Because of being in the military and having lots of moves, I created a list of questions/prerequisites and literally went through the yellow pages trying to find a good church at each duty station location.

Now, after experiencing a cult instead of a church, my list of questions would be entirely different.

“….churches which emphasize Biblical counseling believe they have the ability to intervene in hard core abuse issues. This is very, very dangerous because they are NOT professionally trained to handle such serious mentally disturbed individuals.”

VERY important information, this

I realize from experience that some who comment at TWW have had disappointing results from professional counseling,
but counseling is a process during which there will come a point where the ‘client’ will be confronted. This sometimes results in the client breaking off counseling, because they cannot handle the confrontation nor do they have the patience to work through it in order to allow the counseling process to help them….. so a number of people will speak poorly of their ‘professional’ counseling experiences and that is normal.

But what ‘untrained’ church folks have done in the role of counseling those who are seriously disturbed IS dangerous ….. these untrained people are already filled with hubris and ‘know-it-all’ attitudes and can do some real harm to fragile people in distress.

Best to ask a trusted physician who is the best counselor or psychiatrist in town and take the advice. Physicians know what’s available and who is effective.

Southshore leadership does not want a congregation. They want zombies (men), and sub-par zombies (women).

Galatians 5:1
It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

Colossians 2:20
If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees…

It’s funny, I didn’t catch any drift of Jesus Christ in all of those rules and regulations. I don’t think it has much to do with him.

Just think, if signing a contract of rules has the power to make or keep people righteous, Jesus died for nothing, didn’t he? Unfortunately, all the rules in the world are no guarantee that people will not sin, they are no guarantee that the leader who wrote the contract will not sin against you.

Galatians 3:1-3
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

You don’t have to subject yourself to a spiritual straitjacket to follow Christ. Just follow him.

I have a ThM from Dallas Seminary and a PhD from Westminster Seminary — am I unclean?

drstevej wrote:

I have a ThM from Dallas Seminary and a PhD from Westminster Seminary — am I unclean?

You sound like you might be a respectable classical Calvinist, not one of the young whippersnappers called New Calvinists who are wreaking havoc in the American church. If so, we are not concerned about you.

drstevej wrote:

I am a Christmas Calvinist (No-L).

Noel! Noel! It would appear that you are a 4-Point Calvinist, leaving the “L” (limited atonement) out of the TULIP acrostic. I’ve been waiting to meet someone who holds to Moderate Calvinism. I have a question. Moderate (4-point) Calvinism has always seemed a paradox to me. Can “Unlimited Atonement” truly come alongside “Unconditional Election” in a reformed theology grid? R.C. Sproul claims that a person who really understands the other four points ‘must’ believe in limited atonement because of what Martin Luther called a resistless logic.

What is a Christmas Calvinist?

DMZ wrote:

What is a Christmas Calvinist?

A Christmas Calvinist is someone who does not believe in “Limited Atonement”, which is the “L” in the Calvinist acrostic “TULIP” which describes the 5-points of Calvinism. Thus, “No L” … get it … Noel … Christmas Calvinist.

siteseer wrote:

In the 12/23 article about Marie’s church, Nancy2 quoted this part of Southshore Bible Church’s covenant:
***”No member shall have the right to inspect the church records as to: (i) the disciplining of any members, (ii) the hiring or firing of any employee, (iii) the need or problems of any member or employee, (iv) the financial contributions of any member, or (v) any other records which the council of Elders may determine to be kept confidential in the best interests of the church.”***
I was reading the following article and I wondered to myself how members of the above church would manage to deal with it if something like this happened?
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article122000874.html

A Subpoena Duces Tecum of records can change all of that and so can litigation, requirements to produce documents. They will be found in contempt of court, fined, and jailed if they don’t pony up the documents.

I would add checking the church and clergy’s Twitter accounts and see who they follow. The staff’s Twitters can reveal stranger characters. For some reason, the mobile Twitter website, just replace “www” with “m”, will let you do this without an account.

Here’s an Episcopalian church in Dallas, full of those progressives and universalists, right? But the Twitter is following Desiring God and *PASTOR* Mark Driscoll:

https://mobile.twitter.com/IncarnationDFW/following

Follow the chain to that church staff’s Twitters, and you’ll even find Doug Wilson.

Addendum: Sounds like Southshore Bible Church is serious about taking scripture literally. So on a visit one could expect plenty of holy kisses from all the biblical men, right?

Stan wrote:

I would add checking the church and clergy’s Twitter accounts and see who they follow.

Agreed! You can learn a lot about a pastor of a church you may be considering by checking their social media, particularly Twitter. If there is a preponderance of re-tweets from the New Calvinist who’s who … Piper Points, Mohler Moments, Mahaney Malarkey, etc. … RUN!

Max wrote:

You can learn a lot about a pastor of a church you may be considering by checking their social media, particularly Twitter.

