives us a potentially good indicator of any theology that is on a disastrous trajectory: It will ignore, downplay, or redefine the sanctification roles of the Holy Spirit in the everyday life of the disciple. (And usually replace it with the voice of overseers, and their systems of rules and ex cathedra decrees.)

^This.

Rather than teaching about the sanctification of the Spirit, and that our lives should exhibit the fruit of this process – instead, as you say, they set up their edicts, their programs, their ideas to accomplish your sanctification.

The Spirit’s work is replaced by man’s work, and the Spirit’s voice is shouted down by man’s voice.

In fact, one of the primary, subterranean goals of authoritarian rulers is to completely undermine your ability to actually hear, much less obey, the still small voice of God.

They instill fear in you as a believer, fear that you cannot trust God in relationship to you *without* their assistance.

They don’t put it that way, of course, but that is exactly what they believe and act upon.

Of course, they place the focus on *you* rather than God. You need *them* in your relationship with God, otherwise you’re going to mess up.

But, I’m not the strong one in my relationship with God. HE is. And if I ask Him for a fish – he isn’t going to give me a snake. If I ask for bread, He is not going to give me a stone.

And He has assured me, that He Who has begun a good work in me will complete it.

BL, very well said!

Daisy wrote:

I thought this might be of interest to some of the readers here:

Meticulous Sovereignty Meets Morality
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/06/20/meticulous-sovereignty-meets-morality/

… I think the Book of Hebrews prohibits our thinking of God in terms of meticulous providence (God being the agent and cause of all things, including tragedies and deaths and birth defects and sexual abuse of children), and I join Roger Olson in arguing that such a view of God fatally crashes against the rocks of God as love…

YES!
Thanks, DAISY … the ‘God of Wrath’ thing when taken to the extreme of seeing God as the author of evil doesn’t mesh with THE BEST REVELATION we have of ‘Who God Is’ as shown to us by Jesus Christ.

I think the literal fundamentalism that doesn’t know about the Judaic way of describing ‘the Ban’ in the OT is at fault. OT verses were taken literally that should never have been seen that way, and the myth of the extreme fundamentalist ‘God of Wrath’ took form and contributed to the Christian heresy that attacks:
1. Who GOD is.
2. Who Christ is.
3. The orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

Your quote really helps here, DAISY. 🙂

This is so sad. So destructive, and so unnecessary.

Elizabeth wrote:

Just hope you can see that to make someone into a monster and stay angry doesn’t hurt the other person it only eats away at you (in my experience).

Would you say that Jesus made the Pharisees into monsters?

Deb wrote:

Then when we were ready to re-launch the church, the pastor and his seminary buddy were going to be the only two elders. As the congregation grew, they would hand pick additional elders. It was around this time that the light bulb came on, and we never joined the church re-plant.

Good for you that you did!

It seems like an effort to get rid of congregational votes seems to be a wakeup call for people…and how smart of this church above to have put a super majority into the bylaws! The other stuff can just be confusing unless you know it’s a red flag.

And a Baptist church without deacons on the membership votes just seems like not a Baptist church to me. Might as well get rid of baptism too. So strange. [sidenote: I am fascinated by the fact that there is a named female deacon in the bible and yet they were excluded so long. Is this why the focus on ‘elders’ instead of deacons by the super comp neo-cal folks? Even though I am increasingly convinced that the ‘older woman’ were meant to be elders in an official church capacity as well. So most of their anti-female leaders arguments are based on a couple of teensy passages and ignore all the other stuff.]

The Elder focus gets rid of ALL female voice within the church.

I don’t think that can be overstated when talking about motivations.

Deb wrote:

It was around this time that the light bulb came on, and we never joined the church re-plant.

Been there, done that… so I hope no one feels bad about not recognizing the WARNING signs. We Christians can be way too trusting of our leaders.

Hi DEB,
sounds like you got a jolt of discernment from the Holy Spirit to jump-start your conscience and allow it to take its proper place of ‘competency’ in your decision-making. The idea of following the prompting of the Holy Spirit and obeying one’s God-given conscience are sancrosanct in orthodox Christianity. No ‘leader’, or minister, or priest or authority can overrule a person’s conscience, even in my Catholic faith. I think Southern Baptists had a good thing in their idea of ‘soul competency’. I don’t think the neo-Cals want folks to think for themselves, ask questions, or come to their own decisions about matters of faith, morals, and ethics. The neo-Cal thing seems very dark in that way, yes.

roebuck wrote:

didn’t realize Sproul was such a wack-job.

