“I’ve been the editorial director of 9Marks for over a decade, and part of the church behind the ministry for two. I don’t often hear criticism with language this strong; maybe one or two other times.”
"Don't Be a 9Marxist!" – Jonathan Leeman
Jonathan Leeman, editoral director for 9Marks, recently published a post entitled "Don't Be a 9Marxist!" We first saw this directive prior to the Together for the Gospel conference which took place last April. The organizers of T4G16 scheduled a breakout session, also called "Don't Be a 9Marxist".
Todd Wilhelm, who was once a member of a 9Marks church in the Dubai, wrote a response to Leeman's "Don't Be a 9Marxist!" post entitled 9Marks Attempting "Brand Enhancement". Quite a few commenters chimed in on both of these posts. Jonathan Leeman's post garnered over 30 comments, most of which were challenging, if not critical. Suddenly (we believe at the beginning of the weekend) ALL of the comments under Leeman's 9Marxist post disappeared. I had saved them just in case they were ever deleted (it wouldn't be the first time that things have disappeared from the 9Marks website). When I heard the comments had vanished, I planned to write a post on Monday. Todd beat me to it and put together such an excellent summary that we felt it necessary to re-publish it for our readers. Here it is…
Jonathan Leeman: Parsing Words and Deleting Comments (link)
Todd Wilhelm
When we capitulate to evil in the name of “peace”, we become the evil.
When we suppress truth in the name of “love”, we become the lie.
When we excuse abuse in the name of “unity”, we become the abuser.
Jim Wright
In my previous blog article, “9Marks Attempting “Brand Enhancement,” I responded to Jonathan Leeman’s article, “Don’t Be a 9Marxist," published on the 9Marks blog, the official voice of the parachurch organization. The gist of Leeman’s article was an acknowledgement of hearing about some problems of heavy-handed authoritarinism, but these reports are few. After quoting a lady (a friend of mine) who had major issues at a 9Marx church and subsequently wrote a negative review of Mark Dever’s book, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church,” Leeman replied:
“I’ve been the editorial director of 9Marks for over a decade, and part of the church behind the ministry for two. I don’t often hear criticism with language this strong; maybe one or two other times.”
If you’ll buy that I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you. The fact the Dever and Leeman had a break-out session at the T4G conference in April of 2016, and that Leeman subsequently wrote this article are clear indicators that the 9Marx boyz have a problem on their hands, a problem that they are only too well aware of. One doesn’t write a lengthy, fifteen-point article in response to two or three complaints of spiritual abuse.
Leeman’s article attracted at least 31 comments, both positive and negative. Earlier today I was notified by a reader that all the comments on Leeman’s article had been removed! I wasn’t surprised. The 9Marx, T4G, TGC “leaders” frequently remove comments and block individuals from their sites. (See my previous blog article for two examples of mine.) These blocked individuals generally are not blocked for crude or spiteful comments, rather, they are generally individuals who respectfully disagree with the the christian celebrity “leader.” A few years ago TGC blocked anyone who tweeted the hashtag #IstandwithSGMvictims. This was done to draw attention to the fact that the Gospel Coalition had issued a statement of support for C.J. Mahaney, a man credibly charged with blackmail and covering up sexual abuse of children in his Sovereign Grace denomination.
The simple fact is that these leaders love to utilize social media to solicit donations, sell their books, promote their conferences and expound their viewpoints of “orthodox” Christianity, but the heavy-handed authoritarians cannot accept any comments critical of their views. They have yet to learn that, unlike their local churches, where they can practice their tyrannical ways with impudence, those in the blogosphere are unafraid to question them, and in fact often do. A guy like Leeman, accustomed to the rock-throwing peasants genuflecting to him, appear to be unable to handle any sort of criticism from lowly, uneducated, edgy individuals such as myself.
I experienced the same type of behavior from John Folmar, a man who, like Leeman, was also mentorred under the tutelage of Mark Dever. Folmar is the senior pastor of United Christian Church of Dubai, the church I quit three year ago. You can read a brief story about that here. Basically, Folmar didn’t like me placing links to articles about C.J. Mahaney’s shenanigans (they were “unhelpful”) on a private Facebook page, so he managed to get them deleted. You can read a 9Marx article by Folmar on how he successfully implemented the 9Marx manifesto here.
Leeman, seemingly unaware that information, including truthful comments that he finds “unhelpful,” once published on the internet, are not easily deleted. Ahh, how he must long for the good-old-days when a “divisive” congregant could be intimidated into silence. (I believe in evangelical church-speak the term is “submitting to your elders.”) Anyway, I asked Janna, my trusted blog partner, and technical wizard, if she could dig up the “unhelpful” comments Leeman had deleted. It took her all of about a minute. Please read them below, or if you would prefer, you can go to this link and view them. Be advised you will need to click on the “Comments 0” at the end of the article to make the missing comments appear.
Sorry Jonathan, it kind of sucks not having control, no?
Word quickly spread through social media that Leeman had removed the comments from his 9Marx article. Dee, of The Wartburg Watch fame, tweeted this message to Leeman:
Leeman then responded with this Tweet below. (I couldn’t resist adding my two cents!) Leeman’s comment seems disingenuous at best. He states that believe it or not, he almost never looks at comments.
I choose the “not” option.
You will notice, about half-way through the comments Leeman made a comment, thanking Dwight (no relation to Newt) Gingrich for his positive comment. I can only surmise that Leeman’s vision magically fogs over when he comes to the negative comments because he has only heard strong criticism once or twice before. Or, perhaps he is parsing his words, as Bill Clinton did when asked about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski, famously replying, “It depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Plausible deniability my friend, that’s what it’s all about. Leeman may have read hundreds of stories of spiritual abuse by 9Marx pastors, but that doesn’t mean he heard these stories! These highly educated men of the cloth can be so clever!
Does Leeman really expect us to believe him? Remember at the beginning of his article he states:
“In a “one-star” Amazon.com review of a 9Marks book, the reviewer shares his (note: later changed to “her” after he read one of the negative responses he has never heard, informing that a woman actually wrote the review) experience of being a part of what he calls a 9Marks church.”
So Leeman, probably on a break at one of his many conferences, is just randomly scrolling through the web and stumbles upon a one-star review of his idol, Mark Dever’s, book “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.” Really? The review is not that easy to find, but I am to believe a guy that says he almost never looks at comments and has heard only heard one or two negative comments about 9Marx just randomly came across this negative review?
The “not” option makes a lot of sense to me Mr. Leeman.
We are then treated to this pearl by Leeman. After stating he rarely reads comments and has only heard strong criticism once or twice before, he now says he seldom sees substantive contributions (comments). O.K., I guess we are to believe that Leeman must have only read about 3 comments in his entire life, because two of those have been negative, ad hominem, non-substantive contributions. IF he had seen four or more comments he couldn’t truthfully state that he “seldom sees” substantive comments. He would have to say the majority of comments are substantive, excepting the two comments containing strong criticism. The other one had to be Dwight (no relation to Newt) Gingrich’s positive, substantive contribution. Which is it Bill, er, Jonathan?
“We don’t ever block, tho,” states Leeman.
Yeah, I guess deleting comments en-masse is not blocking, right Mr. Word-Parser? And who is the “we?” Because your idol, Mark Dever, blocked me on Twitter years ago. I guess I probably deserved it. I dared question Mr. 9Marx Church Discipline extraordinaire if he found it a bit hypocritical to allow C.J. Mahaney to flee to Capitol Hill Baptist church to avoid discipline at Covenant Life Church. Ahh, but some animals are more equal than others, especially if they have donated $10,000 of their church members money to Mr. Dever.
Go to Todd's post to hear the audio clips featured above.
Next, I guess Leeman is attempting to play on our sympathies. The poor guy feels responsible for giving us irresponsible blog commenters a platform.
Tell me, Mr. Leeman, just what comments among the thirty-one listed above do you deem to be irresponsible?
I think most, if not all were good comments. I wouldn’t remove one of them. (Which is why I posted them all on my blog.) If you had issues with one, why not remove that one? As a highly educated “leader,” you should know that “shotgun” discipline is never a good idea, except perhaps in Marine boot-camp. On our blog, we respond to the offender, sometimes publicly, most of the time privately, letting them know their comment is unacceptable and why.
But now these nasty, irresponsible comments have shoved you over the cliff, the last straw, so to speak. I expect future articles from you will not allow for any comments. A safe, sterile environment, where no dissension is tolerated, not unlike any authoritarian 9Marx church.
Let me offer you this quote to ponder:
So now we get to another diversionary tactic by Mr. Leeman. Not only are these thirty-one comments irresponsible and non-substantive, they are….. drum roll….. ANONYMOUS! We all know how 9Marx leaders hate those anonymous comments. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane and listen to Matt Chandler blow a gasket over an anonymous comment.
Go to Todd's post to hear the above audio clip.
Some of those comments were not anonymous Mr. Leeman, including yours and mine. Why didn’t you let the comments stand that were not anonymous? If you have a problem with anonymous comments, why don’t you implement a policy of no anonymous comments?
Truth be told, Mr. Leeman, I believe you are unable to take criticism. In your position, that is a major character flaw. I wonder how you manage to cope in those weekly sermon reviews? Perhaps your peers, aware of your fragile make-up, abstain from any critical comments. Or perhaps, like many 9Marx churches, you surround yourself with yes-men for elders, lacking courage, they utter only what they know you want to hear.
I leave you with a winsome quote from Spurgeon. I hope it serves you well.
In closing…
Dee is planning to dialogue with Jonathan Leeman via email in the coming days. Please pray that their exchange will be productive.
I am “Grace” who wrote the 1-star review on Amazon about Mark Dever’s 9 Marks of an [un] Healthy Church. I stand by every word I wrote. It was my review that Jonathan Leeman wrote about for 9 Marks.
Mark Dever it seems re-released the 1970’s abusive, authoritarian, heavy-Shepherding Movement ‘s tactics. The majority of the Florida founders later repented for how un-Biblical and abusive Shepherding was and the incredible damage that was done. I hope Mark Dever gets to the place where he repents. Ditto Jonathan Leeman. Ditto all the others who teach and practice “shepherding”.
Here’s the article about the other 9Marks article that got lots of comments: http://thouarttheman.org/2016/09/25/9marx-shuts-comments/
Sorry Todd. I have to go make Amish Friendship Bread. So, I’ll read your post when I get my bread in the oven. But, my diagnosis: Dever and Leeman clearly suffer from acute Little.Man.Syndrome. Their behavior makes it blatantly obvious!
Here is the blog I started about my former 9 Marks church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley.
[This is my first article containing the excommunications/shunnings of others before mine, including a doctor in his 70’s who is a personal friend of John MacArthur’s. It also contains my YELP review which my former church got scrubbed from the interenet]
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/08/25/first-blog-post/
[My
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/19/part-1-my-story-of-being-a-member-of-the-abusive-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley/
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/20/part-2-my-story-of-being-a-member-of-the-abusive-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley/
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/20/part-3-my-story-of-being-a-member-of-the-abusive-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley/
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/20/part-4-my-story-of-being-a-member-of-the-abusive-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley/
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/20/part-5-my-story-of-being-a-member-of-the-abusive-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley/
The CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos had to restore my product review privilidges after my former church GBFSV had them revoked. I wrote the CEO of Amazon about the excocummications/shunnings and the pastors/elders aiding their friend a Megan’s List sex offender by saying “child pornography isn’t a big deal”.
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/03/thanks-to-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos-for-restoring-my-product-review-privileges-after-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-had-them-revoked/
A blog article about the pastors/elders’ rudeness in telling Christians they can’t come to church if they don’t sign a Membership Covenant.
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/23/are-your-pastorselders-as-rude-as-the-ones-at-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley/
A blog article about my ex-pastor Cliff McManis and the Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley pastors/elders’ July 2016 email to hundreds of church members lying about me and accusing me of ‘aggresively harassing church members’ when in point of fact I have NEVER contacted any of them. Cliff McManis said that law enforcement agencies said I was “unstable”. I have had no contact with them either and in point of fact they have NO idea what he’s talking about because I contacted them. I had contacted the principal of Los Altos Christian, they rented their gym for a 5-day basketball camp to Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. I explained to the principal that the school should discuss this with an attorney as GBFSV invites their friend a Megan’s List child pornographer to volunteer with other peoples’ children, unbeknowst to the parents. According to the pastors/elders Cliff McManis, Sam Kim, Bob Douglas and Tim Wong because this sex offender said a few words about Jesus he’s all better, all forgiven, and should have access to children. If it all goes wrong, the school can be sued if a child is sexually abused on their property. That was the issue that Cliff McManis found out about and was enraged.
(Note: His Ph.D. and other advanced degrees are fakes from a diploma mill in Independence, Missouri that is not accredited. A real Ph.D. from an accredited university takes about 8 years of work to earn.)
This is one of the blog articles I wrote about Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley pastors/elders (my former church), 9 Marxist/NeoCalvinist/John MacArthur-ite.
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/08/28/an-open-letter-to-the-pastorselders-of-grace-bible-fellowship-of-silicon-valley-filing-a-false-police-report-is-a-crime-in-california-ca-penal-code-section-148-5-pc/
Thank you Todd Wilhelm for writing about 9 Marks for us! And thanks for covering my spiritually abusive church and the 9 Marks model/heavy-Shepherding which they follow.
How prickly and thin-skinned is Biblical Manhood. The whole Mahaney-hiding-behind-Mark-Dever’s-skirt fiasco is proof-positive, IMO, that 9Marks has no intention of actually practicing what they dictate to everyone else. Therefore, we may assume that they do not truly believe what they are prescribing is Biblical or they do not believe it is necessary to be as Biblical as possible, or that Leaders are not bound by what is Biblical or they define what is Biblical. I’m sure there are other possibilities…
They really think we are stupid and ignorant and not paying attention. They are behaving like frightened little boys when challenged rather than courageous men who can defend their positions with texts and with valid arguments. Shut Up And Go Away is not either of those.
I just opened several articles on the 9Marks site. It appears that they have shut down comments altogether. They are desperately trying to protect and preserve their little boys bubble. If they all put their fingers in their ears and chant “La la la la ……”, their world will be perfect!
Gram3 wrote:
They are not men they are like little boys. They cannot deal with any criticism.
Nancy2 wrote:
Who in the world wants to be “led” by men who refuse to interact with people who have concerns? Not me!
Thanks Todd for all the exceptional work you put into this. Celebrity pastors have evolved into a place where they refuse to accept any meaningful feedback. Two weeks from now the most lucrative church in America, Gateway Church of Southlake, TX, will hold their big conference where 4,000 pastors will all jam into their sanctuary desperate to discover the secrets to becoming the next millionaires – in the name of Jesus and for the good of the Kingdom, of course.
.
Gateway accepts zero feedback that isn’t glowing and gushing. They block anyone asking respectable questions. The pastors delete non-favorable FB comments, they block people on Twitter and my favorite, if God forbid you should show up to any of the campuses to ask them to turn down their 100 decibel music or lower the spotlights late on week nights, they will call in the local PD, whom they pay handsomely, and take out restraining orders that will result in criminal trespassing charges should you try to come back to ask them for responsible citizenship twice. The pastors laugh about their ability to give law abiding citizens criminal records that could result in lost jobs. They are bullies and tyrants not brothers and shepherds.
.
Churches like Gateway make a show about giving you an email address to “contact” them and putting comment cards in seat backs and some individual pastors even solicit feedback but every story I have heard is that if you do NOT fall over in accolades of praise your feedback ends up in the dumpster or worse.
.
Ironically, these massive empires pay tens of thousands each year to consultants like Leadnet to find out how to “reach more people” and help close their back doors. Would they accept meaningful feedback they wouldn’t need waste that money. Instead, they invest tithes in more slogans, trendy logos, “I BELONG” t-shirts, authentic intentional-living shindigs, small groups that die out before they get started and absurd fashion guides so the youth pastors and mens ministry pastors can dress like caricatures of Justin Bieber.
.
Gateway has had a lot of turn-over this year. Die hard culties are finally walking out. These giga churches want to attract more new people at the expense of NEVER caring for their existing sheep. They will take their money and free labor but ask a question or make an unfortunate request for prayer in a hospital and you are dead to them.
.
Sooner or later these churches and men like Leeman are going to run out of front door growth. The arrogance of Leeman to say he can not learn from any commenter blows my mind. It says Leeman writes for Leeman. Good for you, Jonathan. But when Leeman writes solely for Leeman, someday the only people left to read will be Leeman and Mrs Leeman. He makes himself irrelevant by boldly declaring that no one else has anything substantive to add.
.
Truthfully, places like Gateway and 9Marks and others like them could quiet their critics if they reached out to those they hurt or allowed people who invest time and treasure a platform for discourse or if they reached out to members in the love of Christ, none of them would have a need or desire to block people or delete comments or hire expensive poseur consultants to teach them how to love bomb the snot out of visitors.
.
Christians are the most decent, gracious and forgiving people on earth. Even those who have had something terrible happen to them like CSA, will hold their tongues and stay in their community when they are treated with kindness, sincere contriteness, decency and honesty. Everyone makes mistakes and Christians are quick to forgive when there is confession, repentance and expressions of sincere love, concern and compassion. Christians want this!
.
But these arrogant men believe they are monarchs ruling over empires instead of being beloved shepherds sharing a journey of Christian brotherhood. This is fixable but only when these leaders get off their thrones. One of Jesus’ final acts as a free man was to wash the feet of his Apostles. He did this for a reason. Get off those thrones and high horses, get out of the limos, lose the body guards and private aircraft and follow Christ’s beautiful example and I promise you will not have a need to block and delete comments.
Next week is my (soon to be former) church's "family meeting" where their "Exodus 18 Family Tree" (read: pyramid/shepherding control scheme) is announced to the lay members. I'm writing a list of questions to ask leadership about it (what questions will be asked of members, what happens if a member refuses to answer questions, is this required for membership, can existing members exclude themselves from the weekly phone calls, what if we don't want to go into detail why we might need to miss church, what if we have issues with the "shepherd" placed above us on the hierarchy, etc.) I wonder how many questions I'll be allowed to ask before I get silenced by the pastor like these 9Marx guys already have done…
I'm planning to leave the place regardless. I'm just curious as to how the pastor will react to my deluge of questions, and also how other members react to this plan (i.e., the extent of brainwashing.)
@ Nancy2:
I have made the same observation about deleted comments on the 9Marks website. Not only have they removed comments, they have deleted controversial posts.
For example, back on May 29, 2013, we spotlighted a 9Marks post written by Bobby Jamieson called Pastors, Don’t Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air. Here is the link to our post:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/05/29/9marks-and-meaningful-church-membership/
If you click on the title of the 9Marks article in that post (Pastors, Don’t Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air), you will see the following: Page Not Found.
Jamieson's post vanished along with the comments (and I seem to remember that there were a good number).
However, that very same article was reposted on the 9Marks website on August 22, 2014 – nearly 15 months after we wrote about it. See the link below.
Pastors Don’t Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air
Of course, comments are no longer allowed.
So they heard from a few of the actual little people out here and they were so overwhelming, they shut down their comment system? That’s funny.
I suspect the real reason they shut it down is so noobs coming to their site won’t see that there’s any controversy and they can keep up the appearance that it’s all working fine. It’s all about the marketing.
siteseer wrote:
Absolutely!
Deb wrote:
They have no intention of changing anything. They just manipulate things to keep public opinion under control.
I have a theory that Satan's religion is the pure seeking of profit. whereas, "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." James 1:27
LT wrote:
Your whole comment is excellent. Call me skeptical but I am betting they have it all calculated out as to how many prospects are still out there to be fleeced before they have to reconsider or change anything.
Gram3 wrote:
This seems evident. Not being able to stand up and to take and respond to criticism civilly is not exactly a sign of integrity OR strength. Just saw a debate on telly where the man whined and interrupted and lied big-time and said that not paying taxes was ‘being smart’ . . . . childish? oh boy
sometimes men who demand to be ‘the boss’ over others act in petulant and weak ways …… but then to claim they are examples of ‘MANHOOD’? and Christian Manhood at that ?????
oh, please . . . . so silly
Assuming this is all one Twitter exchange between Dee and Leeman, it bothers me the glaring inconsistency from the first answer he gave Dee regarding deleting the 31 comments and what he says later.
He first claims to have “almost never” read comments but just made a broad policy change killing all but mailbag comments…then later references making this decisions because he felt he was giving “irresponsible comments” (PLURAL) a platform on his post. So, clearly he has read more than one comment on his post to come to that conclusion and to label them “irresponsible comments.” The first statement was clearly misleading if not a full on falsehood.