I would say if your ‘pastor’ seems really mean and vicious on twitter, give it a pass. Or SBC Voices. OR any other social media platform.

“So, you have just heard about a new church in town or maybe an old church with a brand new, young pastor who’s “got answers.”
— From the main article above —

Avoid like the dead lands of Chernobyl and Fukushima any pastor young or old who has “answers”.

Speaking of churches you don’t want to go to, Tim Wilhelm has a new post up about Tom Chantry.

https://thouarttheman.org/2016/12/26/chantry-jailed-arbca-appears-covered-abuse/

Apparently the Baptist association Chantry’s church belonged to commissioned a closely held report on Chantry’s abuse. I dropped a note to the Yavapai County DA in case they weren’t aware of this report.

“I knew then that I had a thin-skinned pastor who only accepted me so long as I acquiesced to his pet theology”

I’ve known a few congregations that had this attitude towards their minister. The only reason they went to class was to try to catch some doctrinal error. That’s very disheartening for a young minister. Recently we had a family get incredibly angry with us for preaching Jeremiah 29:11 in context.

I remember I got quite a bit of pushback when confronting my ex-pastor about his “Exodus 18” shepherding pyramid scheme to have underlings keep tabs on the pew sitters. First he said nobody was exempt. When I brought it up again, he relented a bit, saying I could opt out. Since only me being opted out doesn’t help other congregants, I continued to bring it up, and his responses ranged from “You’re out, why do you keep bringing this up?” to “It’s no different from having deacons!” News flash: Deacons can be abusive, especially if the pastor gives them the command to constantly check up on congregants and interrogate them if they miss church too many times.

I brought up an issue I had with the church’s “Man Day” paint ball fight “fellowship” activity with another member and was rebuffed. “What else would they do? Going shopping isn’t exactly ‘manly’!” were his words.

This church’s web page is very sparse. It was “planted” out of a college ministry I attended as a student, when things weren’t quite so crazy; it’s why I even attended at all. The church is affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination; no mention is made of this on the web site and I only found this affiliation out through a membership class. The pastor brings up that he attended Bible college in Louisiana but never mentioned the name of the school. Why are both the pastor’s education and the AoG denominational affiliation kept under wraps? I have my suspicions, and they involve AoG’s spotty past and the possibility of Pastor’s Bible college being a diploma mill.

Sermons from my old church emphasize “being manly.” (American) football gets brought up a lot. A recent sermon series had a bodybuilding theme. Some (paraphrased) quotes from the pulpit:
*Men, you know that women can get anything they want when they cry.
*I saw this little six year girl do it, so I had to man up and do it too.
*Real men carry all the groceries in the house in one trip.
*How many ladies want a new kitchen? Now men, don’t roll your eyes at that; that’s where the food comes from!
*This (some church growth scheme) doesn’t work with opposite genders. Dudes with dudes and girls with girls. I don’t need any jokers fooling around with this!

Utterly ridiculous. By the time these sermons came around, I was already plotting my exit strategy. For the first couple years I attended, things weren’t this bad. Red flags began appearing with increasing frequency over the past year, both with dumb comments like the above, and with ridiculous programs like “Man Day”, “Exodus 18” shepherding, and the church growth scheme (dubbed “Operation Andrew”.)

The past sermons are the only way to glean a lot of information; there’s literally a one sentence blurb on the pastor, in an “About Us” paragraph filled with hip buzzwords like “vibrant,” “full of excitement,” “atmosphere of celebration,” and “dynamic.” No resource page, list of recommended ministries/authors, or membership requirements posted on the site. (For the record, the membership class had a one page “Membership Application” that wasn’t nearly as detailed as the covenants that other churches use.)

From the pulpit he’s quoted everyone from T.D. Jakes to Brian Houston of Hillsong to ARC big-wig Chris Hodges to the Pied Piper himself. So it appears his theology comes from all over the place. Sermons also disparage “traditional” churches, poking jabs at pews, stained glass, and hymnals.

So basically, with my old church, the web site isn’t going to bring up many red flags; you really do have to delve into (several) past sermons in order to start revealing some of the issues. And others, like the gender-separates socials and the church growth/shepherding control schemes are even harder to research since those were typically part of announcements that weren’t posted online.