He wrote a free book, Ligonier Tales, that was online until he was defrocked and the Ligonier financial scandal hit. He took it down.

Oh my it was creepy. To start, he referred to the wealthy woman who originally financed Ligoneir and took care of his family as a ‘white witch’s.

@ Lea:

“When faced with someone you are inclined to trust, or once trusted, it takes quite a lot to realize you’ve been duped. I can understand why people did not want to be mean. That is generally my natural inclination.

I need good evidence or a really bad feeling about something to switch over into that suspicious camp.”
++++++++++

But direct questions and speaking frankly are not being mean.

elastigirl wrote:

But direct questions and speaking frankly are not being mean.

No I don’t think they are, I was simply responding to Lydia’s language.

I’m saying I get that impulse – where you don’t want to go too far in suspecting someone’s motives. Until you are sure.

BL wrote:

Elizabeth wrote:

Those were not his plans. He had no plans to “plant” in the area.

And you know this as fact how?

Special Revelation?

Watchman on the Wall and fellow FBCRM member, thank you for your comments! Well said. I agree with your assessment of the "high road". I have always believed in not burying the truth, however hurtful it can be. If those who inflicted hurt did not want their actions revealed, then they should not have acted that way in the first place. We cannot move on if we stick our heads in the sand because the truth is painful. And, we don't want others to suffer the same injuries. I feel blessed and hopeful at FBC. It is, once again, a place where we can worship freely without worry of condemnation from men.

Max wrote:

Lydia, this is another aspect of SBC life that the rank and file don’t have a clue about.

I knew nothing about any of this prior to a few months ago when I found this blog (and a few others). It’s fascinating and crazy.

All I knew was that I could not find a Baptist church that seemed to fit and I found the emphasis on male leadership annoying. For a long time, I was done.

@ Lea:

“But direct questions and speaking frankly are not being mean.”
—-
“No I don’t think they are, I was simply responding to Lydia’s language.

I’m saying I get that impulse – where you don’t want to go too far in suspecting someone’s motives. Until you are sure.”
++++++++++

i don’t doubt your willingness to go to direct and frank places in conversation. i was mostly commenting to the air… thinking of times past in christian culture where honest appraisal made one out to be “a mean person”, earning you a reputation as being bad and suspect, to be avoided.

ridiculous.

FW Rez wrote:

It seems that a lot more people in the SBC world are getting multiple degrees from the same institution instead of branching out. Is this a symptom of the institutions becoming more focused on indoctrination than education?

Unfortunately, this is the modus operandi for the SBC, with a only few exceptions. Many (too many IMO) professors have earned two, and sometimes all three, degrees at the same institution where they teach. It is the academic or educational equivalent of in-breeding.

The exceptions referenced above are when a student gets accepted to a British or European university. Usually the academic reputation of the school does not matter; after all, they (the student) must be intelligent seeing that they went to a school in Europe.

For the most part, elite U.S. universities (Ivy League, etc.) are not well represented. This may be due to: 1. the “liberal” nature of the U.S. school, which could result in the applicant from a theologically conservative institution not being accepted; 2. the liberal nature of the U.S. university may discourage an insecure conservative student from applying (which is ironic given the nature of British/European schools), or; 3. the students simply aren’t academic enough to meet the standards of elite U.S. schools.

(Please note, there are some genuinely intelligent and well-educated scholars at SBC seminaries. However, they are in the minority. Usually, the better educated, well-rounded scholars are not used as institutional show-pieces.)

__

  The foundation of New Calvinism is the teaching contained within the ‘Institutes Of The Christian Religon’ a sixteenth century document written by theologian John Calvin, who repackaged Augustinian gnostic ideas and presented them to the uneducated and the ambitious, as ‘Solid Bible Truth’ ™ .

The core of that ‘truth’ presents a theology whereby God is pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds His tender mercies, as He pleases, for the glory of His ‘Soverign Power’ (R) over all of human kind, to pass by and ordain, certain of them, to dishonor and wrath, for their sin to the praise of His glorious justice.

huh?

This is nothing but Augustinian Gnosticism, and certainly not a true depiction of the good news Jesus, and later His apostles presented.

What?

Jesus’ truth is very simple, in that God wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Accept no substitutes.