It is work to sort through comments approving of some and not others. Maybe he did not have the time to sort through the comments. I don’t know. But why not be straightforward about it? “Some comments were anonymous and I didn’t have the time to sort through them all; so, we just decided to disable almost all commenting function on the website.” That is better than saying one can take criticism but do not really read the comments then later saying that one shut down the comments because one found them objectionable for x reason(s).
@ siteseer:
I also think one reason that shut it down was that they had no mature responses to the critical comments that would make any sense to readers
Out of their ‘bubble’, they are little boys hiding from grown-ups who want to challenge them ….. they are not up to the task and they know this
@ Bridget:
I cringe to think how congregants who sign the 9Marks membership manifesto are treated in light of how callously these so-called leaders discount criticism on the 9Marks website.
No wonder problems are occurring in 9Marks affiliated churches.
This is kind of off-topic, but I’m going to drop this here and let you all mull over this and maybe ask yourselves why on earth nobody told Mark Driscoll this was completely out of place:
(From the chapter “Mary’s Expiation” in the book “Death By Love” from 2008, page 155)
*One of her sins discussed earlier in the chapter was that she failed to let her husband known that she had been sexually assaulted before marriage, and she had also been sexually active. She was so guilty from all this she withheld from her husband what was due him, which is another sin in Driscoll’s book. She’s got to document and repent of all this.
One of my Scientology-protesting friends said this sounded a lot like Scientology auditing, where records are kept for the pre-clear folder. Another friend (male) said that Driscoll sounds like a pervert.
This book was published by Crossway, which, as regular readers know, is part of the Calvinista Industrial Complex, and also includes 9 Marks, TGC and the rest of the usual suspects. In fact, until Driscoll fell apart two years ago, he was very much in with this crowd. And he publishes this…I can’t even say it.
I am getting a copy, one cent from a used book seller, because I think it’s important to have first-hand documentary evidence to show to people that Driscoll and his church are not safe for women.
@ Divorce Minister:
Excellent points!
@ Deb:
This was the article that led me to TWW. I wondered how you could stop someone from leaving a church. A follow up Google search led here. That was back when I was considering a return to religion, and it has been quite the education since then.
@ Jack:
The Lord works in mysterious ways. 😉 So glad a 9Marks post brought you into the TWW community.
Deb wrote:
Deb and Wartburgers,
Exhibit A. The “Statement of Faith” of my former 9 Marxist church, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. Anyone who has at least two working brain cells, who challenges them in any way, is threatened in meetings as “not being one of us” and “destined for Hell”, complete with being “keyed out” (Gram3 TM) — excommunicated and shunned because this is what Mark Dever believes and teaches.
“Statement of Faith
Preface. The Statement of Faith represents the doctrinal position of Grace Bible Fellowship (GBF) as adopted and taught by the Elders of GBF. The Bible mandates that, as overseers and shepherds of Christ’s Church, the Elders protect the doctrinal purity and integrity of the Church (Acts 20:28-31; Jude 3; 2 Timothy 4:1-5). They are also charged to preserve unity regarding the truth (Romans 12:9-18; 3 John 8-12). This Statement of Faith is a distilled overview of the basic topics of what we believe to be the “whole council of God” (Acts 20:27) regarding the fundamentals that a discerning Church and growing Christians should be aspiring toward. We acknowledge that every Christian is ever growing and ever-learning in the Christian life (Philippians 3:12); and we acknowledge that in this life we all “see through a glass dimly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We are all in progress and growing in knowledge (2 Peter 1:5-8). As such, we recognize the reality that every believer has a learning curve and is on the continuum of Biblical understanding based on maturity, experience, upbringing, and many other variables. The purpose of the Statement of Faith is not to exclude and isolate true believers, but rather to provide a common ground of truth which serves as the basis of common worship, fellowship and service to Christ as one spiritual Body and family in the local church (3 John 3-4).”
Statement of Faith
Preface. The Statement of Faith represents the doctrinal position of Grace Bible Fellowship (GBF) as adopted and taught by the Elders of GBF. The Bible mandates that, as overseers and shepherds of Christ’s Church, the Elders protect the doctrinal purity and integrity of the Church (Acts 20:28-31; Jude 3; 2 Timothy 4:1-5). They are also charged to preserve unity regarding the truth (Romans 12:9-18; 3 John 8-12). This Statement of Faith is a distilled overview of the basic topics of what we believe to be the “whole council of God” (Acts 20:27) regarding the fundamentals that a discerning Church and growing Christians should be aspiring toward. We acknowledge that every Christian is ever growing and ever-learning in the Christian life (Philippians 3:12); and we acknowledge that in this life we all “see through a glass dimly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We are all in progress and growing in knowledge (2 Peter 1:5-8). As such, we recognize the reality that every believer has a learning curve and is on the continuum of Biblical understanding based on maturity, experience, upbringing, and many other variables. The purpose of the Statement of Faith is not to exclude and isolate true believers, but rather to provide a common ground of truth which serves as the basis of common worship, fellowship and service to Christ as one spiritual Body and family in the local church (3 John 3-4).
http://www.gbfsv.org/gbf-statement-of-faith
According to the Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley pastors/elders I was “destined for Hell” and “not one of us” because I opposed them giving their friend a Megan’s List child pornographer carte blanche access to our church and its children and telling no one! According to them, he was their friend and “coming off Megan’s List because ‘he said so’.”
The California Attorney General called the pastors/elders’ story “all lies” and “total lies”. Ditto for the supervising law enforcement agency the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s sex offenders’ task force.
I was ordered to be friends with two women who use hate speech at church, speech that I refuse to use, that is vile, and that is illegal in my state and can get me fired from my job (with a diverse work force).
I was ordered to assume responsibility for a woman’s genetically inherited brain disorder and memory problems as my “sin problem”. This is that Nouthetic Counseling/malpractice/Unauthorized Practice of Medicine nonsense. What next? Assume responsibility as my “sin” problem for someone’s Diabetes, Cancer, or Heart Attack?
On and on the bullying went at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley. Many former church members that I interviewed were subjected to these abusive treatment as well.
And no, it’s not “Biblical” — any of it.
^Goof: A paragraph from my former church’s Statement of Faith appears twice.
Not “deleting comments”, Comrade.
As of now, It Never Existed.
Oceania has Always been at Peace with Eurasia and the Chocolate Ration has been Increased from Twenty Grams to Ten. LONG LIVE PASTOR!
mirele wrote:
I always figured Marky-Mark as a male nymphomaniac.
And that he’d eventually go down in a sex scandal.
I was surprised when it turned out to be plagiarism plus book-juicing.
But since he’s now on the Comeback Trail a la Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard, there’s always more time for the sex scandal.
LT wrote:
And then the REAL fun begins. When the hands get shoved deeper and deeper into a shrinking till until there’s not enough for them all and the daggers and poison vials come out.
Leeman offers up the line: “we decided to kill comments in general except mailbag.”
But it’s been over four months since he answered the ‘9MarksMailbag’ (the advice column went silent in May):
https://9marks.org/mailbag/archives/
mot wrote:
Lashing out until He Who Throws the Loudest and Most Destructive Temper Tantrum Wins.
“IF I CAN’T HAVE MY WAY THEN NOBODY CAN!”
mirele wrote:
Being a (violent) crime victim is “a sin”? In his sick and twisted world. Wow. Just wow. Doesn’t surprise me about him. Vulgar. Self-centered.
He’s being peeved with her for having had consensual sex prior to marriage (and not with Mark Driscoll) reminded me of a blog letter I read from a conservative Christian man. He married the “right girl”. Perfect. Virgin. Etc. They had a horrible marriage and they are now divorced (he filed for divorce from her). He wrote that his second wife is the polar opposite of his ex-wife. His second wife had sex outside of marriage, wasn’t “pure”, but is the most kind, loving, funny, generous person and they get along great.
I am unable to come up with an explanation other than Leeeman and 9Marks are pathetic. Leeman’s posts had substantive contrary comments and thus he faced a dilemma of many alternative choices in responding.
1. He could engage with people, especially after he states “I don’t often hear criticism”.
Did not happen
2. He could delete only comments that he felt were over the top or egregious.
Did not happen
3. He could limit future comments to those who would identify themselves.
Did not happen
4. He could leave old posts alone but going forward tell us that he does not have time to deal with comments and is only interested in promoting his point of view. He could likely find a better way to say it than I did using the proper Christianese.
Did not happen
5. He could close comments and delete all past comments telling us he was unable to substantively respond to the valid concerns.
Did not happen
6. He could close comments and delete them because he had his brown shoes on. When you want to do something really pathetic that you have no good reason for, then any excuse will do.
Leeman chose the pathetic course of action.
Now the 9Marks groupies can go read Leeman and never be troubled again. They can even go back into the archives to treasure everything Leeman has written, everything except for posts that mysteriously disappear down the memory hole.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And let’s not forget all of the excommunications and shunnings at “Mars Ill” [sic, David Hayward/cartoonist name for Mark Driscoll’s ex-church] and firings of elders/pastors, church staff, and every day people who wouldn’t bow and scrape.
Christiane wrote:
Well, Leeman did say he’s not used to strong criticism regarding Grace’s (Velour) review of 9Marks. I think when confronted head-on with so many criticisms in the comment section, he was floored. I don’t think he expected push back like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone advised him to shut down the comments. This speaks of fear. Fearful of the possibility that the religious systems and beliefs that he clings ever so tightly to might just be harmful. He’s invested too much of his life in this system to believe it is saturated with problems. Cognitive dissonance is at work.
Bill M wrote:
If people are over at 9 Marks’ website, I recommend that they save the pages on the Way Back Machine website: https://archive.org/web/
You save the url on the right side of the page. That or screen shots.
Darlene wrote:
That along with job security, a mortgage (most likely), health insurance, retirement, and social ties. Powerful incentives to maintain the status quo.
mirele wrote:
Mirele: That section from Driscoll’s book reminds me of what some folks call “slut shaming.” He did the same thing to his wife, Grace, in the book, ‘Real Marriage.’ Driscoll may have left the Neo-Calvinist camp, but I don’t believe for one minute that he shed his misogyny. When you posted that excerpt from one of his sermons, it was clear he still holds to his sexist views. You can take the boy out of the country (Misogynist Neo-Cal Camp), but you can’t take the country (Misogyny) out of the boy.
Velour wrote:
Yep. One loses quite a bit if they depart from the Neo-Calvinist Camp.
Speaking of Jonathan Leeman and approving comments this is the latest post on Acts 29 Fellowship Memphis. It became very hot with me approving profane comments about myself. I later did another post as to what Jonathan Leeman can learn form me. https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/rick-trotter-update-news-on-heather-trotter-and-acts-29-fellowship-memphis-going-forward/
My church in Napa, CA has a reputation for attracting the walking wounded from other churches, some from the local “9Marks” establishments. We patch them up and put them to work serving communion. That usually blows a hole through their previously “well protected” doctrine and promotes some cleansing tears. And a renewed appreciation for Jesus as our redeemer…
Christiane wrote:
In order to be up to the task, they’d have to be willing to dialog, admit that that others have expertise in understanding the Bible, admit to their mistakes, and make changes to address their issues. They would have to give up their air of authority and become equal co-laborers. Otherwise, all there is left is to try to spin things to make it sound like they care, or just shut down communication.
Velour wrote:
Understood, anything can be found if you go looking for it, groupies won’t do that. 9Marks is only protecting their groupies from being troubled by contrary points of view being in close proximity to their brand.
I continue to be fascinated by how slipshod institutional christianity is. 9Marks and TGC seem to pride themselves on their mastery of the internet, getting their message out, but this is another case that depicts them as stumblebums.
Loren Haas wrote:
That is so nice!
Loren Haas wrote:
Beautiful comment!
Bill M wrote:
So true. They are protecting their ‘brand’ for their groupies who subscribe to group-think.
But I wonder how long their “brand” will last. Most companies, according to research (including big ones), don’t survive for more than 100 years. It’s rare. Propping up their failing brand isn’t going to make the serious problems go away.
With social media – Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and other forms of social media – people can communicate in record fast time these injustices and get support from across the nation and around the world!
In my Facebook and Twitter timelines we have heard from a mother/wife who is facing excommuincation and shunning from her church (Bethlehem) for divorcing her incredibly abusive husband after years of an abusive marriage. Did the church offer to help her and her children? No. Of course not. The thugs (there I go again forgetting to write in fluent Christianese when it should read “elders”) are raking her over the coals. The outrage across the internet is growing as more and more people hear about the story and come to her support.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The problem I worry about is, will these types make their way into institutions we can’t avoid? At least now they’re segregated in their own little world.
@ Loren Haas:
It’s great to know you provide a place of refuge for the wounded, thank you for that.
Something like that would have made all the difference in the world to me at one point.
This is a post by businesswoman/soap maker/mom Natalie Klejwa. (she makes awesome soaps)
https://www.facebook.com/AppleValleyNaturalSoap/?pnref=about.overview
https://www.facebook.com/natalie.klejwa/posts/1157896177582909?comment_id=1158361530869707¬if_t=feed_comment_reply¬if_id=1474920815898818
Natalie Klejwa shared Valerie Jacobsen’s note.
13 hrs ·
As a woman who is almost free (divorce pending) after a 24-year-long painful journey and a four-year battle to get out, I can attest that everything Valerie says here is TRUTH. My own church, Bethlehem Baptist, is in the process of excommunicating me for trying to escape a destructive marriage. I say, BRING IT ON! The insanity has to stop. The lies have to stop. I will spend the rest of my life advocating for Christian women in emotionally destructive unions. Christ came to set all of us free regardless of color, gender, financial status, or any other stupid human line in the sand. Valerie Jacobsen is one of the most articulate, wise, God-glorifying women I know. I hope you enjoy her recent note. I hope you will stand with me for survivors of domestic violence, whether the violence is done to a woman’s body or a woman’s soul.”
mirele wrote:
Geez, it’s like mind-rape!
Also like what a friend of mine who converted to Mormonism (but later bailed) had to go through.
Astute friend!
siteseer wrote:
When I first heard about neo-Cal encouragement to ‘confess’ to a small group, I was shocked. I had heard already about people being shamed by having to confess a sin before a whole congregation and that was bad enough.
I knew this wasn’t ‘Catholic’ and I was pretty sure it wasn’t Orthodox, but I didn’t know what the source of these terrible shaming procedures was.
Now, the Scientology ‘auditing’ is mentioned. I do wonder, has the neo-Cal world BORROWED some of the most abusive things from cults and worked them into their own program???
If something is not ‘orthodox’ praxis, and it is dreadfully controlling and shaming, then sure, I would suspect ‘cult’ influence.
How close to Scientology ‘auditing’ IS this neo-Cal practice of shaming people ??? How many weird cults feed into the neo-Cal nine Marks hyper-headship mess? WHO brings this stuff into the neo-Cal world and teaches it? What is his/their ‘religious’ background??? When something is so bizarre as the way some victims are treated, I doubt it’s just being made-up as they go along. It must come from some established cult model.
Christiane wrote:
Yes. The NeoCal’s have been influenced by the heavy-Shepherding Movement (from Florida) and other Thought Reform groups.
Psychologist/author/cult & Thought Reform expert Steve Hassan
https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php
Many people think of mind control as an ambiguous, mystical process that cannot be defined in concrete terms. In reality, mind control refers to a specific set of methods and techniques, such as hypnosis or thought- stopping, that influence how a person thinks, feels, and acts. Like many bodies of knowledge, it is not inherently good or evil. If mind control techniques are used to empower an individual to have more choice, and authority for his life remains within himself, the effects can be beneficial. For example, benevolent mind control can be used to help people quit smoking without affecting any other behavior. Mind control becomes destructive when the locus of control is external and it is used to undermine a person’s ability to think and act independently.
As employed by the most destructive cults, mind control seeks nothing less than to disrupt an individual’s authentic identity and reconstruct it in the image of the cult leader. I developed the BITE model to help people determine whether or not a group is practicing destructive mind control. The BITE model helps people understand how cults suppress individual member’s uniqueness and creativity. BITE stands for the cult’s control of an individual’s Behavior, Intellect, Thoughts, and Emotions.
It is important to understand that destructive mind control can be determined when the overall effect of these four components promotes dependency and obedience to some leader or cause. It is not necessary for every single item on the list to be present. Mindcontrolled cult members can live in their own apartments, have nine-to-five jobs, be married with children, and still be unable to think for themselves and act independently.
We are all subject to influence from our parents, friends, teachers, co-workers… When this influence helps someone grow and maintain an internal locus of control, it is healthy. Influence which is used to keep people mindless and dependent is unhealthy. To download a PDF of the Influence Continuum graphic, click here.
Destructive mind control is not just used by cults. Learn about the Human Trafficking BITE Model and the Terrorism BITE Model.
The BITE Model
I. Behavior Control
II. Information Control
III. Thought Control
IV. Emotional Control
Behavior Control
1. Regulate individual’s physical reality
2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates
3. When, how and with whom the member has sex
4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles
5. Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting
6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep
7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence
8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time
9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet
10. Permission required for major decisions
11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors
12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative
13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think
14. Impose rigid rules and regulations
15. Instill dependency and obedience
16. Threaten harm to family and friends
17. Force individual to rape or be raped
18. Instill dependency and obedience
19. Encourage and engage in corporal punishment
Information Control
1. Deception:
a. Deliberately withhold information
b. Distort information to make it more acceptable
c. Systematically lie to the cult member
2. Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information, including:
a. Internet, TV, radio, books, articles, newspapers, magazines, other media
b.Critical information
c. Former members
d. Keep members busy so they don’t have time to think and investigate
e. Control through cell phone with texting, calls, internet tracking
3. Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrines
a. Ensure that information is not freely accessible
b.Control information at different levels and missions within group
c. Allow only leadership to decide who needs to know what and when
4. Encourage spying on other members
a. Impose a buddy system to monitor and control member
b.Report deviant thoughts, feelings and actions to leadership
c. Ensure that individual behavior is monitored by group
5. Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda, including:
a. Newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, YouTube, movies and other media
b.Misquoting statements or using them out of context from non-cult sources
6. Unethical use of confession
a. Information about sins used to disrupt and/or dissolve identity boundaries
b. Withholding forgiveness or absolution
c. Manipulation of memory, possible false memories
Thought Control
1. Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth
a. Adopting the group’s ‘map of reality’ as reality
b. Instill black and white thinking
c. Decide between good vs. evil
d. Organize people into us vs. them (insiders vs. outsiders)
2.Change person’s name and identity
3. Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words
4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts
5. Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member
6. Memories are manipulated and false memories are created
7. Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts, including:
a. Denial, rationalization, justification, wishful thinking
b. Chanting
c. Meditating
d. Praying
e. Speaking in tongues
f. Singing or humming
8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism
9. Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed
10. Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful
Emotional Control
1. Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish
2. Teach emotion-stopping techniques to block feelings of homesickness, anger, doubt
3. Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault
4. Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness, such as
a. Identity guilt
b. You are not living up to your potential
c. Your family is deficient
d. Your past is suspect
e. Your affiliations are unwise
f. Your thoughts, feelings, actions are irrelevant or selfish
g. Social guilt
h. Historical guilt
5. Instill fear, such as fear of:
a. Thinking independently
b. The outside world
c. Enemies
d. Losing one’s salvation
e. Leaving or being shunned by the group
f. Other’s disapproval
6. Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner
7. Ritualistic and sometimes public confession of sins
8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority
a. No happiness or fulfillment possible outside of the group
b. Terrible consequences if you leave: hell, demon possession, incurable diseases, accidents, suicide, insanity, 10,000 reincarnations, etc.
c. Shunning of those who leave; fear of being rejected by friends, peers, and family
d. Never a legitimate reason to leave; those who leave are weak, undisciplined, unspiritual, worldly, brainwashed by family or counselor, or seduced by money, sex, or rock and roll
e. Threats of harm to ex-member and family
@Christiane,
I’ve stashed some previous good comments about cults, heavy-Shepherding, etc. at the top of the page here under the Interesting tab, Books/TV/Movies/ETC tab.
Posted by BL on May 27, 2016, Part 2:
refugee wrote:
What would you say were the 9 (or whatever number) marks of the shepherding movement? Is there a way to sum it up? I can’t seem to get my head around it. I don’t know if there is a CliffNotes version, or not.
Part 2:
The discipleship leaders were initially involved with a ministry in Florida whose leader committed sexual sins. In response to this ministry’s failure, they sought protection from such failure by committing to each other for accountability.