I still can’t find my way back into a church. I go but then this intense anxiety hits me once I walk out. I still feel the loss the pain the abandonment by those who did exactly what you said. Befriended me and my child then betrayed trust and hurt my kid. This is sad because I once felt like church was home and now its become a den of lions to me. I don’t mean the true church those who know Christ. Its those who obediently go to a church building fake being nice while professing the Name of Christ and you see picture perfect never realizing that your in with a den of vipers. One lady rubbed in how LBC has been giving her and her kids an amazing Christmas. Maybe she didn’t mean to however I got the sense that it was intentional. A few months prior I go visit her in the hospital to make peace because she had told me how dare I go public with billys abuse and that LBC was her church. More Ugly things were said. Anyways our time was good and forgiveness came naturally however again she pointed out how the church has been taking care of her and her kids. Something they never did for my Billy. To be honest it hurt to hear that. I was happy for her and at the same time reminded of the abandonment and betrayal of the very men who are there for one single mother whose decisions are skewed and abandoned another single mother who gave 6 years of serving the members who dropped us to now share a closeness with this woman. It sounds selfish I know all I can say is we are three years later and I still feel the loss. That night changed the course of our lives and im glad I was able to see for the first time In those 6 years. I just wish I would have known sooner to run.

Bill M wrote:

I’ve found that no authoritarian church is complete without the misuse of Hebrews 13:17

We really need to have an entire article about this to help Christians be discerning and to be able to think through the passage properly when they are lied to about it by authoritarian churches.

39th!

“The next time you get together with your small group, tell them you are not sure you agree with your pastor on one of his pet teachings. Watch the responses of your small group. See if they become uncomfortable or try to talk you down. Try to do the same thing with you pastor.”

Been there, done that! Even though the authoritarian in the pulpit encouraged the pew sitters to play the Berean and not take him at his word, but verify that it matches up with the Scriptures – he doesn’t really mean it.

If you intend to question something “His Holiness” has stated be prepared to find a new church. What I received from my question was icy stares and the beginning of the shunning process. Oh, and an invitation to lunch to discuss the question in depth, where, what actually happened is my Christian character was questioned.

Bill M wrote:

That passage all by itself makes my skin crawl, these leaders don’t sound like overseers but like predators. Y

Yes. And what about the passages that negate that translation. They freak if you point them out. It’s as if you are a heretic.

The level of insecurity with these guys is incredible. It’s all about control. Those who want to control you and believe they know best for your life under the guise of caring– scare me the most. And worse, many are young with no real life experience. Even the older ones have lived in a bubble.

I think a good indicator is whether or not a church views you as an adult –able to make your own choices.

“We just joined a church after two years. We read extensively on the church, the denomination, nd the recommended resources. We stayed in the background, watching interactions between the pastors and the members. By the time we joined, we were experts on the church.”

I think this is the only way to go. However, I seriously doubt most 9 Marx churches would allow this. You would be labeled as unwilling to make a commitment, rebellious for not being under elder rule, etc. They would love bomb you first, of course.

That would be another indicator: They pressure you to ‘make a commitment’.

I was loved bombed for about two months then they started with the napalm I have that effect on some religious groups.

@ Shauna:
It can takes years to get through that heightened awareness anxiety when you attend any church now after what you guys went through. Do not feel guilty! Or weak! It is a survival instinct.

I *hate* the tactic of love bombing. There was one guy at my former church who was frighteningly good at it. He’d approach everybody walking through the doors, grinning from ear to ear, hug them unless they resisted (like I did), and proceed to ask a bunch of questions about what you did that week, how you were doing, etc. I started using a back entrance to avoid him and pretended not to notice him if he approached me while trying to leave. He also liked to yell “Amen!” at the top of his lungs during sermons, so no doubt he was one of the pastor’s favorite sycophants.

brian wrote:

I don’t think I could ever become a catholic or EO because of the deep seeded terror of going to hell if I went. I joke a bit about it but it’s one of those doctrines I had injected into almost every cell in my body. This is all emotional more than anything. I cant even go into an evangelical Church of any kind anymore which I am a bit sad about

Oh my God, Brian. What did those people do to you? You sound very traumatized. Prayers.

Velour wrote:

We really need to have an entire article about this to help Christians be discerning and to be able to think through the passage properly when they are lied to about it by authoritarian churches.

Paul Burleson has done a 4-part post about “Authority and Church Life” that is very thorough and an excellent resource:

http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/2014/03/authority-and-church-lifepart-one_15.html

Re: Friendship trap. As a teacher, I watched JWs at the school gate ‘love-bombing’ other mums, especially one who was vulnerable, like newly divorced. It made me rethink how I welcomed newcomers into our small church. Obviously I wanted them to feel at home, but questioned my own motives, was I merely delighted to see more ‘bums on seats’, more money in the offering to keep us afloat? How to strike a balance between a genuine welcome, yet not be like those JWs in their ‘love bombing’ to entrap.

Lydia wrote:

“We just joined a church after two years. We read extensively on the church, the denomination, nd the recommended resources. We stayed in the background, watching interactions between the pastors and the members. By the time we joined, we were experts on the church.”
I think this is the only way to go. However, I seriously doubt most 9 Marx churches would allow this. You would be labeled as unwilling to make a commitment, rebellious for not being under elder rule, etc. They would love bomb you first, of course.
That would be another indicator: They pressure you to ‘make a commitment’.