ATB

Sopy

—

@ FW Rez:
What you find on the 9Marks site is the model used. There are churches, like the PCA and generic Bible churches (which came out of Presbyterianism) that have elder rule. Practically speaking, there is not much difference in my experience. I suppose Gramp3 and I have been members under every form of polity on the spectrum from elder-ruled to traditional Baptist congregationalism. I am not persuaded that any is free from corruptibility. Though obviously when power is concentrated, that corruption is usually easier.

Watchman on the Wall wrote:

The reason for my bias is that I have actually received abuse from 3 of the staff. Instead of talking behind their backs I chose to tell them the problems I was having with them. Oh my…..not a wise choice. Almost immediately I was blackballed and called divisive. Divisive was the the hot word back then when they felt threatened from the congregation.

Oh my, so very well said. We had the exact same experience! Keyed out of their little kingdom.

Lydia wrote:

roebuck wrote:

didn’t realize Sproul was such a wack-job.

He wrote a free book, Ligonier Tales, that was online until he was defrocked and the Ligonier financial scandal hit. He took it down.

Oh my it was creepy. To start, he referred to the wealthy woman who originally financed Ligoneir and took care of his family as a ‘white witch’s.

Now that’s pretty creepy…

@ Daisy:
Hi DAISY,
Yes, I saw it and I love that quote. As far as I am concerned, any description of ‘God’ that opposes what we know of God from Christ would be a false ‘god’. Our Lord spoke and acted in the Very Person of God as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
The whole ESS, ‘Wrathful God’, ‘God authors evil’ thing is an outgrowth of heresy, and the Church dealt with these heresies in early years. Some of these heresies are ‘resurging’ in the worst ways, with dreadful applications that bring emotional pain to victims.
That quote was spot on. 🙂

Lowlandseer wrote:

9Marks suggest that it is easier to take over a small church than a large one. See here

https://9marks.org/article/church-reform-when-youre-not-necessarily-the-pastor/

Oh my! Thanks for the article link.

While there were several things of interest, the following really caught my attention:

“So try to figure out to some degree who the church’s opinion leaders are, who are the people most likely to spread enthusiasm for reform among other members, and who would really cause a congregational sigh of relief if it turned out that they agreed with the reform.

Then meet with those people, over and over and over. Be a friend to them, care for them, and at the right time, start asking questions and teaching about the nature of a Christian church. In time, you may find that you have more allies in reform than you thought—or, perhaps even better, you may find that you’ve created some.”

Can you imagine what the response would be from the Calvinistic leadership if someone in their congregation began doing the above, except from an Armenian view?

That member would be called out for being a divisive, disobedient, rebellious to his leaders, devious, usurpating spawn of hell and would be forced to choose between repenting (and shutting up) or leaving (and shutting up).

That they are blind to the fact that they are encouraging their like-minded people to do something to other churches that they would never allow in their own assemblies is boggling.

@ Burwell:
Hi BURWELL,
I tried for a long time to find out how the term ‘gospel’ was defined when I first began exploring my grandmother’s Southern Baptist faith. But I couldn’t get a specific answer …. only many answers, some emphasizing certain things, and some in conflict with other answers.

In my Church when we hear the word ‘Gospel’, we also think of the four holy Gospels that witness to Our Lord. And we understand the beauty and the powerful simplicity of the way St. Paul explained this encapsulation of the Good News, in his words to the Philippians:
” 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to cling to
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

“Oh my it was creepy. To start, he referred to the wealthy woman who originally financed Ligoneir and took care of his family as a ‘white witch’s.

It really does beggar the mind how otherwise rational 21st century folks can swallow the nonsense these guys come up with.

Missy M wrote:

Wrong. The context is ecclesiastical shunnning, not personal or social shunning. It means they cannot be a member of the assembly.

I have not heard of there being two types of shunning before, is there some kind of scriptural basis?

Deb wrote:

@ Anonymous:

Never forget that this pastor has two degrees from Southeastern and was on staff there for over a decade before taking this position at FBCRM. This reflects very poorly on SEBTS.

The thing that I noticed the most was the break from ministry and then the return after several years of secular employment – in another area of the country.

I suspect something went on there.

BL wrote:

9Marks suggest that it is easier to take over a small church than a large one. See here

Oh my! Thanks for the article link.

My favorite part of that article was this: “I realize I’m in danger here of sounding like I’m calling for some Macchiavelli-style takeover of a church. I don’t want to do that, which is why I posted numbers 2 and 3 of this series before this one.”

HAHAHA. Yes, that will fool them.