So, we had a large number of on-fire Christians going from one meeting to another, one denomination to another, caravaning to other cities for some traveling evangelist, spending hours reading books or listening to teaching tapes, as well as talking to and teaching each other.
The men, Mumford, Simpson, Prince & Simpson (Baxter joined later) thought that the burgeoning charismatic movement needed to be accountable to someone and that someone needed to oversee it in order for the people to grow and mature.
They named themselves Christian Growth Ministries.
And in no particular order – they emphasized the importance of:
Restoring biblical church government.
The local church.
Covenant.
Spiritual authority, spiritual covering, delegated authority.
Male authority.
Accountability.
Spiritual covering (everyone had to have a personal shepherd).
Unquestioned obedience to your shepherd.
Wives’ submission & obedience to husbands.
Honoring & serving leadership.
Not gossiping, no negative speech, no spreading strife.
This church – Elitism (we’re the ones who are doing it right).
Not making any decisions without your shepherd’s approval.
Unity (with no place for dissent or disagreement.)
Small shepherding groups.
Obeying your shepherd even if he is wrong & trust God will fix it.
Leaving this church and your are leaving God.
Shunning anyone who has left.
.
I’m sure I’ve overlooked some aspects.
@Christiane,
More on the heavy-Shepherding Movement’s history:
Posted by BL on May 27, 2016, Part 2:
refugee wrote:
What would you say were the 9 (or whatever number) marks of the shepherding movement? Is there a way to sum it up? I can’t seem to get my head around it. I don’t know if there is a CliffNotes version, or not.
Part 2:
The discipleship leaders were initially involved with a ministry in Florida whose leader committed sexual sins. In response to this ministry’s failure, they sought protection from such failure by committing to each other for accountability.
So, we had a large number of on-fire Christians going from one meeting to another, one denomination to another, caravaning to other cities for some traveling evangelist, spending hours reading books or listening to teaching tapes, as well as talking to and teaching each other.
The men, Mumford, Simpson, Prince & Simpson (Baxter joined later) thought that the burgeoning charismatic movement needed to be accountable to someone and that someone needed to oversee it in order for the people to grow and mature.
They named themselves Christian Growth Ministries.
And in no particular order – they emphasized the importance of:
Restoring biblical church government.
The local church.
Covenant.
Spiritual authority, spiritual covering, delegated authority.
Male authority.
Accountability.
Spiritual covering (everyone had to have a personal shepherd).
Unquestioned obedience to your shepherd.
Wives’ submission & obedience to husbands.
Honoring & serving leadership.
Not gossiping, no negative speech, no spreading strife.
This church – Elitism (we’re the ones who are doing it right).
Not making any decisions without your shepherd’s approval.
Unity (with no place for dissent or disagreement.)
Small shepherding groups.
Obeying your shepherd even if he is wrong & trust God will fix it.
Leaving this church and your are leaving God.
Shunning anyone who has left.
.
I’m sure I’ve overlooked some aspects.
Posted by Deb on May 26, 2016, about the discussion about 9Marks and its abusive practices:
Here’s a post from 2010 that seems just as relevant today.
Nine Marks of an Abusive Church
Those Nine Marks are:
(1) Control-oriented style of leadership
(2) Spiritual elitism
(3) Manipulation of members
(4) Perceived persecution
(5) Lifestyle rigidity
(6) Suppression of dissent
(7) Harsh discipline of members
(8) Denunciation of other churches
(9) Painful exit process
A number of these do seem to apply to some 9Marks churches.
Gram3’s post on 5/24/16 about the roots of Patriarchy that we are seeing in Christian churches, NeoCalvinism:
I would add to BradFuturist that Rousas Rushdoony was the fount of Reconstructionism (the Reformed version of Dominionism) which led to Federal Vision which plagues many PCA churches to this day. Federal Vision is Doug Wilson’s theology, though it is taught by Peter Leithart who is still inexplicably tolerated by the PCA.
Dominionism was also promoted heavily in charismatic circles via TBN and other outlets. The connection between the charismatic form of Dominionism and the Reconstructionist version was Gary North who is Rushdoony’s son-in-law.
Reconstructionism is a perversion of standard Covenant Theology. Some consider it merely an extreme form of Covenant Theology, but I disagree. As Brad said, they wish to establish a theocratic state modeled on the OT theocracy. They take that as a pattern for how we should do government and church and family. This includes the idea of Patriarchy.
Federal Vision shifted the focus from establishing a theocracy to establishing a church that is the center of everything. There is much talk of priests, fathers as priests of their family, etc. Rather than a focus on individual conversion, the FV focuses on baptism and communion. One becomes a Christian by being baptized and one is baptized because one is born into a family headed by a Christian man.
The word “covenant” is plastered all over a lot of different things, and I think it is important to keep those things separate lest we blame people who hold to standard Covenant Theology for the weirdness.
I think a lot of Reconstructionist baggage got ported over to the YRR by guys reading Greg Bahnsen who was an affiliate of Rushdoony. He was a brilliant guy who was highly respected as an apologist in the Van Til school as was Rushdoony.
Gothard is another thing entirely, as far as I know. Wheaton in the 60’s was not a Reformed stronghold. I believe that Gothard’s views were primarily shaped by a fundamentalist mindset in reaction to a liberalizing culture. The answer was more laws and rules rather than an emphasis on regeneration and the internal work of sanctification in the individual believer. He began his work helping parents who were frustrated with their teenagers’ rebellion. Any of us who have raised teenagers can identify with their desperation for answers, and Gothard offered a System for that just like our current Female Subordinationists offer a System which supposedly produces happy marriages and families.
I think there was a lot of cross-pollination among these various streams of thought back in the 60’s and 70’s to get us where we are today. The Christian homeschooling movement is another place where ideas crossed over. Rushdoony decreed that homeschooling is the only Biblical way.
The bottom line is that people will use whatever means works if what they desire is to rule over others. We have all been useful idiots, but typically in the present it is much easier to see when other people are being useful idiots. Retrospectively, some of us have been able to realize that we were useful idiots.
That’s enough for a comment box. If you Google these names and movements, you will find a wealth of information.
Posted by Brad/FutuistGuy on May 23, 2016:
I thought about some key indicators, and remembered that a lot of them are in the lists for this post I wrote on “Calvinistas” a few years ago. Although Shepherding-type authoritarianism isn’t only in Neo-Calvinist/Neo-Puritan or Pentecostal settings, there is a common paradigm of thinking that always separates things into classes and categories, and that similarity goes far deeper than the doctrinal differences.
https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/12/06/calvinistas/
FWIW, here’s a bullet list of some of the items on those lists, and I’ll leave the descriptions of them over there.
* Dualism
* Reductionism
* Perfectionism
* Patriarchalism
* Totalism and Authoritarianism
* Dominionism
About the only other thing I think I’d add to this is something having to do with the ways these groups tend to “collaborate.” If they engage in ministry partnerships at all, it’s like to be where there is high overlap on those other essential approaches to thinking processes, systems, personal growth or behavior modification, authority and subservience, and stance toward culture. And the rest of the churches-theologians-Christians are labeled as either non-gospel, heretical, etc.
Deb wrote:
Deb,
I wish I had remembered this while writing the post, I would have included it.
I am aware of another example where 9Marx was receiving pushback and responded by deleting the article. The article, written by Jonathan Leeman. is titled “Churches Cooperating in Discipline.”
Ideally, Leeman would like nothing better than to establish a Protestant network similar in power to what the Catholic church had in the Middle Ages. Once in place, clergy would have virtually unlimited power over the laity. A member bold enough to question church leaders would be excommunicated for doing so, and all other churches in the world would refuse membership to the destitute soul.
Leeman’s original article, which I have a copy of, was dated 5.2.2013. The article was removed from the website. The article was reposted with a date of 5.10.2013 and can be seen here: https://9marks.org/article/journalchurches-cooperating-discipline/
As I recall, the original article could not be found on the website for much longer than eight days. My theory is 9Marx reposted the article with the incorrect date, hoping nobody would recall that it had ever been removed.
These gospelly boys are not to be trusted!
Loren Haas wrote:
Fellowship of the Emirates is a similar church in Dubai. http://fellowshipdubai.com/fote/website/
They have grown to be a large church with three services.
They are the church where hundreds of former members of United Christian Church of Dubai find refuge. Included in that number are 2 friends of mine, a former UCCD chairman of the elder board, and a guy who was deceitfully excommunicated when he told church leaders he was quitting because he preferred to attend a home church. (The Deebs are aware of his story.) I visited the church once and saw so many former UCCD members I almost thought I was back at UCCD!
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
That’s wonderful when churches can be loving, take in, and help heal the wounds inflicted on the saints by spiritually abusive, authoritarian churches.
Divorce Minister wrote:
Good analysis.
Yes yes and yes Velour. I suffered this controlling evil teaching between 1980 and 1984. I didn’t even know Derek Prince had admitted it was wrong until last year when I was researching heavy shepherding. It was a cult then and it’s a cult now.
Velour wrote:
From what I’ve read (even on the 9Marks website), all of these apply to 9Marks churches. I do believe that Leeman believes he’s being persecuted right now! Poor baby. It’s a shame that everyone doesn’t salute him and fall in line.
siteseer wrote:
It doesn’t seem to have worked out well for them in the past. The current society is too pluralistic. It appears that the failure to gain influence in secular society has led to a rise in pastors seeking refuge behind the Calvinist stockade.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
I seem to remember that Todd. We are grateful for the information you put together in this post. It is very revealing about the 9Marks organization.
siteseer wrote:
N.T. Wright has an interesting proposal for the root of sin. I am not a promoter of Wright, but he usually provides good food for thought. There is no question in my mind that these guys have made idols of themselves and their gurus.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2016/09/26/at-the-heart-of-nt-wrights-newest-sin-re-defined/
Nancy2 wrote:
Can there be any doubt that leaving a 9Marks affiliated church is difficult – (painful exit process)?
We need look no further than the following 9Marks post mentioned previously in the comment thread:
Pastors, Don't Let Your People Resign into Thin Air
For those who haven’t read it, please do (before it disappears again 😉 )
This 9Marks post begins with this:
And it ends with this:
@ Deb:
I was thinking about Dever’s authoritarian control over peoples’ lives and treating adults like recalcitrant children, undeserving of an iota of respect.
Jesus, on the other hand who is The Word, let people go. They wanted to leave…they were free to go. No elders’ meetings, no exit interviews with two pastor/elders (a requirement at my former church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley), no questions asked.
Bill M wrote:
Exactly. That does not say much for their confidence in their groupies’ loyalty to the brand.
@ Velour:
I should have clarified in my previous comment – that quote was from Bobby Jamieson, who was trained by his mentor Mark Dever, so I have made the correction.
@ Christiane:
Do you think molesting priests heard the confessions of their victims, too?
Deb wrote:
What does 'refuse to allow' even mean? Who does this clown think he is?
Deb wrote:
Thanks, Deb. Apparently Bobby Jamieson is parroting Mark Dever verbatim because those sentences are in Dever's 9 Marks book, his articles online, etc.
roebuck wrote:
My ex-pastors/elders at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley arranged to have a godly, middle-aged, professional woman in finance (married) harassed by hundreds of church members because she wanted to leave for a saner church with solid accountability. Her husband remained at GBFSV and the pastors/elders accused her of being “unsubmissive” and said they had “worked with her for a long time” (they just scream at members thinking they’ll get compliance). Harassed, she disconnected her cell phone, email, and moved out of the family home to an undisclosed location, not even known to her husband.
I think my ex-pastors (and other 9 Marxists) should be arrested and prosecuted for criminal conspiracy, stalking, criminal harassment and other crimes. We build jails and prisons for the likes of them. It’s a free country.
Velour wrote:
That’s what I’ve been thinking – some of this abusive church behavior has got to be actionable at some point.
@ Velour:
That is very upsetting! Hopefully, more and more of those being hurt in these hyper-authoritarian churches will come forward in the future and reveal what they endured in these cultish religious systems.
siteseer wrote:
They did long ago. Big government establishment is always controlling and regulates lives in ways people learn to accept because they know no different. It is the normal now.
roebuck wrote:
Correct. And according to so many of them (including my ex-pastors/elders) the Membership Covenant reigns supreme and you are helpless in the face of it. In the United States and in my state (California) you can’t contract for illegal acts and have them be enforceable.
These guys are really skating on thin ice.
Deb wrote:
Yes. It’s beyond upsetting. It’s criminal. This IS stalking.
@ Nancy2:
I used to make that all the time. Do you have a recipe for the starter?
AnonInNC wrote:
I am not familiar with this. Could you clue me in. It sounds like something I would love to read and write about.
AnonInNC wrote:
Huh? Weekly phone calls? About what?
Divorce Minister wrote:
There are times that I cannot read every comment on this site. That is why we have an overzealous word filter to protect us.
@ mirele:
Driscoll is crazy. He acts like his wife deliberately set out to harm him before they were a couple. The world revolves around him.
@ Jack:
That is why I eschew religion and, instead, focus on a relationship with Jesus. Religion, business, politics…all of them are bound to fail since they are made up of sinful people. Jesus, on the other hand, is constantly kind and loving, especially to those on the outside of the system.
@ Loren Haas:
That sounds wonderful. Could you tell me what kind of church it is or would you rather not?
siteseer wrote:
Most of these guys would not be able to handle being low man on the totem pole. Authority is their gig so I wouldn’t worry about them showing up working in the Tide division of P&G
Christiane wrote:
I love your comparison…Scientology auditing and small group confession…equally dangerous in many circumstances.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I remember that one. I had nightmares of churches all getting together to shun each other’s black™ sheep. My former SBC pastor contacted an Anglican pastor to try to “get us” for speaking out about a pedophile-well actually speaking out how they didn’t heed the warnings of a seriously sick pedophile in their midst.
Here is my response. When Pastors Breach Trust: My Testimony of Betrayal and God’s Grace
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/02/08/when-pastors-breach-trust-my-testimony-of-betrayal-and-gods-grace/
dee wrote:
Yes! I have a simple recipe for starter (with commercial yeast) that I have used for many years. There is another recipe on food.com (no yeast) that I want to try.
I will post the tried and true later today, and find the link for the other.
Last night’s Amish Friendship Bread: 1 cup dried cranberries and 1 cup chopped hickory nuts – yum, my fave! (pecans and walnuts are goo, too!)
@ dee:
It’s his new moniker.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
The chocolate ration of twenty grams has been INCREASED to ten grams, Comrade.
AnonInNC wrote:
AnoninNC, let us know how that goes.
@ Gram3:
That is what I like about him: He makes you think. Even when you disagree with him.
I have not read his newest book but I hope he covers “truth and deceit” as undergirding sin/not sin definition as image bearers.
Lydia wrote:
That is horrible to even think about.
Velour wrote:
Velour, that second link is broken. Is there another way to access it?
I would like to know which comments were, in Leeman’s opinion, “irresponsible”. Was he actually referring to the comments among the 31? I read through many, found not a single one to be irresponsible, all of them either calling him to task for making conflicting statements or misusing the Bible, etc, they were, almost uniformly, using solid logic, reason and the words of the Lord to question some of Leeman’s propositions, citing in some cases direct experiences that illustrated their points. Is it possible that Leeman was referring to those comments as irresponsible? Could any person with even a halting grasp on reality and even a bit of ethics say that?
Back when I practiced law we’d speak of the Straight Face Test (i.e., is a claim so absurd that no reasonable person could say it without bursting into laughter?). If Leeman is actually claiming that those comments he deleted were irresponsible, he is either:
a). So sensitive to the least slight that he is veritable baby in a bubble, ready to burst into tears at the slightest provocation, wholly unfit for adulthood,
b). Utterly blinded, deluded, given over to pure fantasy,
c). A sociopath or NPD who simply cannot take pushback because he is a warped, sick and dangerous individual.
Trying to imagine some other option than the above, don’t think there is one.
Bridget wrote:
Indeed. The spurgeon quote is good, but also one of the things you do to prevent groupthink is allow people to openly disagree! These people don’t want to make wise decisions, they just want to be boss. Pass.
@ Law Prof:
So glad we have legal minds in our midst to help us slog through this stuff.
Law Prof wrote:
Or smash everything within reach in a screaming fit of rage.
Deb wrote:
I had to smile a bit when I read this NeoCal advice. Several years ago, I had a conversation with an SBC-YRR church planter in my area. I was just becoming aware of the reformed movement and its network of non-SBC entities “working” the Southern Baptist Convention (Acts 29, SGM, T4G, etc.). After listening to him parrot the words of New Calvinist icons about the “true” gospel, I began to speak correction into his deceptive rebellion against SBC’s non-Calvinist belief and practice. He smiled and said “We are coming in the back door.” It’s not the exit of sheep we need to worry about – it’s the wolf coming in the back door.
mirele wrote:
You know, I could understand a husband feeling sad that his wife didn’t feel she could talk to him about this and maybe hurt. The thing is, that’s not the way it sounds from him at all! And couple that with the weird obsession with her hair (which for any normal couple would be not a big deal, because people get haircuts all the time and some of them are cute and some not) he just comes off as controlling and judgmental. Which tracks with literally every other thing I know about him.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
They tell a story of a woman being excommunicated for non-attendance!! That’s nuts. Dropped off the roles, sure. Fine. But ‘excommunication’ should be reserved for serious things, imo, and I can’t deal with these Leeman types who think you should be excommunicated for any ole thing. It makes it a completely non-serious thing, to me. It diminishes the meaning of this action to nothingness. Is that really what they want?
dee wrote:
And, apparently, he has never, ever sinned!
I read this over at the original posting. I have to admit, Leeman’s characterization of the commenters’ thoughts does not sound honest to me.
Well, in Leeman’s “defense” I’d have to say that writing books that tell others how to “do” church is heady stuff. After putting so much into it, I should think it would be very difficult to admit that there was anything wrong with his “biblical” paradigm with its scriptural basis.
(Of course, if you start from a different conclusion you can build a much different paradigm with regard to authority and discipline, but that’s another conversation.)
It’s much easier to decide that the problem is not with the structure *he* has helped to build, but rather, the problem is with people who are doing it wrong. And the lowest-hanging fruit of all would be those who are “doing” doctrine incorrectly.
Off topic: former pastor TT has published an article to encourage other ex-pastors.
http://www.expastors.com/the-freedom-in-losing-it-all-tullian-tchividjian/
Poor me, poor me, poor me, God is the light at the end of the tunnel.
I keep coming back to Leeman’s assertion that there is no such thing as a 9Marks church. I should think that a direct contradiction to the spirit of https://9marks.org/church-search/ even with the disclaimer.
The disclaimer says that appearing on the list does not necessarily mean 9Marks approves the church; however, it would certainly imply that a church appearing on the list approves of 9Marks and likely is guided by 9Marks principles. Otherwise, why bother putting one’s church on the map?
LT wrote:
The entire comment is excellent. But I cut this part out to comment on, because in our former church, the tragedy of it all was that I believe the “elders” saw themselves as beloved shepherds, even though they actually were “monarchs ruling”.
refugee wrote:
You have nailed the problem on the head.
Unfortunately, if you Google “Church Discipline”, you will see that in terms of modern writers Leeman dominates the field.
I think it would be very helpful for some scholars and pastors to write some alternative theological works on this topic.
This would actually help Leeman because there would be some scholarly pushback that he would probably interact with and it would help improve his work.
dee wrote:
Interestingly, the post next to it is about Brother Mark’s Traveling Show, where he completely inappropriately discussed sexual acts with college students! So creepy, that guy.
Dave A A wrote:
I love that he acts like it was a shock all this happened, losing his church and marriage, after multiple affairs. It was just totally out of the blue!
refugee wrote:
This is where Brad helped me a lot. I was able to see the systemic problems in other organizations due to my org development training and experience but had not really mapped it to religious organizations in a real way. It’s the same stuff with a faux spiritual plastic fish.
Even when you change the people at the top, the system will operate according to its culture. I saw it over and over. It might be hidden better or have better PR or propaganda but it is still ingrained.
Some institutions are not worth saving at all.
Law Prof wrote:
I’ve personally interacted with B’s and one BCD which includes my proposed additional category D) Deceived but well-intentioned. But, since A, B, C and my proposed D are not mutually exclusive, I also propose E) All or some combination of the above.
I have not met Jonathan Keys Leeman, so I do not know about him specifically.
@ Deb:
In your original article on groundhog day of 2012, you wrote, “Oh, by the way, the sheep may not be as dumb as the shepherds think they are… Case in point, we have copied and pasted this 9 Marks article into a Word document just in case it accidentally disappears, which appears to have happened before with certain 9 Marks resources.”