At my ex-9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church, Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, the pastors/elders announced from the pulpit to visitors that you shouldn’t come back to church if you weren’t willing to sign the Membership Covenant.

Those pastors/elders at GBFSV are the rudest people you could ever meet. My ex-senior pastor (the guy with the fake Ph.D. from a diploma mill and another fake ‘advanced degree’ from the same diploma mill according to the U.S. Department of Education) would say from the pulpit that how did he and the other elders know that you were one of theirs if you hadn’t signed a Membership Covenant. I would silently retort from my pew, “I guess you all don’t have the brains to figure it out but they actually looked up the church, found out the service time, woke up, had breakfast, got dressed, and got here. What more do you need to know?” But oh nooooo…the smarmy, controlling pastors/elders who see themselves as the Holy Spirit in peoples’ lives said they didn’t know you were one of theirs and did so in a dramatic, rude fashion from the pulpit.

My cheeks would be aflame with embarrassment at the rudeness shown to Christians who showed up and were told to not come back!!! Jesus didn’t do that — ever.

Well-dressed Christians took these rude pastors/elders at their word and didn’t bother staying for the entire service, but got up and fled. I wish I’d joined them!

Another very good post. I am still digesting some of this.

I found this quite applicable

These are insecure people who want to be reassured that they have chosen the right church, the right pastor and the right secondary or tertiary doctrine. It is extremely difficult for people who like to think they are intelligent and insightful people to discover that they have chosen poorly so they pretend they haven’t. This is cognitive dissonance. It can’t be them so it must be you.

They will do everything in their power to convince you that you re being unbiblical, hurting name of Christ, not being submissive to authority, gossiping, etc. I know this is hard to accept when you are on the receiving end but it is not about you. It is about them and their insecurities. They will distance themselves from you because you were not really their friend. You were merely their cheerleader, assuring them that they made the right choice.

So very true. Another word to call this is DENIAL. The more someone has invested in a group (both time and dollars) they more likely they are to want to deny their group is wrong including their leaders when in fact their group/leaders are wrong. It is much easier to sit in denial than face the cognitive dissonance and have to admit you were duped.

One other explanation for people passionately staying involved is the “Inner Ring” that C.S. Lewis writes about:

http://www.lewissociety.org/innerring.php

Just some thoughts.

ishy wrote:

For example, with the Calvinistas–the biggest problem in their theology isn’t complementarianism, it isn’t the takeovers, and it isn’t authoritarianism. It’s that they’ve eliminated Jesus from the center of their theology. They really aren’t Christians. They may include Jesus as an atonement, but not as God, and they completely ignore everything He said and did while on earth that abolished the system of religiosity of every other religion on Earth, including that of the Old Testament. Without Christ, the Calvinistas try to restore a system of religiousness, and they try to force it by takeovers and authoritarianism.

Only God(TM) and their Holy Book (“IT IS WRITTEN!”)

Calvin Islamized the Reformation, and these More-Calvinist-than-Calvin guys are its ISIS.

For centuries, holy men and women tried to reform the church. It was Martin Luther who floated the idea that the problem was not ethics, but theology – the corruption on the church was a result of what it believed. This was a surprisingly enlightened approach, and the idea is seminal in modern philosophical formulation. Abstractly, it is the idea that an internally consistent philosophy cannot escape the boundaries of its presuppositions. This leads to a simplified, non-statistical approach to sociology (and realistically, when we discuss the behavior of shared, ostensibly voluntary, associations, we are discussing sociology first, not theology – something Luther got wrong). When we see shared presuppositions we look for shared outcomes, and vice versa. In the context of this post, the shared outcome that concerns us is abusive, authoritarian church “leadership”. When I look for shared presuppositions, I find those listed here – well done, Deebs. However, I also find another presupposition: it is the idea that “doctrine” – defined as what one believes on paper – is the Most Important Thing. This is simultaneously an ironic fruit of Luther’s labor while being in direct contravention of the teachings propounded by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus. Until these abusive autocrats reject the leaven of the Pharisees, they will remain ichabod, and see nothing but rotten fruit.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Marie was a former Biblical counselor and she can tell you many stories about the limitations of this form of counseling. Julie Anne Smith presented one post on the matter.
Read this again: Because of Scripture’s sufficiency in this regard pastors and counselors can be assured that Scripture contains all things necessary for counseling the hard cases in counseling ministry. Participants will come to understand that Scripture is relevant to the counseling task, and that the grace of Christ in Scripture ensures help in even the most difficult issues of life.
Mentally substitute “Dianetics” for “Scripture” and “Auditing” for “Counseling”…

And detractors = Leah Reminini. Go Leah!!! (Great series she has on A&E about Scientology. They look like the kooks. Even their anti-Leah commercials show up on all of the youtube videos I watch as Scientology tries to control the narrative. It ain’t working and we aren’t in their bubble.)