Max wrote:

you might still be able to run across one in your area

I’ve pretty much given up for now and gone another direction…

BL wrote:

Leaving Mr. Been Serving for a Few Months as the winner of the Grand Plot to Become Deacon and take over the Church.

Sounds like another good topic for discussion. Odd that they would be proud of that kind of behavior and recommend it as a strategy.

Darlene wrote:

It’s a strange phenomenon. I don’t quite get it. Look, if you are so darned proud of being a Calvinist, then WHY NOT ADMIT IT?

I can offer a great slogan for them, adapted from the Brooke Shields ads for Calvin Klein blue jeans in 1981:

Nothing comes between me and my Calvin.

Gram3 wrote:

It’s almost like the Gospel is about taking power over people or something.

Yes. Just like Jesus said – be a servant and don’t lord it over people by sneaking in, taking over churches, putting yourself and your buddies in charge, telling everyone how much authority you have over them, telling women what to sit down and shut up while the men folks handle things…

Friend wrote:

Darlene wrote:

It’s a strange phenomenon. I don’t quite get it. Look, if you are so darned proud of being a Calvinist, then WHY NOT ADMIT IT?

Perhaps there is a secret society component to being a Calvinist that we don’t know about … of course, it wouldn’t be a secret if we knew about it ;^)

Or perhaps some of the new reformers are not real sure what they are doing is right (because it’s not) and they are ashamed of the bully pulpit behavior of their movement, while advancing a theology that most church folks simply don’t want!

Lydia wrote:

Are you saying the interim pastor made it clear from the beginning that the church should be elder ruled and he would make it so once hired?

The word “interim” in this story keeps getting my attention. In many traditions, the interim is barred from being hired as the senior pastor. The interim is there to see the congregation through the loss of the previous pastor, to get folks used to the idea of change, and generally to keep things going. It’s a very specific calling for some clergy, and it can be exhausting. The congregation often vents its resentment at the interim, and is then much more receptive to the new pastor, who has been identified with a great deal of time, prayer, and care.

The lack of an interim nearly killed one church I attended. Basically a small group of mean people hated him for not being his (popular) predecessor. This example clarifies the rationale for having an interim.

So why would an interim try to change the governance of a church? He should have enough on his hands, just trying to get people to show up and give a little money.

Max wrote:

Or perhaps some of the new reformers are not real sure what they are doing is right (because it’s not) and they are ashamed of the bully pulpit behavior of their movement, while advancing a theology that most church folks simply don’t want!

Oh, they are convinced that they are right.

And they aren’t the least bit ashamed of what they have done and are doing.

They are very pragmatic, and are using any means to put themselves in control, because they know what is right.

And it’s for our own good.

And when you have self-righteous men, who are doing what they think is the right thing to do, and believe that all they are doing is for your own good, and is God’s will – then you have men who can justify every abusive act, every cruelty, every manipulation, every coercion to accomplish their goal – and do it in good conscience.

Friend wrote:

So why would an interim try to change the governance of a church? H

I have seen them specialize in priming the church for Reformed polity and Doctrine. Some Seminary/Baptism college profs specialize in just this sort of thing. The money can be good, too. How would you like to make anywhere from 500 to $1,000 a week for a few hours of preaching and advising staff as an interim.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“You put the lime in the coconut, drink them both together…”

Perfect. Along with:

“If you call me in the morning,
I’ll tell you what to do.” (repeated 6x)

Gram3 wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Oh my it was creepy. To start, he referred to the wealthy woman who originally financed Ligoneir and took care of his family as a ‘white witch’s.

Sproul, Jr. is Federal Vision, too. He is untouchable due to his last name. From time to time you find his name on YRR sites. They love him because Patriarchy.

Oh yes. He once cautioned husband’s about their stay-at-home wives time on the internet and the danger of them being sucked in by some lothario.

I kid you not.

Lea wrote:

See, that makes some monetary sense, if they are teaching while picking up extra degrees, as you probably get a discount, it’s convenient, etc…

Lea, I apologize for not being clearer. When I said two or three degrees from the same institution, I meant master and doctorate (two) or bachelor, master and doctorate (three). I other words, I enter as an undergraduate student, stay through all my post-graduate and doctorate studies, and then teach at the same institution. IMO, that is not a healthy model.

Burwell wrote:

When I said two or three degrees from the same institution, I meant master and doctorate (two) or bachelor, master and doctorate (three). I other words, I enter as an undergraduate student, stay through all my post-graduate and doctorate studies, and then teach at the same institution. IMO, that is not a healthy model.