Prophetic!
In one way, it’s a relief they’ve taken away commenting, since it was exasperating to read all the comments specifically addressed to Leeman, to which he failed to reply.
And here is an interesting thing to consider.
I believe that it is important to have church discipline, though not practiced as 9Marks advocates.
But what is interesting is that 9Marks, Mohler, Akin, Allen, T4G, TGC etc. all believe in church discipline. They also believe that churches in their denominations should follow the denominational confession of faith. In the SBC that is the Baptist Faith and Message.
Or so they say.
When it comes to the SBC, they are very eager to waive the requirements for SOME churches to follow the BFM.
James McDonald’s church, Harvest Bible Chapel, has no democratic processes governing their church, as the BFM requires.
CJ Mahaney’s church, Sovereign Grace Church if Louisville, does not believe in local church autonomy. They operate by the SGM book of order which is heirarchical.
So they make allowances for their close friends.
This does real and potential damage to the larger body because there is no consistent doctrine in these important, agreed upon areas.
This also does damage to their ability to speak consistently and with conviction about discipline.
dee wrote:
Yeah, but how to put that on a sign?
Dave A A wrote:
I guess that makes everything okay, then.
@ AnonInNC:
I, too, am in NC. What town is your soon-to-be-former church in?
Anonymous wrote:
I agree with that, providing he paid attention to it, but I also do not expect that he would consider any different point of view. He has planted his claim stake.
Anonymous wrote:
I had never heard the term, church discipline, in the SBC until the Neo Cals started really promoting it. The fact I had not heard it was proof to them it was a big problem. As if we were all just doing whatever we wanted in our churches Willy nilly.
But it’s really common sense and one can hope we have evolved since 1st Corin 5 was written and would not be impressed by a guy bragging about sleeping with his mom. Not sure what sort of scholarly works are needed for that? How about, Don’t punish the young wife of an exposed pedophile for wanting to end the marriage? Don’t discipline her but kick out the con man pedophile?
But the Neo Cals ultimately made church discipline about obeying elders, church attendance and Matt 18— which does not fit. Matt 18 was not used in 1 Corinthians 5!!!
If only they had been honest about their intentions. A lot of cruelty could have been prevented in the Name of Christ.
Anonymous wrote:
Neither do most Neo Cal churches. They talk a good game but it are mostly elder ‘inner ring” operations. Even Dever talks the congregational polity game.
Burwell wrote:
Of course, he never says why “it all came crashing down”. I guess he’s just a poor victim of circumstance.
Gram3 wrote:
What is that word CJ always used for such types who refused to be taught by him? Unentreatable? :^)
Anonymous wrote:
He has found his ‘niche’ and has made himself an expert in the field. Smart business move on his part.
Burwell wrote:
Step 1 in the image rehab process? Make bank off your bad behavior?
Max wrote:
And the SBC are allowing these Neo-Cals to takeover the SBC.
Lydia wrote:
It serves a dual purpose: lining one’s pockets with silver and assuaging any inconvenient guilt that may still be lingering around.
As the saying goes: money can’t buy you happiness, but it can make you awfully comfortable while you’re being miserable.
@ dee:
That’s a fantastic story Dee. I had never read it. Thanks.
dee wrote:
Dee, I would love to tell you about our church!
CrossWalk Community Church was founded in Napa CA 150 years ago as an American Baptist congregation. Our pastor, Dr. Peter Shaw, teaches from a moderately progressive, scholarly perspective. Way more Jesus than Old Testament, although you can find one of his sermons about the flood on the Biologos website. We never ever hear anything like politics from the pulpit. An elected Board of Stewarts controls the budget and policies. Women currently hold a majority and leadership positions.
A lot of us here are in recovery from something. We host more than two dozen recovery groups like AA, NA, Al Anon. My wife and I lead divorce recovery groups and teach “Boundaries”. The parking lot can be busy from 6:00 AM till late at night.
Some of us are also recovering from authoritarian churches or spiritual abuse.
When Napa had a 6.0 earthquake in 2014 our campus was the center of recovery services. Our gym and kitchen was used by the Red Cross & Salvation Army to serve thousands of meals and we had hundreds of people sleeping overnight. We were so privileged to be the hands and feet of Jesus for our hurting town.
Not everyone in town appreciates us. Our church sign was recently vandalized with hate speech. We responded forcefully with a fresh coat of paint and by hosting 500 runners for an organ donation fund raiser the same day. Take that!!!
Please stop by if you are visiting our beautiful Napa Valley!
We are only 1 hour from San Francisco and 1 ½ hours from Silicon Valley.
Services Sunday at 9 and 10 AM
-If you dress up we will know you are from out of town…
You can see our Sunday teachings on YouTube at Crosswalknapa.org
mirele wrote:
This book is one of several co-authored by Dr. Gerry Breshears, long-time professor at Western Seminary in Portland. Remember when Mark Driscoll claimed never to have had mentors? That was a lie. He used to meet with Gerry Breshears on a regular basis for mentoring sessions, as did several other lesser-known (read: non-celebrity) pastor guys of high-control churches in the Portland area.
When I mentioned to a Western Seminary graduate I know the other day who was there back in the day, she told me that (not only had MD met regularly with GB regularly), but that Gerry Breshears co-authored with him.
Law Prof wrote:
You left off one choice:
D) All of the above!
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Yes, that was a great story Dee.
Law Prof wrote:
Exactly.
This wouldn’t have blown up the way it has if Jonathan Leeman had taken a deep breath and in humility showed gratitude to the commentators who were all quite logical and even-keeled.
I, like Dee, really gave Jonathan Leeman props in the beginning for his bravery and transparency in addressing this topic. The universe was not going to implode if they had an honest discussion and permitted it.
Lydia wrote:
Excellent! As you say, they have made church discipline more about being under the authority (and control) of the elders than it is about the reputation of Christ.
Lea wrote:
How I wish they’d all make an appropriate use of church discipline and excommunicate each other.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
True that.
Law Prof wrote:
Someone above mentioned a possible 4th option…
d) Someone so terrified of losing his meal ticket that he can’t admit that any of his (or his guru’s) critics might have a point.
So, Leeman doesn’t like those “irresponsible, anonymous” comments. And he claims that Facebook will stay open.
Well, in that case, here’s some news for Mr. Leeman if he’s listening (which I doubt): You prefer “responsible, non-anonymous” comments? You’ll get them. I’m on Facebook, and I have no problem at all putting my name to what I write. And if I write on your FB articles, you can expect me to say exactly the same things I said on your 9Marx article. Writing without an alias won’t change a single thing.
Just remember, Leeman, you asked for it.
Gram3 wrote:
I haven’t either, but when Leeman responds to all of one post (the one that stroked his own Ming vase ego), then apparently notices others and proceeds to eliminate all of them, including very reasonable, respectful ones that offered at most constructive criticism, and attaches a label of “irresponsible” to them, one has to wonder what is going through the man’s mind, if anything.
My personal theory, having sat on two boards of elders and worked alongside 9Marks types, having observed Leeman’s actions on public fora, is that very little is going through his mind, that he is a truly terrified emotional child, merely a series of extreme reactions to things he wants (raw power) and things he fears (anything that would have the effect of making him face himself and the consequences of his actions).
It is just a theory, but it sure does have some evidence to support it.
Lydia wrote:
Because there are written rules and unwritten rules. The written rules are all the good stuff like ‘we are against abuse’. The unwritten ones are ‘we are going to excommunicate you and shun you for divorcing your abusing/pedophile/cheating/porn addicted husband’. They wave the written rules at you like they matter, when the truth is they are just words on paper that no one follows. It’s their version of gaslighting you for seeing the unwritten rules that actually DO matter.
Velour wrote:
The universe would not, but their human idols, man-made kingdoms, ruthless dictatorships, book deals, conference honoraria, adulation of underlings and ready source of dupes upon which they can play their experiments and vent their wrath (for fun, of course) might implode.
Lydia wrote:
It’s unwritten verses written rules. I wrote a longer post but it’s stuck for now so I won’t duplicate it.
Burwell wrote:
I’m having trouble reading it word for word with all the cliches and platitudes. Skimmed it again and noticed it’s all about coping with all his losses after it all (passively–not anything he actually did) came crashing down. No warning for other shepherds not to sleep with the sheep, no “grandpa was right after all in not being alone with wimmenfolks”, and not surprisingly, not one Bible verse.
Good job, Todd. The failure to engage with those who respectfully want to discuss ideas a blogger writes about is a mystery to me. 9Marks and the others in their camp make a habit of this, unfortunately. (Is Hospitality Lacking at the Gospel Coalition?)
Law Prof wrote:
Like the 3 Popes back in the 14th century!
Nancy2 wrote:
The bloggers/PR guys complain of how we shoot our wounded. I wanted to comment “OH, who wounded him?” (TT) but noticed the comments are 100% positive– even gushing.
Dave A A wrote:
You know who you are supposed to shoot? Wolves.
Law Prof wrote:
Best idea I’ve heard all day!
@ Dave A A:
TT’s words are further evidence of a man who was never called into ministry. New Calvinism is populated by such leaders. I sincerely hope TT finds restoration on the other side of a “godly sorrow that worketh repentance”, but I don’t believe the Church needs to get in a hurry to restore him to ministry.
Dave A A wrote:
In all,the time he cheated on his wife, everything was just hunky dory ’til the story went public. Now he’s wounded? You can stick a fork in him as far as I’m concerned.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Though they were successful in taking over the SBC institutions, they did so somewhat before they started revealing their true colors. I just don’t think they’re going to gain the power they clearly want in this time and culture. They still have to convert churches by force, and then a lot of people just leave and ignore the threats of discipline.
Not only that, but I know a lot of SGM (PDI) survivors kids, and they have gone totally in the other direction, away from the church. This kind of authoritarianism is going to destroy them.
Dave A A wrote:
I saw that too. I find it highly unlikely that only positive comments, especially ones this ingratiating, have been made. I am suspicious that anything appearing critical, specific, or less than adulating have been remanded to File 13.
NJ wrote:
I second that. Could you consider recording the session and perhaps submitting that to the Deebs for consideration for a post? I’ve never heard of the Exodus 18 Family Tree. It sounds intriguing.
Recordings leave no wiggle room in terms of second hand he said she said defense. Todd Wilhelm, who wrote this post, simply placed his phone on the chair next to him using some voice memo app, when he visited Mark Driscoll’s new church. In his case, he was speaking to the intrepid Mirele on her picket before entering the church, so one of the pastors approached the protester friendly Todd and made him turn it off. However, the recording of that demand was first captured and Driscoll’s new church was exposed for being as controlling as ever.
Hey, Dee … The starter recipe for Amish Friendship bread is up on the cooking page. I know this recipe works – I’ve used it for years. Amish Friendship bread is one of my favorite go-to comfort foods, especially when the temperature drops!
I’ll find the link for the no commercial yeast starter I’m thinking about trying and put it on there. I think I have it saved in my email acct.
The 9 Marx people removing comments says more about them than almost anything else… Especially when they claim they have the “Truth”. If you really have the “Truth”, you have nothing to hide… and you would be calm, and desire, to defend your position. Period..
@ Deb:
Persephone wrote:
I’d like to ask Breshears how he could put his name on this book. The way women are treated in the rape chapter is degrading, starting with calling adult women “girls”.
@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
Makes you wonder whether they really believe God is Sovereign. Would a Sovereign God want them to remove posts and comments?
Yup…. the comments that I saw that were removed were reasonable… these guys could not handle really hard stuff that many of us encounter reutinely…. but then, they have created a l’utile mutual admiration society for themselves…..
@ Deb:
Nancy2 wrote:
We have a lot of nice recipes, Wartburgers, at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Cooking tab. Nick’s Yorkshire Pudding recipe is there. Gram3’s Key Lime Pie recipe and Daisy’s too. Tortilla Soup. And lots of other nice recipes. Gov Pappy’s Sour Cream Pound Cake recipe is there. Feel free to add on your favorite recipes so that we can try them out.
ishy wrote:
I think it will because of their children seeing its flaws and because other conservative evangelicals are rising up and throwing flags for conservative reasons. That means that this aberrant strain of evangelicalism will be seen not as “conservative” but as deeply radical and human-centered. And, in the next generation, who knows what “church” will look like?
Lea wrote:
And he forgets to mention whether or not, or in what way, the new Mrs T helped him through his dark despairing days of getting fired by 2 churches.
Max wrote:
The slogan of the bloggers is “God is not done with you yet. And neither are we.” But I can’t find their definition of “done with you”. Are they encouraging TT to return to the faith, or to his paid career? I read through some Facebook comments from after he got fired the first time. Dozens begging him to immediately get preaching again…
When checking Denny Burk’s blog, I noticed his tweet reference to a horrible article that seems to equate the submission of women to God’s authority ….. the article is sickening to read:
Have We Made Too Much of Submission?
September 26, 2016
Courtney Reissig
http://cbmw.org/public-square/have-we-made-too-much-of-submission/
Lydia wrote:
*pastor* Tchananagans (@pastortullian) says its step 3 of 6:
“Road to glory: 1)stay off Twitter for 6 month✅ 2)marry current mistress✅ 3)chnge the narrative 4)get book deal & speaking tour 6)Lie Lie Lie”
(step 5 is a secret!)
Anonymous wrote:
Why?
In your ideal church, how would it be practiced and in what circumstances?
Dave A A wrote:
My guess: shampoo, rinse, repeat.
Christiane wrote:
Didja see this one: http://www.dennyburk.com/the-benedict-option-for-evangelicals-will-likely-include-9marks/
??????
Many comments above have hit the nail on the head. The problem with this whole “system” isn’t that it is totally wrong in its attempt to disciple (discipline) rather, the loveless approach it assumes and the legalistic inventions of new more rigorous ways of disciplining that don’t appear as mandates in scripture.
Also, I may be wrong (please correct me if I am) but aren’t we only given of one specific time in scripture when someone was disciplined? This person wasn’t being divisive, questioning leaders, etc… He was sleeping with his step mom. Something that even freaked out pagans. And again when someone is disciplined for being divisive or having a questioning spirit that is extremely subjective. I would like to know if anyone is ever disciplined for very concrete things. Are men disciplined if they commit adultery? What if they are drunkards? How about the women? Would they be disciplined for those things? If people are just being disciplined for perceived attitudes that may be in opposition at varying levels with what the leaders are doing, I am hard pressed to find this legitimate disciplining. If anyone reading is a confessional reformed person (not a new calvinist) please let me know how discipling operates in your world.
Also, in First John he talks about all the people that went out from them. They became apostate and it seems that he freely let them go from their midst. He warned the remaining flock not to be led astray as those were but, it doesn’t seem like John is trying to threaten the ones who left nor is he trying to sniff out other apostates. He wants them to know the truth and to abide in love for one another and the Lord. This suspicion and frankly abuse seems foreign to the text of scripture.
@ LT:
I appreciated your comment. This part, “Christians are the most decent, gracious and forgiving people on earth” — some of them are, along with a host of others of different religions and no religion and no belief in God.
I’m sure a christian’s gracious and forgiving propensity can enable the bad behavior of other christians, especially leaders.
refugee wrote:
I have no sympathy for him. He set himself up as some kind of expert. He promoted his views far and wide and now he has got to face the music. He created this mess. He needs to take responsibility.
@ AnonInNC:
“I’m just curious as to how the pastor will react to my deluge of questions, and also how other members react to this plan (i.e., the extent of brainwashing.)”
+++++++++++++++
please report back — i’m interested to hear the result.
Nancy2 wrote:
Yep. The neo-Cals corruption of St. Benedict of Nursia’s model for their own agendas …. also sickening.
No way is St. Benedict’s Rule compatible with the isolation and cult-formation taking place in neo-Cal world. The Benedictine model is for monastic life, where people come voluntarily to live in community with one another primarily for prayer in the monastic tradition of the Church. The Rule of St. Benedict cannot be coopted by neo-Cals to lend gravitas to their miserable Nine Marxism ….. the Rule was never intended for abuse or control, but for order and peace within a voluntary monastic community of prayer.
I don’t think neo-Cals will prosper in this venture, no. Something tells me that they have no concept of Benedictine ways in that Catholic monasticism is not about ‘control’ and ‘power’ and ‘authority’ in the abusive ways of this world, and any attempt to foster application of the Rule integrated into the neo-Cal worldly authoritian model is doomed to fail big time.
So am I
elastigirl wrote:
Law Prof wrote:
Pragmatic businessman, protecting his brand by controlling appearances.
@ AnonInNC:
please let us know what happens when you confront those ‘leaders’ …. prayers for your effort to be helpful to prevent innocent people from falling into their trap
I hope you find a good faith community soon where no one is involved in abusing or controlling any innocent person. God Bless!
Nancy2 wrote:
I am confounded by Burk’s post. What is the “Benedict Option” to him? The Benedict Option is a Catholic idea, not Protestant. Is he actually suggesting that people create micro-communities for survival in post-Christian world and base the authority on Dever’s books? Does Burk not remember that Calvin’s Geneva didn’t have the best track record or outcome?
I would ask him but, strangely, the comments for this post are closed! That must have been an oversight.
Burwell wrote:
No, BURWELL, lately Denny has taken to closing comments on certain posts. Hopefully, he will open them again but for some reason he felt he had to shut down communication with commenters. I always hoped for better for Denny, that he could find his way out of that neo-Cal thinking, but by employment and now by appointment to head of CBMW, he is pretty well locked in to that world.
And yet, I believe that there is a basic core of decency in that man that I hope will remain and be something of a guide to help him out of that neo-Cal maze. Hope for good to come is a Christian endeavor that is never wasted.
@ Burwell:
I don’t know what ‘the benedict option’ is, but there is right much stuff in The Holy Rule of St. Benedict which is not limited to the monastic life, such as insights and understandings and such. The administrative procedures and the procedures for dealing with monastic communal living and such are specific to them, but there is more than that in the earliest chapters of the rule.
At my church our rector did a Wednesday night series on the Benedictine rule, talking about that which was applicable in more circumstances than just monasticism. And we are not a catholic church–well, we are not a roman catholic church–big difference, and we are certainly not trying to be monastic.
So, maybe this is some sort of popular thing now or something.
Lea wrote:
Oh Lea,how far from his mindset you are! It is not HER hair once married, it is HIS sexual visual cue & cultural gender marker – maybe his ‘gaze home’ & proof of her femininity, because short hair is, you know, guy like & hence gay, which MD is not, oh no siree – as her vagina is no longer hers & is now his ‘penis home’.
I feel like MD wants encyclopedic knowledge of his wife’s whole life & experiences because now, actually, they are his,he owns her body, soul & history & she has no right to withold anything from him. He scares me.
Burwell wrote:
Actually, the Anglicans and Episcopalians also have Benedictine orders, so St. Benedict’s Rule has found a home in Protestant monasticism also.
I don’t think evangelicals have monasticism, but I do know that many evangelicals are fond of Thomas Merton and that they will sometimes come on a monastic retreat for a week or two for a time of immersion into ‘ora et labora’. The monks don’t mind and they don’t prosyletize. They know they provide a place for people who need to come into the quiet and pray, regardless of their religious orientations.
The thought of neo-Cal cult-makers corrupting the Benedictine monastic model makes me ill. But not so much as how they re-wrote the ESV and attempted to target the Person of Christ with their ESS doctrine, and the related attack on the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. No end to what they will try to shore up a system that has already generated many hurting victims.
@ okrapod:
Okrapod, the Benedict Option is the brainchild of philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre but popularized by Catholic writer Rod Dreher.
Here is a link to Dreher’s explanation: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/benedict-option-faq/
Burwell wrote:
I guess we were mistaken. Negative comments are now appearing. One blogger is sorry a negative commenter feels that way but is “not sure this is the best platform for it.”
They may be unprepared for the backlash and feel forced to break out the internet-eraser of Mr Leeman.
or the penknife of Jehoiakim:
“22Now the king sat in the winter house in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him.
23And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four columns, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the scroll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
24Yet they were not afraid, nor tore their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.” Jeremiah 36
Hope this gets back on topic. All for today!
okrapod wrote:
People seeking to ‘come away’ to a place of peace and prayer is not so much a ‘popular thing’ as something that is a basic human need at times of exhaustion and confusion and grief. But many folks just ‘go camping’ by a lake or sailing under the stars, or go away to a cabin in the woods for a while, maybe to ‘hunt’, but instead to sit quiet and be with God in silence. These are healing things, not popular amusements. We all need this ‘coming away for a while’ at some point in our lives, yes.