@ Stan:
I would be careful of making hasty judgements based on who people follow on Twitter. As for me, I follow some local and national politicians with whom I might have very limited intersections of agreement, because I am interested in knowing what they are coming up with.
Who – and what – do they retweet would be a more useful metric than who do they follow, I think.

FW Rez wrote:

The problem really lies not in the authority of scripture vs. the authority of Christ, as they are consistent with each other, but in the churches putting THEIR interpretation of scripture on equal footing with the written and/or revealed word. If it feels like they have elevated scripture to a fourth person of the Trinity: beware.

This really comes down to their authority being themselves.

Even yesterday, I saw someone stating elsewhere, “If we can’t understand the Bible perfectly for doctrine, than what’s the point of it?” Well, there could be a whole lot of reasons God chose to make Scriptures a book about people who have relationships with God instead of a 200-volume systematic theology. Including that of when Jesus spoke in parables, and said “He that hath ears, let him hear”. Jesus wanted them to want to understand. But that person wasn’t really putting their trust in the Bible, but in their (or their leaders’) ability to interpret it. And a lot of those people who put their completely trust in their interpretations are the ones who put doctrine over love for their neighbor.

ishy wrote:

Even yesterday, I saw someone stating elsewhere, “If we can’t understand the Bible perfectly for doctrine, than what’s the point of it?”

This is such a sad way to view the bible, imo. It is full of tidbits and advice. Paul is the one who said we see through a mirror dimly now. Some people are just not comfortable with uncertainty, disagreement…

ishy wrote:

They want quick answers from approved books and sermons.

Life is easier if you let someone else do the thinking for you.

Lea wrote:

Some people are just not comfortable with uncertainty, disagreement…

Robert Webber, in his book “Ancient Future Worship”, explains that the mindset of those to which the scripture was originally written was much more comfortable with paradox than our modern mindset is.

ishy wrote:

I’ll add that a lot of those people who believe in Doctrine don’t study the Bible for themselves to see what it says.

Agreed. Within SBC ranks, there is a high rate of Biblical illiteracy. Once called a “People of the Word”, very few Southern Baptists read it these days. The Generation Xers and Millennials who are following the New Calvinist movement want a quick fix for everything … so they carry ESV bibles but depend on reformed pastors to interpret it for them. If they would get alone with their Bible for a season and pray for the Holy Spirit to teach them, they would find much of what they are being indoctrinated with is off-track.

This a great post! Beyound the Very important concept of “authoritarism” which is highlighted all over the place, I noticed the YEC statement. I think this is more of a “big deal” than most people realize. Mix authoritarism/church discipline with church doctrine explicitly stating how you should think about science/history, etc, and you have a recipe for disaster.. it is much, much more than how old the earth is!!
They would never accept me as a member, and if i grew up in it, and learned real science, i would be in church discipline, unless i kept my mouth shut, and lived a dual life.. unfortunately, i know a number of people that live like that…. is that the true gospel?

Amen to what Dee says

dee wrote:

ishy wrote:
“If we can’t understand the Bible perfectly for doctrine, than what’s the point of it?”
the Bible gives us the general gist of things-sin, Jesus, etc. But people are looking for rules-that is why Paul warned us about returning to the Law which condemns us. These rules go far beyond treating others as you would have them treat you. It dissolves into fights over baptism ,creationism, eschatology, etc.
We divide over this stuff and everyone believes that they are absolutely correct. Form my reading, I do not see Paul emphasizing the age of the earth, homeschooling over public academia, etc. Instead, we are too love one another and deal with our sin, all the while knowing we are loved.
I swear I will start screaming if I hear one more theologian who is into complementarianism attempt to distort the Trinity for their pet theology. They can’t even tell us what comp practically means in a marriage. AndI doubt anyone gets the Trinity while watching Fred and Myrtle trying to decide where to go to vacation this year.

@ dee:

Awesome!

Muff Potter wrote:

“So, you have just heard about a new church in town or maybe an old church with a brand new, young pastor who’s “got answers.”
— From the main article above —

Avoid like the dead lands of Chernobyl and Fukushima any pastor young or old who has “answers”.

Especially if (like Calvin or Mohammed) they have ALL the Answers with Absolute Biblical(TM) Certainty:

“Yes, in this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation.”
— Pope Francis I

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

… its leaders are known for being quarrelsome, dismissive of other believers and separated out for their own vision and agenda…

And one more thing here. It hinges around that word “separated”.

There was a group of “separated ones” in Jesus’ day. They were known, famously, as the Pharisees. Before I become too critical of them, let me at least give them credit for this: they were, more or less, one group. Today, there are not just millions of Pharisees within christendom, but thousands of sects of Pharisees.

If your potential congregation goes into great length, either explicitly on its website or in the unwritten rules that become apparent as you talk to people there, about what separates it from the rest of the church, beware. Especially if these distinctives are couched in terms like those in the post above: accusing, self-righteous, judgmental, dismissing those who differ with them as “twisting the scriptures” and denouncing as “false teachings” views contrary to their own. For those things, remember this phrase:

But this mob that knows nothing of the Law – they are accursed!