Ah, gotcha. This was frowned up for business students when I was in school (ba/mba from the same school). I agree its probably best to go to different schools for a broader perspective, but I think there still may be practical considerations at play.

@ Friend:

“Nothing comes between me and my Calvin.”
+++++++++++

that’s funny! i remember those magazine ads well.

the usual suspects with pale gray background, shirtless, jeans, or boxers, book in hand (which book?), street-smart but enigmatic facial expression, black and white photography…

(sorry, the mental image is too much… have to turn it off…)

BL wrote:

Oh, they are convinced that they are right. And they aren’t the least bit ashamed of what they have done and are doing.

Yep, that certainly appears to be the case. Indoctrination at its best (or worst). The YRR sincerely and passionately believe they have come into the world for such a time as this to restore the gospel that the church has lost. When that sort of zeal comes to church and meets a vast multitude of people who don’t know what time it is, then changing belief and practice is a relatively easy task. Oh, there will be some weeping and gnashing of teeth, but it will all be worth it, because you are right and they are wrong. Apathy in the SBC pew is allowing this to happen unchallenged.

Lydia wrote:

I have seen them specialize in priming the church for Reformed polity and Doctrine.

Thank you. Way too much stacking of the deck. The interim should not be appointed with any sort of agenda. If the congregation is recovering from a problem (e.g., prior pastor was an alcoholic), then the interim should help with that. But the search committee should work independently… autonomously as it were… listening for the Holy Spirit.

So how are interims appointed in the SBC? (In most churches with bishops, I believe the bishop names the interim, and the search committee is formed within the parish. Checks and balances.)

Deb wrote:

I believe the attempt to change church polity happened only after they called him to be the full-time pastor.

Thank you. Still sounds like they needed a real interim, not someone essentially hired on probation.

Hi BL,
I’m certainly glad to know that you were not upset or offended.

Ack. Cleaning up that last section:

Did you explore it by speaking to your Southern Baptist grandmother? Or if she was deceased, did you go to Southern Baptist Churches to research for yourself? Did you try to find someone who had been a Southern Baptist for several years?

It doesn’t seem so.

According to your response, it appears that you went to an internet forum and/or blog of some sort to ‘research’ Southern Baptist beliefs.

In reading many of your other posts, you have often told people to not believe what they have read about your denomination on the internet.

Yet, you went to the internet to find out about Southern Baptists?

And from the internet responses you received, you are now holding that up as some sort of flag-waving “I went to the Southern Baptists asking about the Gospel and they couldn’t give me a specific answer, only many answers, with multiple emphasis and conflicting answers”.

That is a failure to take your own recommendations.

As far as ‘my Church’, I am Catholic to the backbone. And I don’t think I’m offending anyone here who understand that out of MY Church’s pain, I can speak in ‘solidarity’ with others who are trying to help abuse victims in the larger Body of Christ. In that sense, identifying as Catholic and coming here to support the work of the Deebs is not without meaning.

This also does not address my point. Few will take issue with you supporting victims. But, that is not all that you are doing.

Exactly how does asserting that Southern Baptists can’t define the Gospel, but your Roman Catholic Church can, provide support for abuse victims?

It doesn’t.

The only one making your denomination an issue, is you.

I don’t mind snark personally, but I hate seeing it used on others in cases where diversity is present but not tolerated. I’ve used it myself sometimes, but I am not proud of it. I remember once referring to someone as a ‘witch’ indirectly, in a moment of weakness. 🙂

Calling someone a witch isn’t a snark, it’s name-calling.

Snark is sarcastic/sharp remarks.

I was very serious in my earlier post to you. I learned the Gospel well as a child in a Southern Baptist church.

When you said:

I tried for a long time to find out how the term ‘gospel’ was defined when I first began exploring my grandmother’s Southern Baptist faith. But I couldn’t get a specific answer …. only many answers, some emphasizing certain things, and some in conflict with other answers.

I knew that you had not spoken directly with, attended for a time, or actually gone to a Southern Baptist Church to get an answer.

Southern Baptists have had and do have issues, but an inability to elucidate the Gospel, is not one of them.

Friend wrote:

Please allow me, as one who has watched a few big court fights over church buildings, to sympathize. The righteous do not try to take church buildings away from established congregations. The righteous would instead see that it is your congregation’s precious home. In their holiness they would be happy to worship in a high school cafeteria.

A similar thing happens in nature.

Brood parasitsm – birds who lay their eggs in the nests of other birds.