What neo-Cals want to do is to corrupt a monastic Rule and make it fit their abusive controlling authoritative model,
but it won’t work. It may even back-fire on them. 🙂
Burwell wrote:
Hi BURWELL,
Dreher is not Catholic. He identifies as Eastern Orthodox.
Christiane wrote:
Ruby Ridge and Waco come to mind.
@ Christiane:
We were not talking about any sort of coming away, but mostly about chapter IV, the instruments of good works, with the 73 admonitions. Most of those are applicable to non-monastic life and are not limited to retreats or devotions or that sort of thing. There is some really good stuff about just how to be a christian in one’s daily life. That business of how to conduct one’s daily life, on the job and at home and such is the kind of thing that is emphasized by most of my bunch.
refugee wrote:
As a side note(or side money) the links on a churches site lead people to the 9Marks site where they will find many resources that can be bought($). How convenient.
@ Christiane:
My mistake! Thank you.
dee wrote:
Exodus 18:21-22, where Moses is instructed to select men to be “leaders of groups of one thousand, one hundred, fifty, and ten” to delegate duties. Apparently, this verse is supposed to justify a top down power structure. Since it’s still a small church, it amounts to there being the pastor over about 2-3 men who are “leaders of five,” and each of those leaders of five are placed over about 10-15 pew sitters each. When the pastor first showed me the diagram for it, I immediately thought, “Pyramid scheme!”
dee wrote:
Don’t know the specifics yet, as it won’t be implemented until after the Sunday member’s meeting. What I have been told is that the “leaders of 15-20” are supposed to either call or Facebook message everyone under them once a week to check in on them.
Burwell wrote:
Charlotte. It’s not Elevation, but the influence of Elevation on this church has become more and more apparent, especially in the past few months.
LT wrote:
What would make this very difficult is the fact that my phone is an old, non-smart model. The only recording device I have is an off-brand MP3 player. A test recording of a Youtube video playing on my laptop wasn’t very promising as far as volume, but I can sit near the front and my pastor tends to speak loudly. I can give it a shot and see how the quality of the recording pans out. Either way, I’ll be compiling a list of questions and taking copious notes.
@ okrapod:
Yes, a huge difference between general advice on how to live in imitation of Christ in the world as opposed to the structure of monastic life. The monastic life ‘calls’ to people who sometimes go out into the world and work and then return to it.
You can see this longing in the prayer of Aidan of Holy Island, Lindisfarne, a ‘tidal island’ attached to the mainland only when the tide receded to form a ‘land bridge’ twice a day.
But when the tide came in and covered the land bridge, Lindisfarne was once more an ‘island’ isolated from the busy mainland, and the monks were left to pray in peace.
Here is Aidan’s prayer, written long ago in northern Britain
circa 635 A.D.
“Leave me alone with God as much as may be.
As the tide draws the waters close in upon the shore,
Make me an island, set apart, alone with You, God, holy to You.
Then, with the turning of the tide
prepare me to carry Your Presence to the busy world beyond,
the world that rushes in on me till the waters come again
and fold me back to you.”
The ‘coming away’ in the monastic life is a special calling, but ‘coming away for a while’ is also a biblical concept, not something alien to any followers of Christ.
(The Holy Gospel of St. Mark 6:31)
Coming away to pray is also something Our Lord did Himself before major events in His Earthly life.
@ Burwell:
Thanks. I see what he is saying. That is not what we were talking about at our parish.
@ Lydia:
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu74.htm
Deb wrote:
The whole thing relies on the powers that be maintaining the illusion among the people that they have this power over them. All the people have to do is get up and leave. But somehow it takes a painful experience to make them realize it.
AnonInNC wrote:
Why not restrict your diets to manna and quail, too?
Christiane wrote:
Well, they’ve foisted it on the non-Catholic world in spite of the Bible not being about control, power, or authority.
Nancy2 wrote:
I’ll tell you what. If my pastor can prove that he’s Moses 2.0 by taking a staff and parting the waters of Lake Norman, then I’ll go along with this family tree scheme.
Nancy2 wrote:
Ba ha ha ha ha!
It never ceases to amaze me how people will ignore the main theme of the whole Bible and pick out some obscure passage relating some incident that happened, and build a whole system out of it. Sigh…
@ AnonInNC:
So do they promise to all die before entering the Promised Land?
“The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses,” (Matt. 23:2 NASB)
siteseer wrote:
what exactly have they foisted? At the heart of St. Benedict’s teaching is the renunciation of ‘self’ in the service of Christ. I can’t imagine ANY of the neo-Cal big shots renouncing one ounce of their power, or their money, or their control, or their pride even for the sake of the Holy One. No, the neo-Cal ‘leadership’ may ask for others to ‘obey’ but it won’t work BECAUSE they are not asking folks to obey Christ but themselves, and the results do not exactly reflect the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
I think the neo-Cal ‘Benedict Option’ is not connected morally or spiritually to the work of St. Benedict who centered his followers on Christ, not on himself. How could it be when the neo-Cals have so profoundly rejected the Great Tradition of the Church ?
?
@ Christiane:
Gee thanks but no thanks. I have had enough of Catholic evangelism.
Law Prof wrote:
LOL
Lydia wrote:
I responded with some information because you asked, as a courtesy to you, in hopes that your question was a serious one.
Christiane wrote:
Confession is one reason I stopped participating in Catholicism. I didn’t see a mandate in scripture to confess to a priest.
@ Bridget:
Hi BRIDGET,
my response to LYDIA was because she had written this to me:
“Lydia UNITED STATES on Tue Sep 27, 2016 at 08:14 AM said:
@ Christiane:
Do you think molesting priests heard the confessions of their victims, too?”
I thought Lydia deserved a response which was informative rather than opinionated. It is her option to ignore my response. I have no problem with that.
The important thing is I took her question to me as worthy of consideration and response, and I acted accordingly.
Bridget wrote:
Confession is one reason I AM Catholic.
siteseer wrote:
Who foisted what?
Law Prof wrote:
Not sure about individual members, but I have the feeling the congregation as a whole will fall apart long before the pastor’s lofty “vision” is fulfilled.
AnonInNC wrote:
I would be curious how Elevation is influencing the churches around it. Coloring books? Lights and fog? I would guess that other churches would want to go the other direction, in order to differentiate their “brand.” Or do they see imitation as the best way to compete?
The “Exodus 18 Family Tree” reminds me of the “Moses Model.” Same pyramid scheme, different label.
Bridget wrote:
Same here. I even told the priest before I left that that was the last time I would go to that type of confession since he didn’t have the authority to forgive my sins anyway.
GSD wrote:
My church in particular has the fog and light show, as well as the rock band worship and hip young pastor in T-shirts and jeans. There’s also an influence of seeker-sensitive “Church isn’t about you, so don’t complain how we do things!” preaching, as well as “vision casting” from the pastor. As far as I know, no coloring books yet, but then again I don’t keep up with the children’s ministry and what they do.
It’s a formula designed to appeal to younger people, so it’s all hip and flashy. Since it grew Elevation to 15,000 people, other churches think it’ll work for them, too.
Victorious wrote:
That is how I felt about it, although I just stopped going. I did start speaking to God directly at that point though, just no need for the in-between man. No one besides Christ that would be.
siteseer wrote:
While I absolutely agree with your recommendation, what is unfortunate is that so many congregants in these Neo-Cal churches (who tend to be young) have built their lives around their church. If they suddenly left, they would likely leave most (if not all) of their friends and support network behind. That's a life changing event. And then there would likely be shunning. 🙁
Deb wrote:
It seems like we’re back in Puritan times. But people can still make choices, and are not slaves to any particular ‘church’, as awkward as it might be to opt out of a weird abusive cultic situation.
These are such strange times!
roebuck wrote:
Maybe this concept of ‘fellowship’ needs to be re-examined if it is being used to manipulate and humiliate and harass people. It doesn’t sound like a Christian social behavior at all. It sounds like a practice where boundaries are unhealthy and there is much disrespect for the dignity of one another.
They can call it ‘Christian fellowship’, but it doesn’t reflect the Body of Christ.
Deb wrote:
I’m fortunate that I have a second group of friends, unconnected to the church, that I’m actually better friends with than people in the church. If anything, my relationship with church members ranges from “casual acquaintance” to “guy who creeps me out a bit by being a little TOO welcoming.” I’m not expecting my departure to be all that painful, but on the flip side, I really didn’t invest a great deal into it either.
Dave A A wrote:
I couldn’t help checking back on the Tchividiblog. (expastors.com) The comment deletion has begun, along with some still visibile but now showing as in moderation. So far, of course, the person too busy to respond to anything is the author.
Bridget wrote:
Seems like some of the nosier churches want to institute some kind of hybrid confession to either small group, elders or nouthetic counselors without any of the rules that go along with that in more formal settings.
From expastors.com, this is on-topic and simply PRICELESS!
———-
This comment was deleted.
Avatar
GregAtkinson Guest • 13 minutes ago
I hope it was deleted. In case you haven’t come to the realization yet – we’re all sick, we’re all sinful, we all mess up. None of us have it together. None of us are sinless. That’s why God gives us grace and mercy.
———
The deleted comment was from “Concerned” (who seems to have inside information) asking why a previous comment was deleted.
GregAtkinson is one of 3 blogger/moderators.
@ AnonInNC:
I am so glad you have a network of friends outside your church. This is so important to maintain balance in one's life.
@ roebuck:
Not long ago someone emailed us and explained that "Neo-Cal" really isn't the correct way to describe the YRR crowd. He contended that they should be referred to as "Neo-Puritans".
Deb wrote:
I still vote for “Neo-Cal” because it’s got “Cal” in it for the theme song we’ve assigned these authoritarian groups: “Hotel California”. You can check in, but you can’t check out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND3I0h0RUbI
roebuck wrote:
Christiane was saying that The Rule of St. Benedict cannot be coopted by neo-Cals because it was never intended for abuse or control, I was just saying that hasn’t stopped them from foisting their vision of church as control, authority and hierarchy on the non-Catholic world, which isn’t supposed to be about abuse and control, either.
Dave A A wrote:
These guys are missing a major part of the whole thing.
@ Velour:
You've got a point there. Not I have that Eagles song stuck in my head. 🙂
Deb wrote:
Yes, I do understand, it isn’t easy to leave the social network you’ve been a part of. There comes a point where you realize you would lose these friends if you left, then when you spend time with them you realize how superficial it really is. I know a lot of people will go on with that, I couldn’t. I wish I’d left and just started over sooner.
@ Christiane:
Sorry, I didn’t word my comment very clearly, I meant the neo-Cals have foisted their control trip on the Protestant side of the church, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see them trying to co-opt other groups beyond. Does that make sense?
Deb wrote:
I learned it all from The Deebs.
siteseer wrote:
Excellent insight and advice.
I started a blog for the people still at my church, or those researching. And I started a Facebook group, including one for the students at Stanford University that are targeted by my (ex) church.
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/
https://www.facebook.com/gbfsvsurvivors/
[I found a great picture to use and quote that I use on FB. “The scars you share become lighthouses for those headed to the same rocks you just hit”]
https://www.facebook.com/Grace-Campus-Ministries-GCM-Stanford-Spiritual-Abuse-163995357380799/
I fill the Facebook timelines, and my blog, with helpful information from other bloggers, that might give help and hope to those stuck in an authoritarian church and wanting answers, wanting out.
GSD wrote:
Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel) is the originator of the ‘Moses Model’.
Calvary Chapel will not tolerate dissidents any more than the calvinista regimes will.
And that is the whole point of this thread topic.
What is the fate of any dissident, in any fundagelical regime? (arminian or reformed is irrelevant)
AnonInNC wrote:
Got it, thanks. A friend of ours is an older architect, who was working on a church project for what he called a “youth-oriented church.” He went to a few similar churches in a large metro area, and to his trained eye, the “church” was basically a rock concert and a motivational speech in a theater-style space, while next door was a kid’s area that rivaled Disneyland.
So it sounds like Elevation has sparked an ecclesial arms race. That’s scary… And probably inevitable.
This hasn’t happened yet in our small town, although there is an ARC church that does use a fog machine at times…
siteseer wrote:
Yes, it does make sense. Thanks for clarifying.
GSD wrote:
Someone, whose name I do not know, asked me to drop by the (then) newest Hillsong satellite location, which is two miles from my house. This was about a month before I started picketing Driscoll, so I had no problem going and checking it out.
I wish I had brought earplugs. It was so loud. It was SO LOUD even during the preaching that I didn’t know my phone was ringing except that I had it in my hand and could see it.
I was able to confirm that the auditorium probably did seat around 2,000 adults, so the place properly qualified as a megachurch, but I will NEVER go back there again. Wild horses, etc. And yeah, it was a stage, looked like a rock concert, I can’t remember if there were fog machines though…
mirele wrote:
so much for the beauty of the Psalms ‘be still and know that I am God’ or the words of Zechariah, “Be still before the LORD, all mankind, because He has roused Himself from His holy dwelling”
@ dee:
Much of the Christianity expressed here is of the common sense variety. Time and again I’ve been able to see the Christianity and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive.
I hope that it is not implied that TWW turned me off religion. Actually it was the church I attended at the time that repeatedly told me I was not Christian and stuck to a very narrow and intolerant interpretation of scripture that turned me away.
I don’t intend on exploring other faiths (like Buddhism, Judaism or Islam) but given the doubts I have, it would be hypocritical to identify as Christian.
The education I’ve received here shows me more what a church shouldn’t be. This is much needed info to counterbalance what some churches are currently espousing.
The irony is that when I express tolerant views of homosexuality or other faiths to my Christian friends and family, they will agree with me (maybe not in their church but in private conversation). It seems that I have more in common with them, just not their institutions.
Dave A A wrote:
TT’s article reminded me of the bad coach after a series of losing seasons, “this year has been a rebuilding season and next year we will do great things”. His words struck me less as a mea culpa and more of a sales pitch for his next gig.
Lea wrote:
You just reminded me of a SciFi book by Larry Niven, where in his series, they were desperate for human organs to prolong life, and so the death penalty was legislated for lesser and lesser crimes. (Criminals were put to sleep and their organs were harvested, as I recall.)
It’s been a long time since I’ve read Niven, but I went through all of his books in a short time, when I was younger. (It’s how I used to read; I’d discover an author and then read everything I could find by that author.) I *think* I’m remembering this theme properly. (And society being set free when a new method was found for growing organs from cells, instead of having to harvest them from living donors.)
And I’m also reminded of Princess Leia in Star Wars, saying, “The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”
Perhaps the authoritarians will find this true in their system, as well.
Anonymous wrote:
I think this is a wonderful idea.
Law Prof wrote:
Echoes of Paul, isn’t it, something like, “Would that they would mutilate each other” when speaking of legalists in NT times.
ishy wrote:
That is the saddest part of all. It seems to be a very good method for creating atheists and agnostics under the guise of a “christian upbringing”. Of course, they’d probably just say that the kids weren’t elect, for all their covenantal rhetoric.
Or they’d call on the “promise” Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.
Or they’d blame the parents for “doing it wrong”.
siteseer wrote:
Amen to that. I have no sympathy for him either, nor, frankly, respect.
@ siteseer:
“I suspect the real reason they shut it down is so noobs coming to their site won’t see that there’s any controversy and they can keep up the appearance that it’s all working fine. It’s all about the marketing.”
++++++++++++
i may be wrong, but it seems mr. leeman’s career is 9Marks. His raison d’etre. ‘He 9 Marks, therefore he is.’
(seems pretty crazy to me, and tenuous — to make a career out of inventing sins and doctrines). doesn’t score high on job security. i know many seem to do it — i’m almost nervous & stressed out for them.
Almost. (not really) the larger part of my feelings are full of conviction that this ‘sin invention industry’ needed to implode yesterday. with dishonor. it is extremely wrong to invent sin and doctrine, let alone profit from it & stake your family’s welfare on it.
For professional sin inventors, there is every reason to keep people dependent on your inventions — to perpetuate your invented artificial mandates and set them up as the standard for success or failure, for righteousness or sin, for God smiling on you or God frowning on you, for qualifying as God’s friend or his enemy.
some weird kind of co-dependency. ‘I need you to need me. I need you to believe in everything i’m saying, to believe you’re on the road to sin & failure because i said so. The welfare of my family depends on it. i can’t feed my kids or get medical care for them without it. my career (in which is wrapped my ego, security, and the litmus test for my significance) depends on it.’
Burwell wrote:
Wasn’t that tried by hyper-calvinists at Rivendell? They were identified as “reformed”, at least. (Not saying any and all “reformed” are the same as the Rivendell “reformed”.)
This is a glowing article from early on:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/27/news/mn-17823
But according to this next link, it fell apart a few years later:
Rivendell
(1999-ca2004, Floyd County, Virginia)
Anticipating a societal collapse because of
Y2K, a group of conservative Christians, most
espousing radical dominionist and patriarchal
movement doctrines, created a refuge for
some 20-30 families on 437 acres of land in
remote western Virginia. Prominent founders
included Ken Griffith, Howard King, and
Philip Lancaster. Though sometimes billing
themselves to the media as mainstream
Christians, they were typically far from that.
Ken Griffith, for example, posted an essay online
that urged “Christians” to arm themselves
to fight future persecution by the government.
Rivendell’s community included a number
of extremists, including frequently arrested
anti-abortion extremists and Operation
Rescue leaders Bruce Evan Murch and Joseph
11
Foreman, who argued that killing doctors and
workers at clinics that performed abortion
was justifiable homicide. Though Rivendell
successfully survived Y2K, it did not survive its
own residents. Internal bickering, infighting
and even accusations of heresy between
different Rivendell leaders caused some to
move away, including founder Ken Griffith, who
shortly thereafter would be convicted, along
with two others, of conspiracy, wire fraud, and
mail fraud in connection with a timber-cutting
scheme. As an experiment, Rivendell had fallen
apart by 2004, though a church associated with
its residents still remains.
from: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combating-hate/ADL-Report-Home-is-Where-the-Bunker-Is-Web.pdf
@ Jack:
“Much of the Christianity expressed here is of the common sense variety. Time and again I’ve been able to see the Christianity and critical thinking are not mutually exclusive.”
++++++++++
this is the best compliment ever. if TWW ever wanted to provide a testimonial, this is it.
@ refugee:
I don’t appreciate Jonathan Leeman’s shutting down the comments. I do, however, appreciate his initial article and some of the candor he expressed. He didn’t go as far as many of us would like, but for a 9 Marks guy — it was still an admission.
Jonathan Leeman wrote the 9 Marxist article about my (“Grace” on Amazon) 1-star review of Mark Dever’s book 9 Marks of an [un] Healthy Church and my abusive ex-church complete with Salem Witch Trials II treatment for all dissenters, critical thinkers. My ex-church was a 9 Marks Church.
I take Jonathan Leeman at his word:
*that he hadn’t heard criticism presented like mine
*that he was sorry for what I had been through [thank you Jonathan Leeman]
including being excommunicated and shunned over a Megan’s List sex offender/child
pornographer that my pastors/elders brought to church and told no one, permitting him access to other peoples’ children because he ‘said a few words about Jesus’. So we’ll just bet the safety of the kiddos on that.
*that there are things that 9 Marks needs to articulate that they don’t mean
to have practiced in the church and they could do a better job
I still think that Mark Dever’s 9 Marks should be scrapped because it’s the heavy-Shepherding Movement’s from the 1970’s tactics rolled out with new terms. Authoritarian. Abusive. Un-Biblical. Doesn’t respect the priesthood of all believers.
I am praying for Jonathan Leeman. I’m commanded to. Think about all of the people that headed down the wrong path, thought they had the right reasons, and over time they changed. They ‘saw the light’.
I like the transformation we saw in former racists at a Little Rock school during integration. On “Oprah” the former racists apologized and asked for forgiveness from the blacks they harmed out of ignorance. It was on “Oprah”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8REh9ZlvBcw
siteseer wrote:
Ah, but what you’re leaving out is the fact that once you’ve been drawn in, the church (as with many abusers) takes steps to isolate you and become your whole world. Leaving means you lose possibly your entire social structure, and your kids lose all their peers. You are cast adrift in a world you’ve been brainwashed to think is hostile and evil. It’s a frightening prospect.
I remember when our elders deposed our pastor, announcing in an email he would not be back to preach on the coming Sunday — our first intimation that all was not well in Wonderland. I remember being shattered, and shaken, and completely demoralized at the thought that our church might break apart and scatter on the winds. All of our eggs were in that one basket, even our homeschool support (and all that entails).