Don’t join a sect that acts, speaks or thinks like that.

FW Rez wrote:

Lea wrote:
Some people are just not comfortable with uncertainty, disagreement…

Robert Webber, in his book “Ancient Future Worship”, explains that the mindset of those to which the scripture was originally written was much more comfortable with paradox than our modern mindset is.

Paradoxes exist. Deal with it.

Jamie Carter wrote:

…But looking at their rules, I now realize that their main beliefs exclude any consideration of single-hood as a legitimate state of Christian life, it’s all either not-yet-married, or married or was-married-widow(er).

Jamie Carter wrote:

I now realize that their main beliefs exclude any consideration of single-hood as a legitimate state of Christian life, it’s all either not-yet-married, or married or was-married-widow(er).

The minister saying at the start of his sermon, “There are those of you who are married, those of you who have been married, and those of you who are not married yet” is what made me immediately leave that service in tears.

Victorious wrote:

Velour wrote:

We really need to have an entire article about this to help Christians be discerning and to be able to think through the passage properly when they are lied to about it by authoritarian churches.

Paul Burleson has done a 4-part post about “Authority and Church Life” that is very thorough and an excellent resource:

http://vtmbottomline.blogspot.com/2014/03/authority-and-church-lifepart-one_15.html

For those who may not know, Paul Burleson is Wade’s good father, and is one of the finest writers of a blog you will find. He’s worth reading, yes. 🙂

Janey wrote:

So that’s the rub: Many Evangelical churches in my area are more intimate but very controlling. The mainline churches are less intimate, and more hands-off.

The mainline Churches believe in the power of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life, and in the role of moral conscience as guide.

But there is something more: the mainline Churches respect the privacy of an individual as a part of preserving the dignity of that person as someone who is made in the image of God. So, for the mainline Churches, the manipulation and abuse of intentionally going into people’s private lives for purposes of controlling thems, or shaming them publicly if they do not ‘tow the line’ is unthinkable.

Neo-Cals are not respecters of the dignity of human persons, or else how could those men lower themselves to be the persecutors of women ?????
They cannot even answer for their own dignity as persons because they have to construct a whole world that falsely builds themselves up as ‘heads’ at the expense of those they injure as subservient.

Without that basic respect, the neo-Cals have no true compass to control their actions, since they do not look to Christ as guide, nor do they believe in the great power of the Holy Spirit. They are their own lords. So they will flounder, but first they will harm many people.

Ted wrote:

The authority of “The Local Church” may even be higher than scripture to them, as their interpretation of scripture is paramount.

Several years ago, Southern Baptists had a debate about where ultimate authority rested: in the Word or with Jesus. I sat back and chuckled as the SBC scholars argued about this, knowing that Jesus is the Word! However, there is no doubt that the New Calvinists which are running rough-shod over SBC right now, put far more focus on the authority of the Word (their interpretation of it) over Jesus … heck, they don’t even talk much about Jesus!

Max wrote:

the New Calvinists which are running rough-shod over SBC right now, put far more focus on the authority of the Word (their interpretation of it) over Jesus … heck, they don’t even talk much about Jesus!

they only bring Him out to teach ‘their girls’ how to be ‘submissive’ using their man-made doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son

occasionally a Driscoll will come along and create a hyper-masculine ‘Jesus’, but basically it’s the other ‘submissive’ they focus on ……

In their process of denigrating Our Lord, what they lost might have saved them from themselves, but they didn’t believe

dee wrote:

Me, too. I have also set up two extra super secret twitter accounts so that I can more easily follow those who have blocked me. On one of them, to throw them off, I actually retweet a harmless tweet or two from there tweets. I also have commented on blog that don’t like me under assumed names. It’s all rather amusing.

The secret is out – Nana.

I am going to give it a try.

Max wrote:

Several years ago, Southern Baptists had a debate about where ultimate authority rested: in the Word or with Jesus.

I missed that debate entirely. There is one thing that bothers me about it, however. If a Baptist belief is that the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, and therefore true, then how could there be disagreement between God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that both sides of the argument would be wrong in that case since each would have to assume disagreement between the Son and the Spirit.

How did they get past that road bump?

Ted wrote:

The authority of “The Local Church” may even be higher than scripture to them, as their interpretation of scripture is paramount.

Back during the Seventies, a lot of those Christianese cult watch books mentioned a cult which actually named itself “The Local Church” and appropriated all mention of “local church” in the Bible to refer to themselves and themselves alone.

Looks like they were ahead of their time.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. I wouldn’t be surprised if this originated in the Reformation Wars. Since enemy Christians did A (Romish Papists exalting single celibacy), Real True Christians (us) had to do Not-A (exalt marriage exclusively).