Exemplified by the common cuckoo of Europe. The eggs are dropped into another bird species’ nest. The cuckoo eggs hatch before the original eggs do, grow faster, and usually kick the original eggs or young chicks out of the nest.

In effect, they take over the nest from its orginal inhabitants, and the Momma Bird ends up losing her own chicks AND feeding the usurpers.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Lydia wrote:

I did not get the sense BL was “upset” but just disagreed and had related a different experience.

You’re right, I’m not upset at all. Just unwilling to continue to ignore the ongoing, conspicuous denominational overing assertions.

Lydia wrote:

Personally, I would prefer someone retired

Very much agreed. Thanks for the info.

BL wrote:

Brood parasitsm – birds who lay their eggs in the nests of other birds.

Brown-headed cowbirds here. It’s the only way they can survive. Wikipedia shows their strategies against avian and human efforts to get rid of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown-headed_cowbird

@ BL:
I relate what happened to me honestly in my reply to BURWELL. I stand by my reply to Burwell, and since you are not upset, then all is well. And we can return to the discussion of how terms are sometimes taken over by those who apply their own spin on these terms, and then ruin the term for others, as it was in Burwell’s case with the word ‘gospel’.

Apparently what set you off was my use of the phrase, ‘in my Church’.

okrapod wrote:

When churches lose a pastor it is for some reason.

What if it was just a move or retirement or something?

I guess if you had an associate pastor they would usually fill in until a new pastor was hired, assuming they weren’t being hired? I’m trying to think now how things worked at churches I went to, but I think two of them had the same pastor for 30odd years and the other one was mark Dever’s church so I guess he would be an example of an associate moving up?

okrapod wrote:

Okay, okay so I am biased in favor of health care systems, when they work. I guess you can tell.

Well, I work in one. I think there are a lot of things that work well. My old boss used to talk about ‘see one, do one, teach one’ method of learning.

@ Lea:
The old school way was typically the Seminary student went to work for an older pastor as a youth pastor or assistant. That was how it worked in the city. Rural churches were probably different.

Christiane wrote:

AND, I think BL was quite upset that I mentioned ‘my Church’ and wished to give me the heads up that if I did so in future, I could expect a reaction.

I was not upset.

And it isn’t that you ‘mentioned’ your church.

It is that you denigrate other denominations while asserting the marvels of yours.

People have side-stepped it because this is not the place for denominational debates.

The only ‘reaction’ you would get, or the ‘push-back’ that I referenced was simply that I would no longer ignore your unsubstantiated assertions regarding your denomination while denigrating others.

.

okrapod wrote:

That would not work. When churches lose a pastor it is for some reason. Either something happened or the pastor got fed up or the congregation fell to fighting or things had so stagnated that people thought something had to be done-whatever it was something happened. To come into a situation like that requires a battle scarred veteran with years of dealing with people and situations and who has nothing to either gain or lose personally. There is nothing in this situation which somebody wet behind the collar can benefit from unless it convinces him that his father was correct and he should have been an accountant after all.

Exactly. Even in churches where the pastor moved on or retired, it is best to “transition” with a wise older person with nothing to personally gain or lose.

Some other terms besides the term ‘the gospel’ which have been co-opted and given a different slant include ‘sovereignty’, ‘orthodox’, and ‘God’s glory’.
It does take some clarifying to figure out what is actually BEING said among Christian people, as terms in one group may not mean the same thing in another faith community, and when you get the strange merger of neo-Calvinism (all its many related synonmyms) in with the traditional terms used in a more traditional denomination, there is a problem.

Nothing wrong with asking how a term is being used and in what context it has meaning. ‘Clarifying’ is a good thing. It prevents a lot of potential problems.

@ BL:
No explanation needed … Je comprends tout.

Friend wrote:

Brown-headed cowbirds here. It’s the only way they can survive. Wikipedia shows their strategies against avian and human efforts to get rid of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown-headed_cowbird

Wow – thanks for the link!

This part was interesting:

“It seems that brown-headed cowbirds periodically check on their eggs and young after they have deposited them. Removal of the parasitic egg may trigger a retaliatory reaction termed “mafia behavior”. According to a study by the Florida Museum of Natural History published in 1983, the cowbird returned to ransack the nests of a range of host species 56% of the time when their egg was removed. ”

So, if the eggs are rejected by the nest mom, the cowbirds will often come back and destroy the nest (and the hatchlings).

The Cowbird Mafia. LOL