Now, of course, I dearly wish the church *had* self-destructed at the time, that the elders had not been able to hold things together. We would have been thrown out into the howling darkness much sooner, and would have found that, actually, we’d left the howling darkness behind us and come into the Light.
Muff Potter wrote:
Yup, I came from the Arminian side of the “fundagelical” coin and found it quite capable of repression.
Two major doctrines,
#1 the pastor is in control
#2 see #1
Deb wrote:
Exactly, Deb. You said it more concisely than I did.
@ siteseer:
“There comes a point where you realize you would lose these friends if you left, then when you spend time with them you realize how superficial it really is. I know a lot of people will go on with that, I couldn’t. I wish I’d left and just started over sooner.”
+++++++++
oh my goodness, extricate yourself from church and you will see all the lovely and wonderful human beings on your street and in your neighborhood. people from other backgrounds and cultures and perspectives who you never noticed or had time for. beautiful people who will enrich your life with their kindness, sincerity, and uniqueness.
(not necessarily speaking to you, siteseer, but to anyone/everyone. i’m sure you’re in agreement.)
@ Velour:
Thanks. Good food for thought.
elastigirl wrote:
Complete agreement. Now. A decade ago, I would have looked at you in amazed disbelief that you could be so deceived.
(And all along, I was the one who was deceived.)
elastigirl wrote:
Your comments makes me wonder about the whole idea monetizing your faith. I for one enjoy landscape photography, am fairly accomplished, but have no desire to sell what I do as it completely changes the dynamics. I did it in my twenties but found I lost the much of the enjoyment and the freedom to spend time on the things I liked about it. When I spent a large amount of time working in a darkroom I lost all interest in going back in to do my own stuff, and that was the reason I started.
Up till now I had not extrapolated that experience to trying to making a living about my faith. I imagine that some of the same factors may come into play, especially the freedom to adapt or change. For example I now see Calvinism and Arminianism as fairly close in some respects, especially considering the large spectrum of Christian beliefs, but even a small step between those two belief systems could easily cost you your income. Also, similar to my not wanting to go into the darkroom to print my own work, do these practitioners of doctrine similarly lose their desire to go in and simply read their Bibles just for themselves?
Muff Potter wrote:
True, it’s irrelevant, and charismatic vs cessationist is also irrelevant. Is there anything that does make a difference?
@ Velour:
What a great resource you are putting together, Velour. I wish something like this had been available when I went through spiritual abuse.
Velour wrote:
Velour, the post is no longer available on Facebook. I wonder if someone complained and it was taken down.
siteseer wrote:
Velour and others here at TWW are survivors who have been through torrents of abuse. I see them standing on the other side of their journeys through that hell and beckoning victims in peril to come away towards the light and into safe harbor. They are offering their stories and their experiences in the hope that others do not have to suffer so much in abusive situations. This is a good work. This is a holy work.
@ refugee:
“We would have been thrown out into the howling darkness much sooner, and would have found that, actually, we’d left the howling darkness behind us and come into the Light.”
++++++++
ha! the ‘howling darkness’…. reminds me of buzz lightyear in Toy Story, when his helmet is knocked off and he’s exposed to earth’s toxic aptmosphere, gasping, clutching his heart, staggering…
if really, truly interested, go to 1:15 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blwzc3zisRg
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
Wow, talk about master manipulators of control. I started reading that 9Marx article and couldn’t believe the reason one church excommunicated a woman. Here it is:
“In a membership interview, a woman admitted that she had been excommunicated from a church in another part of the country for non-attendance. She had stopped showing up, and the church faithfully excommunicated her. (see Heb. 10:25) When pressed, she admitted that she had never reconciled with her past church, but that she wanted to. The elder conducting the interview therefore called her former pastor and asked about the situation. The former pastor said that, in light of the fact that she now lived in another part of the country, her repentance would be shown in joining our church. His congregation then formally and publicly expressed its forgiveness toward her, and she joined our church.”
You have got to be kidding. The woman was excommunicated for NON-ATTENDANCE!!! And Leeman gives Hebrews 10:25 as justification. Talk about twisting scripture. That verse says nothing about excommunicating a person because they don’t attend services. This reminds me of the way my former Christian cult twisted scripture. The leader/pastor started a practice whereby every member’s spiritual condition was publicly judged and then that person would be put into categories. If I told you the categories it would flip your wig. Anyhow, the scripture the leader/pastor used to justify this practice was I Corinthians 11:19: “…for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” Some pastors aren’t satisfied until they have every last person in their church under their thumb.
Velour wrote:
Time’s Square Church, which was pastored by David Wilkerson, was a refuge to many people who left my former Christian cult. The pastors there met privately in groups with exmembers to hear their stories. And they were very instrumental in helping exmembers on the path toward healing from spiritual abuse.
siteseer wrote:
Thanks. I figured I would put to use my post-excommunication/shunning “education” at this blog and on other ones. I don’t want hurting souls to have to re-invent the wheel. I figured I throw them a life-line of good resources and things to think about.
Darlene wrote:
That is so nice.
Darlene wrote:
That’s curious. I’ll have to look in to it.
@ Darlene:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/valerie-jacobsen/divorce-caring-for-victims-of-covenant-breaking/10154447255167088
Burwell wrote:
Burwell, Dreher is an Orthodox Christian, not Catholic.
Darlene wrote:
I really liked David Wilkerson. I no longer consider myself “charismatic,” but spent many years in the movement. Growing up, I remember my mom used to listen to his sermons all the time and received his monthly newsletter. My wife still listens to his messages. I think Carter Conlon, the current senior pastor at Times Square, is also a fine preacher. Here is an awesome 5 minute clip of Conlon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKYtmlhtYZ0
Christiane wrote:
Christiane, ah…you beat me to it. 😉
Christiane wrote:
Interesting view on the face-to-face practice of confession. This is how the Orthodox Church practices confession. No booths. And it is very much like a session with a counselor. At least this has been my experience.
siteseer wrote:
The Prayer of Jabez comes to mind. A theology built around one tiny verse hidden in the O.T.
Lydia wrote:
Well, Lydia…you did open the door when you made that comment. So…..
Deb wrote:
I think there’s probably something scarier to many people. Many of the Calvinista churches seem to believe they can determine who is Elect and who is not (while stating publicly they can’t).
We’ve seen Piper et al. talk about how God hates people. The Calvinistas clearly believe that this bizarre process of taking over churches and forcing people into contracts has some sort of spiritual binding.
So if someone tries to leave, there has to be some manipulation on the front of “God will never save you, and you’ll go to hell. You can never come back and be a Christian again, because we won’t let you.”
ishy wrote:
NeoCalvinist pastors/elders also resort to lying about church members in order to make their exclusion plausible. The ends (getting rid of a member) justifies the means (lying, gossiping, manipulating other church members, defaming, slandering, gossiping).
My ex-NeoCalvinist church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley’s pastors/elders are notorious for their lying about church members. Numerous former church members that I’ve interviewed accuse them of lying.
This post brings back some similar, bad memories from my high school years (I went to a fundamentalist baptist high school). I remember chapel services on "holding hands leads to murder!, and they make movie theaters dark so that all sorts of evil things can go on! When I went up to the speaker afterwards and suggested that you can see the movie better when the lights are out, he started quoting Old Testament verses about arguing with wicked, etc… i. e. I was not worth talking to…. That is the same thing Leeman is doing here… dismissing any questions since the person that is raising them is obviously wicked and not worth the time to engage them. The same thing happens with many young earth people… they rapidly resort to attcking your faith..
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
So, I had a quick look at Mr Leeman’s article whereof you spake.
One wee snippet from it I find, in equal measure, encouraging and frustrating. Probably easiest to quote it:
I find it encouraging that “our pastors” to whom Leeman refers took the charge of rebellion seriously enough to examine it honestly, such that they applied a due process in which it was genuinely possible for the woman to be exonerated. Not only was it possible – it actually happened. And I accept this as evidence that not every instance of 9Marxist churchDiscipline is a parody trial before a kangaroo court.
But I also found it frustrating. Consider. 9Marx places a heavy emphasis on the importance of churchDiscipline. It is, they maintain, a vital and necessary tool for the health of the many different fragments into which Christ has been divided. But even the 9Marxists don’t claim that a pastor or eldership has the right to churchDiscipline a person just because they don’t like her. In other words, churchDiscipline is a very serious thing, and that in turn must mean that its misuse is also very serious.
So, who is maintaining “discipline” over these autonomous congregations? Who is following up on these instances in which one of Christ’s many different bodies is, in Leeman’s words, “mistaken in its decision to excommunicate” a person? Did they go back to her former church and sternly exhort them to be reconciled with this woman, or require some kind of account for what process of churchDiscipline existed there? Did it occur to them to wonder who else might have been falsely accused of “rebellion” (a charge that is as nebulous as it is serious), and whether the mistaken decision was rooted in a sinful or prideful attitude among the leadership there?
And incidentally, an “autonomous congregation” that is not bound by the decisions of any other grouping within the Body of Christ is nothing more or less than a collective None.
Nick, you think to much! You are just supposed to follow your anointed leader!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Velour wrote:
Oh I don’t believe most of these leaders are true believers. I think many are out only for themselves. But, I think a lot of their members are true believers, and the idea that God would reject them probably is pretty effective.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Well, I am my anointed leader!
If they can do it, so can I – “autonomy of the local church” an’ a’ tha’…
siteseer wrote:
That kind of friendship isn’t true. Although there can be benefits to transient relationships of that nature, you wouldn’t want to invest emotion in them.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I had a similar reaction to that one. There is your anecdote of misused church discipline that you ‘rarely’ hear, Jonathan!! One random incident in your own congregation. How many more do you think there might be?? I wish they would just think these things through, but they have too much invested.
And I already mentioned the non-attendance one. I’m pretty sure that is how I’ve left every church I ever attended including CHBC (although I don’t think I officially joined any of them).
@ AnonInNC:
I searched “Exodus 18 Family Tree” to see if it is a known name, and the first page to come up was from lds.org. Coincidence?
@ mirele:
Wow, had never heard of auditing. Sounds a little like 9Marx, but a lot like Redemption Groups from Mars Hill. I recently left a major PCA church after they started holding those.
Bit more on the topic of collective church discipline. It follows on from the recent discussion on 3DM, New Frontiers and (by extension) the house church movement here in Blighty that’s visible over on the SGM conferences thread.
During the early days of the UK house church movement, the new churches attracted a lot of suspicion and hostility from the mainstream denominations. So much so that it became normal, in every town in which a house church started, for the existing denominations to band together and send a standard list of allegations about it to the local press, warning everybody not to get involved with this dangerous cult. (Sometimes, it was hard to avoid the impression that hating the house church movement was the only thing they could agree on.) This list of allegations may, or may not, have been accurate in any given case. (I never, for instance, came across a house church in which the pastor had the keys to every member’s home – that one was a great favourite!)
The problem here is that what could have been a useful relationship, was wasted on an unnecessarily divisive us-against-them bunfight. The established churches made so many inaccurate or exaggerated allegations – like the little boy who cried “wolf!”, if you will – that it blunted their effect when it came to real problems. And there were real problems; Heavy Shepherding really did happen. It’s been said that Mars Hill created as many atheists as Christians; in an interview in which he related this, Warren Throckmorton observed that “the legacy of Mars Hill’s kind of mixed”. The same is true of the house church movement here.
@ Darlene:
“Well, Leeman did say he’s not used to strong criticism regarding Grace’s (Velour) review of 9Marks. I think when confronted head-on with so many criticisms in the comment section, he was floored. I don’t think he expected push back like that.”
+++++++++++++
am I understanding 9Marks correctly in that the environment they create is one which doesn’t tolerate dissent? that church members are conditioned to keep quiet, toe the line, and appear joyful and grateful?
a kind of manufactured reality such as in Pleasantville and Edward Scissorshands?
i reckon any reaction other than happy affirmation is an intolerable thing for the likes of Jonathon Leeman.
elastigirl wrote:
Bingo! You win the prize. They are just supposed to follow orders. Sad!
@ Deb:
Deb – Todd
Yes, they moved Jamisons article that received lots of negative feedback.
It was so bad, Leeman felt he had to write a “Part 2” supporting article.
“Pastors, Don’t Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air, Part 2”
https://9marks.org/article/pastors-dont-let-your-people-resign-into-thin-air-part-2/
“Thank you to those who have taken time to respond to Bobby Jamieson’s blog. Bobby has clearly provoked a robust discussion; so much so, that I thought it might be worth offering a few comments that, I hope, will promote shared understanding.
The main bone of contention around Bobby’s blog is around the idea of authority, and whether or not churches have the authority to say “no” to anyone who says, “I want to resign now.”
Blah, Blah, Blah…
———-
Maybe when Leemans article did NOT convince the folks….
They had to move the original article and delete ALL the comments.
Maybe someone (Hi Janna.) can locate the original article and comments.
@ Nancy2:
“Last night’s Amish Friendship Bread: 1 cup dried cranberries and 1 cup chopped hickory nuts – yum, my fave!”
+++++++++++
hickory nuts….. don’t believe i’ve had or even seen hickory nuts available. or maybe i’m just too focused in the grocery store. maybe it’s the grocery store.
but i’d love to try them. i’ll try anything! (you should hear the things i’ve tried!)
@ A. Amos Love:
If Janna locates the original “Pastors, Don’t Let Ypur People Resign into Thin Air” (along with comments), I hope she’ll email me.
A. Amos Love wrote:
This one is fun too!
Oh no! A pastor ‘privately’ does not think it’s best. That’s clearly on par with gross sin even the pagans won’t stand.
Can I also again remark how dumb this ‘power of the keys’ thing is? As a protestant, I think the only power is in God. Whether I go to your church or another church or no church, what matters is that I believe. You can ‘declare’ whatever you want, it doesn’t make you right.
Seems like most of the errors come with defining these ‘subtle’ sins, no? Maybe you should drop that.
@ mot:
Sounds like “The Happiest Place on Earth” before the SGM survivor stories began to surface on the Internet.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
We may be looking into this. Thanks for the info.
@ Burwell:
“He has found his ‘niche’ and has made himself an expert in the field. Smart business move on his part.”
++++++++++++++
just like my theology of ladybugs, drawn heavily from Paul.
(it’s all pretend. knowing how important career is to many men, i suspect he has to regularly give himself pep talks: “it’s real…. it’s real…. this is a bona fide job…. it’s a long-forgotten doctrine which i have unearthed…. i’m needed…. i’m relevant…. maybe i’m a hero….)
elastigirl wrote:
That was my experience at UCCD elastigirl. Someday I will have to relate my “discussion” concerning the 4th Commandment.
Stan wrote:
Auditing is done with a very expensive machine called an e-meter. It’s actually a crude lie detector. The auditor asks questions and the movement of the needle on the e-meter indicates if there are issues. The auditor also takes notes, which are kept in a pre-clear or PC folder. When someone leaves Scientology and speaks out, their PC folders are culled for embarrasing dirt. So what Scientology does is in some ways worse than Redemption Groups, but the whole thing is an unconscionable invasion of privacy.
Dave A A wrote:
So I suppose since we all sin and none is perfect, none of us get to call each other to task or point out public hypocrisy anymore? Would that theory of theirs also apply to those who delete “sinful” comments on blogs? Why are they judging anyone’s comments if no one can judge another anymore because we all have sin?
Just wondering.
@ Deb:
I still fail to understand the reasoning behind these groups’ (9M, TGC, CBMW, etc.) obsession with authority. Were these leaders all ignored as children? Were they bullied? Were they all that one or two high school nerds whose plaid shirts were buttoned to the collar and whose pants were pulled too high, pocket protectors and trapper keepers overflowing, and could be found shuffling along the hallways like crabs with their backs to the lockers in the hopes that it will deter the dumb jocks, who hunted in packs like wolves all doffed in their over-sized letter jackets, from giving them yet another wedgie and expose their tighty-whities to the peals of laughter of the maddening crowd?
At least that’s what comes to my mind.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This reminds me of the eight conservative churches in a far Phoenix suburb which banded together to preach an entire swmon series against a progressive Methodist church in their midst last year. I was gobsmacked. I know I’ve said this before, but whatever happened to Christ and him crucifed?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, I know it was a serious comment, but I just had to stop partway through because I was imagining this enormous bun fight… involving a whole town. (Shades of the Animal House food fight)
“. After all, the goal of excommunication is repentance and restoration, not punishment or shunning.” ~~ Jonathan Leeman, 4-25-2016
Does this staement make sense to anyone???
@ Nancy2:
Typo: statement, not staement
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
As many atheists as christians? I had not heard that allegation. How much of an exaggeration, I wonder?
Very sad. I knew a number of people who went to Mars Hill. Have only talked to one couple since the disintegration; a lot of that crowd started avoiding us after some of our children “rebelled”. Anyhow, that couple, last I heard from them, were happily ensconced in a 9Marks church.
elastigirl wrote:
You are understanding perfectly what happens. Dissent is not tolerated.
elastigirl wrote:
It’s not just 9Marks. We came out of a church where people projected success. It was something like lifestyle evangelism — you don’t witness to people, they’re just supposed to look at you and your life and say, “I want what they have.” If you don’t exhibit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. — whether or not these things are actually true in your life — then you are a problem to the elders and you are doing christianity wrong.
elastigirl wrote:
I’ve never seen hickory nuts at a store/market. But hickory trees are abundant in my area – there are two in our yard. So, my husband gathers hickory nuts in the fall and spends some of the cold winter evenings cracking hickory nuts. Hickorys are relatives to pecans, but they aren’t as meaty and are more aggravating to crack and clean.
If my husband wants to spend his spare time doing that, I’m happy to use the hickory nuts in any recipe that calls for nuts/pecans – saves some money at the grocery store! I make hickory nut pies using a pecan pie recipe – very good!
Nancy2 wrote:
Using the logic of the 9Marks system, this makes sense. 9Marks is the healthy, good system. Therefore, if someone, for whatever reason, does not see that, then surely they will see that after they have been cast outside the system and realize what they are missing. And supposedly the watching wordlings will marvel at both the discipline of casting the member out *and* the repentance and restoration of that member when said member comes to his/her senses.
Nancy2 wrote:
It has never made sense to me, though I have seen one or two broken young adults return to our old church and be restored. I think they were broken more by the shunning, being turned out of church and family, being separated from younger brothers and sisters, perhaps, than repentant.
I don’t remember having the impression that they had any joy in the Lord, they had simply buckled under and agreed to be obedient to their parents and the elders once more, and walk out that obedience in any way the elders required. (Basically acting in agreement with anything the elders said, never admitting to having an independent, contrary thought. Or so it appeared to me. But then, I also was accused of rebellion at the end, so I may not be the most reliable witness.)
Gram3 wrote:
Anyone remember the use of Mental Hospitals and Insane Asylums in the old USSR?
The Party Can Do No Wrong, Comrade.
Anyone who for whatever reason does not see that must be insane and must be Re-Educated into Proper Sanity in an Asylum.
elastigirl wrote:
And the northern half of the Korean Peninsula.
As it is to Comrade Beloved Leader Kim Jong-Un.
Law Prof wrote:
These people are the same who think YOU should be thrown out of church for ‘subtle’ sins like not going, but they’re perfectly willing to give a pass to ministry guys, adulterers, abusers, etc..
Nancy2 wrote:
They hope you’ll feel bad enough about being kicked out to come crawling back saying you’re sorry?
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
And on the secular end with many Global Warming people, Marriage Equality people, et al.
Which end up discrediting their own cause.
ishy wrote:
Isn’t one of the signs of Totalistic Environment “the dispensing of existence”?
siteseer wrote:
Especially when that whole system works to their own Personal Advantage.
elastigirl wrote:
Ladybugs *: Proof that, deep down, everyone likes beetles.
* Or “ladybirds” as they’re known in the UK
Beakerj wrote:
Isn’t “sexual visual cue” usually called a “paraphilia” or “fetish”?
(Op cit Got Hard and all those teen interns… in denim jumpers… with loooooong… waaaaaaaavy… haaaaaaair….)
ishy wrote:
It’s called a “Take your God and Shove It” reaction.
Nancy2 wrote:
Like I’ve commented here before Nancy2, you’re worth your weight in gold for the valuable (real value) skills you possess.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, JBS Haldane once said that if there is a God, he seems to be inordinately fond of beetles…
Burwell wrote:
Well, Womb Tomb Swanson has always struck me as a whiny high school dork who found a way to be Alpha Male in Absolute Power by Divine Right and is throwing his new-found weight around HARD.
Law Prof wrote:
Because THEY are the Predestined Elect, God’s Speshul Pets.