AnonInNC wrote:

there’s literally a one sentence blurb on the pastor, in an “About Us” paragraph filled with hip buzzwords like “vibrant,” “full of excitement,” “atmosphere of celebration,” and “dynamic.”

i.e. No hard information, just “all sizzle, no steak” and “all hat, no cattle”.

That alone would make me suspicious.
1) What are they hiding?
2) “First you take a step, and then you Jive.”

Muff Potter wrote:

AnonInNC wrote:

Sermons also disparage “traditional” churches, poking jabs at pews, stained glass, and hymnals.

Traditional churches will survive and be around, alive and well, long after the new-fangled ‘gospelly’ churches dry up and blow away like so many Walmart bags.

Amen.
“God descends to the humble as waters flow down from the hills into the valleys.”
(St. John of Kronstadt)

dee wrote:

You are wonderful! I was sitting here thinking I needed to do this.

I’m thinking there may be legal issues in trying to liberate that report, but if the Association is embarrassed enough, maybe it will just turn it over.

I wanted to say thank you very much for all the kind words this holiday season and giving me a forum to write some comments. I think I have said this here before but I need to say it again. It really does help, some of what I write is more of emotion and those “tapes” that keep replaying. Their echo is far less than in the past, exposing that internal dialog to myself and others in a safe forum has helped the most. Commitment is also another part of “repentance” / change so I want to take some concrete action. I will be attending / writing email to several Anglican fellowships in my area to try to seek a real world faith community. Hope to post some feedback in a couple of weeks. Thank You all.

ishy wrote:

Even yesterday, I saw someone stating elsewhere, “If we can’t understand the Bible perfectly for doctrine, than what’s the point of it?” Well, there could be a whole lot of reasons God chose to make Scriptures a book about people who have relationships with God instead of a 200-volume systematic theology. Including that of when Jesus spoke in parables, and said “He that hath ears, let him hear”. Jesus wanted them to want to understand. But that person wasn’t really putting their trust in the Bible, but in their (or their leaders’) ability to interpret it. And a lot of those people who put their completely trust in their interpretations are the ones who put doctrine over love for their neighbor.

I remember as a young Christian being so confused as to why God didn’t make it more clear what he wants us to know and what he wants us to do. It didn’t make sense to me, at that point. I mean, obviously, if he had wanted to, he could have just written us a long bulleted list of facts about himself and rules for us to live by. So why didn’t he?

The fact is, he chose not to. We have to recognize and honor that isn’t what he wants, that is not how he wants us to know him and relate to him. Some things in the scriptures are very clear- the value God places upon love, truth and humility, for example, but others are a lifetime process of reading, contemplating, questioning, wondering, growing in maturity and understanding.

I don’t think I am saying this very well. I just think it is our fallen nature that wants a concise list of rules we can learn and then move on with our lives, but God wants us to sincerely seek to know him.

siteseer wrote:

Some things in the scriptures are very clear- the value God places upon love, truth and humility, for example, but others are a lifetime process of reading, contemplating, questioning, wondering, growing in maturity and understanding.

This for me is what disqualifies Calvinistas at every turn. God does clearly place love, truth, and humility as very important to Him, and I rarely see these preached. If they really placed such a high value on the doctrine of the Bible, they’d make these important, too. Which is why I seriously suspect that at least the leaders are either fakes or they’re crazy, neither of which is a solid foundation for leadership.

StillWiggling wrote:

Also speaking of small groups… a neighbor/friend of mine had gone church-shopping, thought he had settled on a particular church, until he inquired about joining a small group. He was told rather abruptly that all the groups were full, sorry.
Full? Ex-freaking-scuze me? Now, if the groups were all right in the middle of a structured study, that MIGHT fly… but they weren’t. They just couldn’t be bothered to take in new people.

That’s seriously one of the sillier things I’ve heard a church doing. It’s about as fake of an excuse as you can get.

Roger Smith wrote:

I think the heat is going to start. My good church preaching options are very limited. I think I will follow what Wade Burleson said in his book Fraudulent authority. What do you guys think.

I somehow missed your post earlier. The way many of these churches work is that they act like normal churches with normal pastors for some time to get people in, then they switch to the authoritarian model. Even though the pastors went elsewhere, they could very well be authoritarian, anyway. My first church that split and one group went Acts29, none of them have SBC seminary degrees. They went to some other schools, too.

With recent graduates though, the most likely Calvinista candidates are being indoctrinated at SBTS and SEBTS. Pastors can still be indoctrinated elsewhere, but it’s fairly certain if they come from those schools, they will be hyper-Calvinists.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

a cult which actually named itself “The Local Church”

When I first started noticing the term I googled it. The first links to show up are about the Witness Lee cult, and there are links to 9Marks, Grace to You and Desiring God. You’d think Dever, MacArthur and Piper would have thought of a better term.