@ refugee:
Oh yeah! From my ex church’s resource page for their new small group questions on Sunday’s sermon series:
“Exile always rings like a curse in the Old Testament, but the journey of Christ has given our life as strangers great purpose. We are still displaced, but we are no longer alone. Loneliness and separation have been eclipsed by intimacy and connection. We are united with Christ and with the people of God. To what end? The Holy Spirit is weaving us together to encourage us but also to impact the world. A world of wanderers should be able to look at the church and see a different kind of community. We are on the way to a better country, an enduring city. We have the hope for which the world is looking, but do we have the joy that invites outsiders to join us? What would it mean to live faithfully as elect exiles? May the Lord help us live in such a way that strangers to His grace might one day become members of His family.”
That’s been part of the Mormon playbook for decades, and a quite successful one at that.
refugee wrote:
You are. I used to read a lot of Niven some 30-40 years ago and it was a recurring theme in his Known Space future history.
Which new method was suppressed and resisted HARD by the Establishment grown up around the former method. I think the title where he goes into this on a colony world was A Gift from Earth.
Lea wrote:
Pretty much.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I think I need another cup of tea. I first read your comment as “Proof that, deep down, everyone likes the Beatles.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
If all those young people know of ‘God’ is from an abusive ‘church’ and they run from it, I think they are fleeing evil and actually moving toward God. If they have experienced something evil, identified it, and left it, they ARE moving in a good direction, yes.
A lot of these self-identifying ‘churches’ which are abusive do not speak for God. Their loyalties are to their ‘leadership’ and the ‘leadership’ point to themselves as ‘authority’. When they teach that they are the FINAL authority in someone’s life, they have assumed that which belongs only to God.
refugee wrote:
Sweet little ladybugs. So cute and pretty. Ladybugs are proof that God love beetles. 🙂
Beakerj wrote:
I feel really bad for her.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Of course, if I’m remembering right, he was not in public high school getting wedgies — wasn’t he a missionary kid who grew up in Japan? And bragged that the only movie his father thought appropriate was “The Sound of Music”? So that’s the only movie they watched. And he grew up isolated from American culture. That’s what I seem to recall, though I could be getting him mixed up with someone else who came and spoke at our former church.
refugee wrote:
So did I. I can’t complain, I have Abbey Road, Sgt. Peppers and the White Album on my phone, but deep down, I still am more of a Pink Floyd man.
@ Stan:
Wow. That could have come right out of our former church…
Burwell wrote:
All the Beatles’ albums were free on Amazon Prime recently. I think I downloaded a number of them. Hope I did, anyhow. I know I thought about it, but I often get interrupted and forget to get back to such things.
Bridget wrote:
The way I see it, Scripture has only two mandates:
1) Be a Mensch (Yiddish for good person)
2) Don’t do the kinds of stuff you wouldn’t want done to yourself to others.
All the rest is just commentary.
Muff Potter wrote:
Beautiful response, MUFF
“Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: “Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.” – Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a” (attributed to Rabbi Hillel)
I listened to the Beatles so much back in the day of actual vinyl (and little sisters putting unrepairable scratches in your special Japanese import translucent version of “The Beatles: 1967 – 1970”) that I burned myself out, still like them, but gone are the days where I can put The White Album on in the morning and play it through 14 times straight in one day. I like Lou Reed better now, that Transformer album is amazing.
Muff Potter wrote:
Yep.
Burwell wrote:
The album Animals reminds me of gospel™-centered people and pastors I’ve known. 🙂
Muff Potter wrote:
If you think about it, there is a ‘progression’ in Scripture from all those countless laws that governed a desert tribe distilled into TEN commandments, conflated to TWO great commandments and finally to the one Royal Law of Christ: the commandment to love
Lea wrote:
They just don’t get what Jesus meant when he used the phrase, “keys to the kingdom” — in a nutshell, by spreading the Gospel, we who are Christians all have the “keys”. We can use the Gospel to open the doors for the lost, and give them the “keys”. And, they don’t seem to notice that Matt. 18:18 is followed by “where 2 or 3 are gathered …..”
Are they dumb, or are they just twisted?
How about “Driscoll = Little Jackie”?
♪Yessiree, the whole world should revolve around me♪
Nancy2 wrote:
Of course not. He’s Driscoll.
Muff Potter wrote:
Thanks, Muff. The real value is my parents, my aunts and uncles, and especially my grandparents, in the way they raised me and the things they taught me.
Nancy2 wrote:
YES!
I don’t know which they are but it seems to take a special kind of arrogance to take Jesus’ comment about the keys and use it as a means of control!
Christiane wrote:
There was a well known entomologist, whose name I can’t think of right now, who was asked “what does the study of insects reveal to you about the nature of God?” and he answered, “an inordinate fondness for beetles!” 🙂
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Ah, you beat me to it HUG! I’ve always enjoyed that comment.
I’m reading bottom up today 🙂
Nancy2 wrote:
I always wonder why more people don’t bring that one up. I grew up hearing about it quite a bit. 2 or more believers = church. Doesn’t say anything about who is boss.
Lea wrote:
The psychology of shunning is Kip Williams area of interest, he’s done interesting experiments using a game he devised to study the affects on the brain.
https://vimeo.com/62789770
Shunning is a terrible thing, inhuman and cruel. It violates the golden rule.
siteseer wrote:
Well, without going into a dissertation, “Disciple” is part of the word “Discipline.”
So, the greatest part of discipline is seeing that the church is seeking to make disciples. That means introducing unbelievers to Jesus, and it means helping believers mature through good teaching, fellowship, practice of the ordinances etc.
I suspect, however, that you might want me to focus on the more punitive aspects of discipline.
I Cor 5 outlines the basic issue when it comes to morals. There is a point where a person can be so out of bounds morally (in that case it was so egregious that even the gentiles thought it was awful) that the congregation was admonished for not rebuking the person and putting them out of the congregation.
What if a person who was practicing child molestation was in the congregation? Church discipline would require the congregation to report the person to the police and to protect the congregation by banning that person.
These are just 2 examples.
Also, I believe that a church should be careful to identify its doctrinal beliefs, and they should require that people who join believe in those things.
For example, if the church confesses that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and that his death was the sacrifice for sinful humanity that is appropriated by belief in Christ etc., people who join the church should also believe that. If a person does not believe that, that person should not be a church member.
That is also just one example.
The problem is that churches, pastors/elders etc. can become too restrictive and vindictive.
The problem with 9 Marks, in my view, is the misapplication of Matthew 18 to discipline situations (Matt 18 specifically says that it is for resolving personal grievances between people), and the belief that the individual is to submit socially, spiritually, physically, financially etc. to the congregation. The combination of misapplication of scripture and a broad claim of authority, together with advocating practices that are not in the Bible, such as not allowing what they deem “unrepentant people” to resign (that is not in the Bible), have caused awful problems for many churches that have tried to employ the 9 Marks discipline paradigm.
So, the answer to discipline abuse is not “no discipline.” No one believes that (unless, of course, they believe unrepentant and active child molesters can be church members and attend etc.)
The answer is to observe where Scripture advocates a separation from a person, and follow that example, and to be very careful about expanding the scope of discipline beyond where it should be expanded.
@ Anonymous:
The concept of ‘discipline’ in cults does tend towards punishment. The death of a child from organ failure after her adoptive parents beat her for hours at a time for failure to pronounce a word correctly . . . one example of the Pearls’ wicked advice going awry big time.
To disciple means to ‘teach’, yes. I remember coming home after my first day of teaching and complaining about my students . . . using ‘language’, no manners, rude, very poor behavior . . . and my little five year old son raised his hand up to stop my frustrated rant and simply said, ‘Mom. Teach them.’
And I knew at once he was right: my students didn’t KNOW how to behave because they had no help to learn how to behave better, and so began a long journey to a place where no assumptions were made and all was gently but firmly taught from scratch, with encouragement, and positive feedback was given.
‘Mom, teach them.’ 🙂
Out of the mouth of babes ….
siteseer wrote:
If someone is your friend and they have done nothing to you, I cannot understand shunning at all. It is just completely baffling.
The oddity is that if your say spouse has done something horrible to you and says whatever these guys think they should say, you are supposed to take them back unreservedly. But they would have you shun someone who simply decided not to go to your church or had a disagreement with someone. It’s so strange.
Anonymous wrote:
I don’t really agree with this, aside from the broadest beliefs, like belief in God. Christians seldom agree on every little thing, which is why we have so many denominations in the first place. That can easily be abused.
refugee wrote:
From what I can gather, it was meant in sad reflection, rather than as a rigorous statement of arithmetic per se. It was a comment on the disillusionment felt by many, not just following the collapse of the business, but also as a result of bullying and mistreatment while the business was still trading.
Anonymous wrote:
From what I’ve read the hierarchy is God –> Jesus –> Pastor –> Elders –> Men –> Women & kids (not necessarily in that order)
Submission is to the pastor primarily and his elders.
What galls me is the extremes. Reading Leeman, it sounds like there should be nothing less than an Inquisition (not the Monty Python “comfy chair” Inquisition). Excommunicated in one church but shunned in all.
For me, I don’t give a rat’s behind but what if you’re boss attends church, or it’s a small town, or someone hears your name then meets you later (say you are a car salesman). This really messes with peoples lives.
Before we had kids, my wife and I traveled to South Dakota and attended an evangelical church in Rapid City (don’t remember which one, this was in 2001). They were very adamant that we sign in – they had a sheet. We did (silly us). So they know where we live. Never heard from them (Canada’s probably out of their jurisdiction). Seemingly innocuous at the time but what would it mean now? Given the info learned here, I probably would not sign in to any church.
Anonymous wrote:
In the New Testament, churches always did things by consensus. There was no elder decision process. The elders provided advice, and wise counsel, but the decision was made by the entire church, since each and every Christian is a priest and bearer of the Holy Spirit.
So, I would say that if you have a child molester, the whole church would deal with the issue together. And if you have a pastor sinning, the church has the right to remove them. This idea that the pastors and elders can discipline people, but avoid discipline themselves, is cultic in origin, and completely unbiblical.
BTW, in the NT, the word for “elder” is often a gender-neutral adjective, better translated “elderly”. These wouldn’t be young guys appointed by the pastor, which is what Calvinista churches, and even other churches, often do. It would be the older members of your congregation, both male and female.
Jack wrote:
The Great Chain of Being.
Boots on faces all the way down, by Divine Right.
Nancy2 wrote:
The ones I know are definitely not dumb. They also definitely have twisted ideas about what being a Christ-follower looks like. A few of the ones I know are, as far as I can see, quite twisted. Those happen to be the ones who want to remove all means of correcting their faulty thinking. In other words, they do not want feedback, so their ideas get ever-more twisted until they can no longer remember the actual point of their initial idea. Then, when they insist that they absolutely are immune to having twisted ideas, they become twisted themselves and thereby servants of the Twisted System they have created and/or sustained rather than servants of the Most High.
Christiane wrote:
Indeed. Smart lad you have.
I remember from my college Latin class that “education” comes from “e” meaning “out”
and “ducere” to lead (duke, etc.). Literally to “lead out” or “to draw forth”.
We discussed in class that “the leading out” is…leading out of darkness.
FYI: a new article up today on SBCToday. Comments and pings are closed.
Hmmmm ……..
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
In my case, Driscoll and MacDonald were two reasons we left a church that embraced both of them. Our reasoning was that, if the elders could not see the problem with that, then they were, in some major sense, blind.
ION:
Fitba’: terrific Champions’ League * game at Celtic Park between Celtic and Man City. The home side have gone 3-2 ahead within a minute of the restart…
IHTIH
* AKA “The Give Us Yer Money Cup”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The reality is, of course, more complex; but in a good way. I do like My beetles.
Best regards,
God
ishy wrote:
Yes. I should also add, it is guaranteed to lead to problems. Like abuse, covering up abuse and poor decision making all around. So it should be avoided for both biblical AnD practical reasons.
ION:
Aaaand it’s 3-3 at Celtic Park.
IHTIH
Nancy2 wrote:
SBC Pravda has closed comments.
I’m not a psychic, nor do I pretend to be one on t.v., but ya know…I have these Pravda guys figured out. When not closing comments, they are sending folks off to Gulags.
Velour wrote:
Pravda is SBCVoices! SBCToday is supposedly anti-YRR!
Lea wrote:
I agree that things can be abused, and that should not happen.
It all depends on what the group has set out to do.
Even a belief in God would be seen by some as requiring too much because some may be struggling and are not there yet.
But I come from the position of a church being up front with its beliefs, whatever they are.
Let’s take “Belief in God” as the only one.
It would be appropriate in my view for a church with that as its doctrinal statement to not allow those who do not believe in God to join.
I believe that would be appropriate church discipline.
ishy wrote:
Ishy, I agree that the manipulation is instilling fear in people that if they get out of line and leave, hell is waiting for them. Certainly this was the ploy used at my former Christian cult. Hence, people who left thought that God was going to strike them dead. Many have told their stories since leaving, and they feared for their lives. They thought the car, train, bus or plane that they were on was going to crash and they would go straight to hell. But what does this show about their determination? Some have said that they reasoned it would be better to go to hell than stay in the cult! So they risked what their fears told them and left.
However, I don’t think the leadership of these Neo-Cal churches is sending a message that:”You can never come back and be a Christian again, because we won’t let you.” From everything that I understand about this controlling, manipulative system of discipline, they want people who have left to come back. In fact, they want to see them groveling and confessing how wrong they were to leave. And promise to SUBMIT to their leadership again. Because at the end of the day in the Neo-Calvinist world, it’s all about having as many people under your thumb as possible. So, it is a victory for them if those who have left return.
Anonymous wrote:
And what would that do, really? You don’t believe in god so I’m putting you under ‘church discipline’. Will that make them believe? No. It might make them lie and say they do, or it will make them leave. So practically, that would be of no use.
When you get into the nitty gritty, you will either spend all your time looking for heretics or alternately creating liars of your congregation so they don’t have to deal with you. Neither is particularly helpful.
ishy wrote:
I hope you don’t care if I use your comment as an excuse for a rant. It is not about you, it is about one of my pet peeves.
I hate that elder/elderly thing with a passion. Perhaps because I am ‘elderly’ and any idea that older people just somehow know better how to do is so misguided. I really hope that is not what scripture means by use of the word. I mean, seriously, do you people know a lot of old people? Let me note some segments of the old population: those who have some experience and wisdom and can exercise some restraint while making room for the young people (there are some but don’t count on it); those who may have been around for a long time but never got a clue then or now; those who may have had something to contribute but who are so burned out that the media are investigating them as cases of spontaneous combustion; those who more or less act christian but who have never had that requisite eyeball to eyeball with Jesus; and those who are so used to being in charge that they think that the church owes it to them to let them continue to be in charge regardless of what that does to the church at large. This last group are what basically destroyed the church where I was that fell apart, as I have previously described. They would not let loose of ‘the reins’, step aside as committee chairmen, or quit having roast preacher for Sunday dinner, and it was awful.
Somewhere back in the day (this is how we oldies talk) I used to hear that ‘elder’ was not limited to those of advanced age as but rather could also mean those older in the faith. There was something in scripture I think about don’t ‘lay hands’ on a recent convert-talking about ordination IIRC. People do not get better with age. Ideally people get better, and that does take a whole lifetime at minimum, but age per se is not the criterion for maturity in the faith.
Of course if people consider elderly to be anything past 35 or so, then that is a different discussion.
Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:
Oh my goodness, that is crazy! It sounds like these fundies hardly had half a brain. Now if he had said drive-in movie theaters are a place where teenagers like to go to neck, I’d get that. 😉 These kinds of rigid, legalistic Christians are so afraid of people sinning that they’ll do or say just about anything to keep them from sinning, even if it means telling Tall Tales. I honestly wonder if such fear tactics didn’t actually have the opposite effect, that the curiosity of these young folks wasn’t tickled just a bit to find out for themselves if what they were being told was true.
Nancy2 wrote:
You have got to be kidding! Why is non-Pravda acting like Pravda?
okrapod wrote:
LOL. I think there is benefit to picking older members of the congregation, meaning not 25, because at the very least you’ve had time to see a fad or two come and go and tell the younger folks that, say, shepherding was tried 20 years ago and didn’t work and here is why.
Of course maybe in bible days, elder didn’t mean 80. And it’s not the ONLY qualification!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I recall an incident while at a member’s meeting in the very last evangelical church I attended. The pastor suggested that we had a lot of freedom to decide what sorts of things we wanted to do to help our church to grow because we didn’t have to answer to anyone outside of our church community. Of course, when things go sour and people are mistreated, this kind of church polity isn’t quite as advantageous. Tain’t no one else to appeal to outside of your little ghetto. So what does that make pastors of these parochial entities? Come to your own conclusions. I’ve already made mine.
Lea wrote:
Lea, if you didn’t officially join, then I doubt you were worth the trouble to be concerned about. You were invisible to them. Only the people who join and sign the membership covenant/contract are worth their time of day.
Regarding the news story below in my post:
I really think these kinds of Christians are doing more harm than good to Christianity.
Paul said in the NT for Christians not to go against secular culture in a way that makes the faith look stupid, weird, or unappealing to Non-Christians, depending on what the issue is.
Because I would gather most of secular culture has little to no problems with girls being on soccer teams with boys, I’d say this action makes Christians look like fruitcakes to Non-Christians:
Christian high school soccer team refuses to play team with female players
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/christian-high-school-soccer-team-refuses-to-play-/
ishy wrote:
I believe the term we use for this is ‘collegiality’. Sometimes, it happens that a decision is influenced by ‘acclamation’ also. The first is a ‘process’ and the second is like an ‘event’. They both are believed to represent the movement of the Holy Spirit working in the Church among the Body of Christ.
Gram3 wrote:
Extrapolating from what I know, it isn’t working for them. Many cast offs suddenly find freedom that would have otherwise continued to elude them but for being cast out. Only when free of the binding oppression can most of us see the chains that held us. The purpose of 9Marks discipline is not to redeem the wayward sinner so they return but to intimidate the faithful to remain.
Lea wrote:
I am simply saying that you don’t let a person who does not believe in God become a member of the church.
I used your most simple doctrinal statement that you said would be appropriate – one must believe in God to be a member of the church.
Are you now saying that is too restrictive? If so, that’s fine. I am just trying to understand your opinion.
I do believe that churches should have doctrinal confessions, and I believe that the people who believed in those confessions should be counted among the members.
Anonymous wrote:
Presumably you don’t put non-members under ‘church discipline’. So maybe we’re talking about different things.
Anonymous wrote:
I am currently a non-calvinist presbyterian. And I don’t think my church cares.
Just a thought.
Anonymous wrote:
This post is making we wonder if church membership is even required or desired. What is the point of being an official member? Does it make a difference for the universal body of believers? Does it make a difference for any individual believer? Does it make a difference for any particular church body? Or is it just a means to count beans? Why does it matter whether or not someone has become an official member of an organization with a street address?
elastigirl wrote:
Sounds like Comp/Patriarchal marriages. A wife must not only submit to her Head, but she must submit JOYFULLY. If she submits to her Head, but inwardly is frustrated or resentful, then she is sinning. Now this reminds me of a blog post that I recently read, along with some of the comments, over at ‘Biblical Gender Roles’ titled “Does the Bible allow a husband to spank his wife?” I gotta tell ya, these kind of folks are downright scary. Actually, a better word might be disgusting. The woman who wrote an email to the blog owner spoke about her husband spanking her for her disobedience. She is a victim of domestic violence and those commenting there are clueless. This poor woman actually ends up saying in the comment section that she deserved what she got because of her disobedience to her husband. These kind of Christians must be perceived as unbalanced wackos in the eyes of secular society.
https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2016/09/20/does-the-bible-allow-a-husband-to-spank-his-wife/
Darlene wrote:
If there was a contiuum between
‘healthy respect for one’s spouse’ AND ‘masochists/sadists’,
then, I suspect extreme fundamentalists don’t find themselves nearing the ‘healthy respect’ end of that continuum, no.
There have been some studies that suggest extreme religious fundamentalism is a kind of sickness, and my goodness, the ‘fruit’ of some of the entities that pride themselves in their fundamentalism does seem rotten to the core. Question: does the ‘system’ breed this sickness/ or do these sick people gravitate towards the setting where they can gratify their perverted needs? Or is is a bit of both, or a generational ‘cycle’???
@ Christiane:
correction: the word is CONTINUUM
Check out the Thinking Fellows podcast. click on Eternal Subordination of the Son. Three Lutherans and Two Presbyterians discussed this recently.
Ken F wrote:
I often hear the term ‘the Body of Christ’ mentioned, but not so much the term ‘the mystical Body of Christ’. I have always associated ‘the Church’ with Christ Himself.
Gram3 wrote:
That reminds me of the Word of the Lord: “Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.”
Darlene wrote:
Why not? They’re perceived as unbalanced wackos in the eyes of legitimate Christian society.
Robin C wrote:
ROBIN, thank you for this excellent reference. It gives some real insight into the thinking of people from diverse backgrounds in the Church. Great podcast!
Bill M wrote:
Very true, in my experience. The pups who keyed us out seemed confused by our questions and resistance to their answers which were clearly canned and distributed from HQ. They did us a favor by refusing to answer our questions from the actual text, so it became crystal clear that being Biblical is not what they were really about.
Lea wrote:
Well, if R.C. Sproul can be an Indpendent Presbyterian who nevertheless shows up at the GA, then I think you can be a non-Calvinist Presbyterian. 🙂
Ken F wrote:
C.S. Lewis provided an interesting insight into the concept of ‘holy spaces’:
““Yes,” said Queen Lucy. “In our world too, a stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world.”
it would seem that the ‘small god’ cults of extremism cannot envision the magnificence of Christ’s realm or even WHY it extends beyond the walls that they try so very hard to ‘control’. The concept of Our Lord Who rules the Cosmos escapes them in their exclusive tiny bubbles, where the realm of their self-proclaimed ‘authority’ is defined by walls and fences.
okrapod wrote:
It is one of the criteria. There are others that go with it, of course.
@Christiane,
I am so glad you listened! There are a lot of Christian voices out there who don’t agree with the Neo Cals.
Christiane wrote:
Robin C wrote:
Yes, they don’t agree because they don’t RECOGNIZE the ESS doctrine as ‘Christian’ . . . the ESS doctrine gets a lot of its DNA from the Arian heresy
As the podcast reports, most Christians upon hearing about ESS for the FIRST time, don’t recognize the teaching at all. It is not a part of the whole Church.
I really enjoyed the discussion of the word ‘eccentric’ and of the term ‘special pleading’ …. very informative! Thanks again! God Bless
Darlene wrote:
This makes me want to tear my hair out.
LT wrote:
Well, I just heard today that the “family tree” thing won’t be discussed Sunday and has been delayed because the person who was supposed to organize the logistics has been absent for the past few weeks. The Sunday meeting is just going to be about the church’s plan for growth and a building fund, which probably wouldn’t make for an interesting post.
And I’m not sure I’ll still be going there by the time they do plan on putting it into practice. Suppose it’s better to get out sooner rather than stick around just out of curiosity though.
@ siteseer:
when I think about what their children are seeing and hearing, it makes me ill . . . that is a whole ‘nother kind of abuse by proxy, to expose the children to abusive acts of misogyny
Darlene wrote:
There was something like that not too long ago over on Spiritual Sounding Board. A woman had some comments like that, but at least there, people were blunt with her that she was abused and in an unhealthy relationship. Once upon a time, I ran into some websites advocating Christian Domestic Discipline, and to me, many were just a version of S&M, while others were just pure fantasy. Some were probably real, and if so, the people were misrepresented the religion (which made me mad) but also were just out-and-out fools. I mean, what two consenting adults do is one thing, but to candy-coat in Christian teachings, no and no.
okrapod wrote:
That was actually an issue at the time. Life spans were not terribly long in the Roman world. And maybe it’s cultural to an extent. I don’t know that the Romans held too much esteem for elders, but there was that a bit in Jewish culture, I believe.
However, I do not think it means “the young, hip pastor’s cronies who provide a voting bloc”, which is how many YRR seem to translate it.
Christiane wrote:
I saved this podcast and the related Comment at the top of the page under the Interesting tab, the Books/TV/Movies/ETC. tab in case anyone wants to listen to it.
@Velour,
Thank you! This podcast IMO is important and also well done. Thank you for sharing it!
@ Velour:
@ Burwell:
“I still fail to understand the reasoning behind these groups’ (9M, TGC, CBMW, etc.) obsession with authority. Were these leaders all ignored as children? Were they bullied?…”
+++++++++++++
my feeling is that part of the reason they have all banded together is that they feel their power and significance draining away. i think they sense their industry (professional christians) is more or less waning. change, which happens at such a crazily fast pace in this day & age is hard on churches, which are all based on the past in the how, what, and why.
As societies around the world promote women more and more (for every good reason, from what is equitable and ethical to what fosters community success to business success), their man’s world is being infringed upon. Their male-centric christian tradition and biblical interpretation is being infringed upon.
With the rise of the nones and dones, and with the economic downturns, other-people’s-money is in shorter supply. churches are losing magnetism & viability.
in short, i think they have all banded together out of fear that christian culture (which they mistake for christianity itself) is losing critical mass. they fear for their careers, their livelihoods. they fear for their loss of power and significance. and they are sentimental and fear change to how it’s always been.
Robin C wrote:
Thanks, Robin, for letting us know about this good resource. I hadn’t heard of them or the ESS program.
@ Burwell:
“I still fail to understand the reasoning behind these groups’ (9M, TGC, CBMW, etc.) obsession with authority. Were these leaders all ignored as children? Were they bullied? ”
++++++++++++++
i’ll take another stab at it:
i think they’re tired of servanthood. they’re sick of the idea of pastor as humble servant. they want power, what with the advent of the CEO business model for churches & all. afterall, a CEO is a powerful person. They feel entitled to power, money, glamour. if not celebrity, then at least significance (the aching need for significance).
Lea wrote:
Of course you would not discipline a non-member. But if the non-member were dangerous, say a pedophile, the church should act.
And “under discipline” is not a term I would use because it has cultic tones.
To me “discipline” simply means having order. If a person wanted to join the church who did not believe in God, the church should not let them join as members. But the church shouldn’t do anything to them. They should be free to attend, join in discussion etc., and that should be encouraged.
Ken F wrote:
That is a great question.
In terms of the universal church, it doesn’t matter. God knows who belongs to him.
I don’t know how all churches work, but at our church members have a say-so about the doctrinal statement of the church, who is hired, the spending of money for missions, other budgetary matters such as whether to build buildings, acquire or sell assets.
In my opinion it would be irresponsible to have a set up where non-believers, or people who did not agree with the mission and beliefs of the organization, to have a say-so in the direction of the church.
It would be appropriate to allow believers and people who agree with the ideals and goals of the organization to direct its future.
Membership is a way of making some attempt at confirming the people who are going to make those decisions have said publicly that they are believers and that they agree with the beliefs and mission of the organization.
Now, I understand that some congregations are run where the congregation has no say. The organization is run solely by a board. Those attending the services have power – just like someone attending a football game or a movie. In that scenario, I agree with you. Membership really doesn’t mean much.
Deb
Janna found the original article from 9 Marks, with comments.
Pastors, Don’t Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140704022241/http://www.9marks.org/blog/pastors-don%E2%80%99t-let-your-people-resign-thin-air
Anonymous wrote:
I don’t see ‘not letting someone join’ as discipline. I see it is not letting them join.
If you have a member who changes their mind about some aspects of theology that is a much more likely scenario and we see that sort of thing playing out. That is what I don’t really agree with.
A. Amos Love wrote:
Thanks Janna!
I now see my undeleted comment, addressed directly to the author:
‘David (not verified) | 2.3.2012
Bobby,
I’m deeply troubled by your article on many levels. Do you have time and inclination for a little more careful dialogue about this? I’d just like to know you’d be willing to take a little time to answer my concerns, and I would take as long as needed to go through each point with you. For example, I would begin with your 1st word and target audience, “Pastors”. Even if all your counsel past this word were good, for it to be carried out primarily by this specific group is, I think, unhealthy. Email me if you’d prefer to converse outside of this forum.
David’
Bobby’s response? Silence.
@ Dave A A:
Happy I could help!
Hi Dave A A
Nice to hear from ya…
I’m gonna miss 9 Marks
Been commenting there a lot – for quite a few years…
Never in agreement with the article posted. 🙂 🙂 😉
I’m amazed they allowed the negative comments for so long. 🙂 🙂 😉
Peace
Anonymous wrote:
Sounds ridiculous. There is no need for ‘membership’. We are a priesthood of believers.
We don’t need a piece of paper to govern us or grow us. We have the Holy Spirit.
It’s just a tool of authoritarians trying to disguise their controlling ways.
Dave A A wrote:
Oh, I am so happy TWW’s 9Marks Monitor is back! That entire comment thread is so, so enlightening. Bobby was a seminary student at a known 9Marks church. In other words, he had no actual experience in implementing what he so confidently asserts. Nevermind the utter lack of textual support for his sure stand, which was pointed out repeatedly on the comment thread. These guys cannot stand feedback that is thoughtful and, dare I say it, Biblical.
You, Dave AA, are clearly one of the Consumerist Individualists who Hate Christ’s Bride! 🙂
Velour wrote:
So you believe that anyone who is in a church building can vote on how to spend the church’s money, who the pastor should be, and what the church should be?
You would put no qualifications on that?
Anonymous wrote:
And you don’t believe that adults who come to church, give of their time, their money, should be shown an iota of respect? That’s the problem with this sweeping level authoritarianism. There’s always excuses presented as to why we need to be under authoritarian control, which is not how Jesus set up His church.
How many pages of a Membership Covenant did Jesus make people sign to follow Him?
Correct answer: 0 pages. How many creeds and Statements of Faith and Distinctives and Bylaws? Correct answer: 0 pages.
@ Janna L. Chan:
The history of those comments is a comedy of errors. Bobby responded to a couple early ones, then vanished. After a couple days Jonathan came in and deleted large swaths– especially those about the Ceej vanishing into the thin air of Capitol Hill. After a few months bots took over, posting multiple pages of gibberish. The article was deleted, reposted and IIRC had a handful of more recent comments a week ago.
A. Amos Love wrote:
I think my last comments were in support of you and Andrew in some friendly discussions with pastor John C.
Heb. 13:17!!
Which reminds me– when Jonathan deleted all your comments, he deleted large amounts of–scripture!
@ Gram3:
Going back to the land of highly limited Internet now, so expect to hear much less from me. 🙁
@ A. Amos Love:
I read a lot of your comments. You did a great job ….. eloquent, graceful, justified objections.
@ Dave A A:
Thanks for the explanation, Dave. That does sound pretty convoluted. 9Marks' attempt to eradicate all the comments on its site appears to have back-fired and embarrassed the organization. Good.
Velour wrote:
I agree that people should be shown respect.
And I don’t agree with the membership covenants that these churches use.
I simply believe that the people who have publicly stated that they agree with the church’s teaching and mission should be the ones who have a say so about the church’s ministry operations, pastoral staff and assets.
You apparently believe that any adult in the church building regardless of their identity or belief system, and I suppose even first time visitors who may never come again have an equal say so in the church.
@ Dave A A:
Seems to me they could have just deleted certain comments instead of the entire post.
Janna L. Chan wrote:
Truth thrives under cross-examination. Deleting the comments was a huge statement of defeat. 9Marks publicly admitted that they cannot compete in the realm of ideas and truth. I naively expected them to be less cowardly.
Ken F wrote:
They have tacitly admitted that they are not capable of teaching nor willing to teach. A comment thread is an excellent teaching opportunity. As long as you have texts, evidence, and sound reasoning. If you don’t have all of those, “Shut Up and don’t bother us with your unenlightened opinions, Pewpeons” might seem like a good argument to make. To me, a “teaching ministry” that is not willing to defend what they think is sound doctrine is not really interested in teaching or persuading. They want adulation or capitulation.
Darlene wrote:
I was in a Catholic Church a few weeks ag that did not practice face to face because I asked to see the beautiful ornate confessional before the concert by the host . My question of molester as priest hearing the confession of a victim still stands. Are you suggesting it never happened? So……thousands and thousands of victims for decades.
Lydia wrote:
Kydia, I’m not Catholic and I have no idea whether victims of abuse confessed to the priests of their abuse/molestation or not. But, from your past interactions with Christiane, it isn’t surprising that she responded to you the way she did. Not saying she is wrong, or you.
Sorry….Lydia not Kydia. Late here.
@ Darlene:
@ Darlene:
Hi DARLENE,
I gave Lydia a link that would have helped if her original question to me was a serious one. I have no problem if she did not want to read it.
Sometimes people just need to ‘vent’ and that’s okay with me. But if there is a serious question addressed to me, I would try to find some info that might put some light on the topic, yes.
Sometimes this works for good; sometimes it doesn’t help. The important thing for me was to try to help. God Bless!
@ Ken F:
Deleting old comments is also just plain rude. I understand how time consuming it can it be to keep up with comments because I help moderate the ones on Thou Art The Man.
However, that’s not a reason to erase old comments, some that have been around for years, that 9Marks had already processed and clearly thought were acceptable because they didn’t delete them (insert a number) of years ago.
People spent countless hours crafting thoughtful comments on 9Marks articles. Therefore, just deleting all of them was/is incredibly rude respecting blog etiquette.
I know that 9Marks tries to turn all issues of contention into religious arguments, but sometimes what these guys are lacking is a basic sense of common decency and common courtesy, which all members of society should exhibit.
9 Marks decision to eradicate all comments on its past articles wasn’t about being responsible; it was about sticking it to people who have criticized them politely, in a passive-aggressive way.
That’s just not adult-like behavior, in my view, whether someone is a Christian or not.
Janna L. Chan wrote:
Considering they claim to be Christians . . . their behavior seems doubly rude and obnoxious. They are not treating their commenters like they would like to be treated. Unless, of course, they want someone to come along and delete their blog articles. They run their blogs like they run their churches . . .
@ Bridget:
Agree!
Bridget wrote:
+100!
Bridget wrote:
This is how I feel every time I wade into the comments at SBC Voices. These men are supposed to be pastors and they are incredibly rude and unkind! No wonder there are so many scandals, if this sort of thing is tolerated.
Ken F wrote:
Spot on.
Anonymous wrote:
Where is your trust in the Holy Spirit? Why are you imbuing people with hostile motives? I find that stance…odd.
@ Nancy2:
Nancy2
Thank you for the kind words.
———–
Likewise
I have read a lot of your comments. You do a great job…
Funny, sarcastic, humorous, informative, to the point, to make a point.
You make me laugh!!! Thanks.
And your life in the country…
Almost makes me want to go find a farm and milk a cow. 😉
Or at least can some fruit and veggies for the winter…
Almost…
———-
Then they that feared the LORD
spake often ONE to another:
and the LORD hearkened, and heard it,
and a book of remembrance was written before him
for them that feared the LORD,
and that thought upon his name.
Malachi 3:16 KJV
Velour wrote:
I don’t understand your question – “Where is your trust in the Holy Spirit?” Can you explain how I am supposed to be doing that??
Also, to whom have I attributed a hostile motive? I don’t think you or anyone else on here is hostile. Have I missed something.
Here is a good example of a situation that calls for church discipline. A person is pastoring a church who is an outspoken atheist.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/29/can-an-atheist-lead-a-protestant-church-a-battle-over-religion-in-canada/
Do you agree that this woman should not be the pastor of a church? If you think it is not a good thing for an atheist to be the pastor of a church, how should the church handle this?
Dave AA
Sorry I did NOT recognize you at 9Marx… Thanks for the support.
“I think my last comments were in support of you and Andrew
in some friendly discussions with pastor John C”
Ahhhh -Yes – pastor John Carpenter. Thanks for the memories.
I always enjoyed it when John C, showed up.
We tangled often in the past. – NOT so much lately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Ruh0ewBVo
————
I enjoyed your deleted comment to Jamison on the recovered post.
Here is my first reply to John C, at 9Marx.
.
John Carpenter
I sure appreciate your determination in defending this extra-biblical invention of “Church Membership.” I realize, you, who call yourself Pastor, has made this a foundation of your beliefs, you can NOT back down.
Now, I have another challenge when reading the Bible…
I can’t find anyone in the Bible who called them self Pastor.
Or had the “Title” Pastor. Maybe you can help?
Can you name anyone, in the Bible, who called themself Pastor? Or, had the “Title” Pastor?
And every Pastor I’ve met also had the “Title” Reverend…
Anyone with the “Title” “Reverend” in the Bible?
Seems there is only one who’s name is reverend. And it’s NOT for a “mere fallible human.”
Psalm 111:9 KJV.
…holy and reverend is his name.
In my experience…
“Titles” become “Idols”…………….. Idols of the heart, Ezek 14:1-11 KJV.
“Pastors” become “Masters” ……. A No, No, for “Disciples.” Mat 23:10 KJV.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall **hear MY voice;**
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice – One Leader
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
elastigirl wrote:
Here’s my stab at it:
I think they honestly and sincerely believe that this is what the Bible “teaches”.
From the Almighty himself thundering out of Horeb to the children of Israel, to Paul’s alleged “commands” in the New Testament, it’s a top down dictatorship (in their view) that must be modeled in this way because it’s “Biblical” (in their view).
Lea wrote:
As an example of rude and unkind, one need only take a look at the Pyromaniacs blog in its Heyday. Nasty, self-righteous, condemning are some appropriate adjectives for that blog. Thankfully, the popularity of the Pyromaniacs has died down and now for the most part, they re-post old articles from several years ago with little interaction from the audience. I think the blog’s popularity fizzled when many who commented were mistreated by the Three Amigos that moderated over there. When Phil Johnson quit involvement with the blog, an article was written that looking back in hindsight, was somewhat prophetic. Here it is: “When Bullies Lose a Leader”:
http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/2012/06/pyromaniacs-when-bullies-lose-leader.html
Janna L. Chan wrote:
Shutting down comments set them up nicely for their current series of posted articles – all about authority. How convenient to be able to post that stuff with no feedback. Vomitrocious.
Anonymous wrote:
For a church operating under a club or business model, it makes sense to have rules about who gets to vote on the assets. But is this the right model for the church? Where does the Bible teach us about how to vote on budgets, perform facilities maintenance, hire and sustain a staff, pay off a mortgage, etc. Is it possible that we have made the church to look too much like a club or a business?
Anonymous wrote:
Define “the church.” In the protestant world, it often means an independent congregation that operates more like a club or business. If Jesus were to come back today and walk into such a church, would he say, “Wow, this is exactly what I was hoping for!”?
Anonymous wrote:
Take a deep breath and stop being so controlling would be my suggestion about how you should handle it.
Now you’ve added on an employment issue, from Canada no less, to try to justify an inappropriate control over other people. If churches won’t let people vote, then don’t accept their money or time either. Be consistent.
Anonymous wrote:
What is the way in which you access the Holy Spirit at this time in your Christian life?
Surely this is an important part of the practice of your faith?
?
Muff Potter wrote:
The Great Chain of Being.
Boots stamping on faces all the way down, by Divine Right.
With God as just the biggest Boot on top.
Bridget wrote:
Didn’t the Cybermen of Doctor Who run around going “DELETE! DELETE! DELETE!”?
Guys, it is a positive thing when the leaders of 9 Marks begin to look into the pain and suffering that their “system” caused to many people. It is a giant step in the right direction. Let us not be too harsh on them. Perhaps a public apology will come later. If not I hope they apologize privately to God. And I hope they transform their churches and systems in a Godly and Loving way.
I agree with those that said love is missing from the 9 marks. Love is the Greatest Commandment. Now perhaps love is mentioned “somewhere” within the book. However I would say love should have been the front and center mark of a healthy church. How can the Greatest Commandment, Love, be missing from a list of 9 “most important” things for a church to have? That’s why we have all these abuses of authority, because love is missing. Honest Humble Servant Leadership is what God wants, not dictators and propaganda.
Which of these two sounds more Christian?
1) Open to criticism and defend as needed. Apologize when found wrong. Repent of my mistake. My church forgives me and and we prayerfully move on.
2) Delete all criticism and pretend they don’t exist. No need to apologize because as far as I know there are no criticisms. So I am perfect and my system is perfect. Manipulate my church so they believe me and worship me.
One have to understand that being “biblical” isn’t everything. Without love even biblical teaching will be twisted and abused. Discipline is a primary example of this, biblical but has a huge potential to be abused. When it is out of true love for that person, discipline with the end goal to restore (this must be the goal) is a great thing. But in the hands of abusers without love and without any limits, discipline WILL destroy lives.
Love must the driving force and reasoning behind everything we read in the bible, even if they are biblical. And church members has every right to observe the church leadership for signs of love. If a person love God, he must also love his neighbors. Whoever doesn’t have love (ideally even his worst enemies) isn’t a mature Christian, if at all. And I can defend that statement any day.
“Jesus doesn’t care how many Bible verses you have memorized. He cares about how you treat people.”