Ted wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
a cult which actually named itself “The Local Church”
When I first started noticing the term I googled it. The first links to show up are about the Witness Lee cult, and there are links to 9Marks, Grace to You and Desiring God.

Wasn’t Witness Lee the successor to Watchman Nee (from the name similarity alone)?

I remember Watchman Nee was the 68th book of the Bible (Hal Lindsay was the 67th) during my time in-country. VERY popular with the non-denom splinter fellowships back then.

C.J. Mahaney wrote:

You need to honor them, dear readers. Yes, honor and esteem them. They labor hard for you.

Isn’t that exactly what the pigs of Animal Farm said to justify their special Inner Ring privileges?

dee wrote:

Shannon H. wrote:
The minister saying at the start of his sermon, “There are those of you who are married, those of you who have been married, and those of you who are not married yet” is what made me immediately leave that service in tears.

This make me want to cry as well. I am putting this comment into a post that I want to do on singles.

It’s defining the entire self by marriage status. I don’t know why they can’t see how damaging that can be, but beyond that, why is that your focus?

@ C.J. Mahaney:
Brava!

Max wrote:

I sat back and chuckled as the SBC scholars argued about this, knowing that Jesus is the Word!

Exactly!

ishy wrote:

That’s seriously one of the sillier things I’ve heard a church doing. It’s about as fake of an excuse as you can get.

I can’t even fathom a group, let alone all the groups, that can’t accommodate a new person. What nonsense.

Ted wrote:

Hi, Christiane. That seems to be what’s going on, but I think any of them would flatly deny that they’ve eliminated Jesus as the lens. They use the term “gospel” a lot, which implies Jesus, and no doubt they believe they’re preaching Jesus.

I had to google BF & M 2K. Where in the Baptist Faith & Message does it say anything like that?

Hi TED,

Here is from the OLD BF&M 1963:
“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

It was removed and no longer appears in the BF&M 2000

Wade Burleson wrote this: “I believe the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message committee did a marvelous job with the following sentence under Article 1: The Scriptures: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” This statement, tragically, is left out of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. One of the dangers of not recognizing that all scripture must be interpreted through an understanding of the person and work of Christ is that one will end up not realizing how the Old Covenant has been abolished through the ministry of our Lord.”
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2009/09/why-1963-bfm-is-better-confession-than.html

It did not take long to see the fall-out, sadly.

@ okrapod:
Hi OKRAPOD,
I can refer you to the reply I just gave to TED. I guess people see things differently, yes. But to me that was a dramatic sentence to take out of the BF&M 2K. People took advantage of the change in negative ways, I think. Wade Burleson gives an interesting perspective on it, here:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2009/09/why-1963-bfm-is-better-confession-than.html

(Saint Augustine,
c. 354-430 A.D.)

“You have heard the account of the two disciples who met the Lord on the road to Emmaus and yet did not recognize Him. When He met them, they had lost all hope of the redemption that is in Christ, they were convinced that the Master was dead like any other man, they did not realize that Jesus inasmuch as He is Son of God was still alive. According to them He had left this life without being able to return, like one of the many prophets.

Then the Lord revealed to them the meaning of the Sacred Scriptures: beginning with Moses and quoting one prophet after another He showed that everything that He had suffered had been foretold.

After that, He appeared to the eleven disciples and they thought they were seeing a ghost. So Jesus let them touch Him, the One who had let Himself be crucified.

Yet the Lord did not consider it was sufficient to allow them to touch Him. He wanted to appeal to the Scriptures to confirm their hearts in the faith.

He revealed to them the meaning of the Scriptures and showed how it was necessary that the Christ should fulfil all that had been written about Him in te books of the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms.

The Lord went through the whole Old Testament. He seemed to span it all in His embrace.

The Lord opened the minds of the Apostles so that they understood the Scriptures.

That He will open our minds too is our prayer.”
(St. Augustine)

brian wrote:

I like EO, Catholic, and especially Anglican faith communities in a more traditional vein. I don’t think I could ever become a catholic or EO because of the deep seeded terror of going to hell if I went. I joke a bit about it but it’s one of those doctrines I had injected into almost every cell in my body.

Hugs and prayers to you, brian, as you work through this. I struggle with similar programming from my former church. To encourage you, let me just say that finding my way to a small Anglican congregation was one of the most spiritually healing things I’ve ever experienced. The ancient practices, the Scripture readings, and receiving the Eucharist every week are all a balm to my soul. The people love my family and me genuinely without ‘bombing’ us. I pray that you find such a place of refuge and fellowship in whichever branch of the faith that can help you grow closer to the Lord. His peace be with you, now and always.

Ted wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
(Hal Lindsay was the 67th)

Yeah, now I HAVE read him. Like you, I swallowed him hook, line and sinker in my early days. Thankfully, I don’t have the flashbacks and PTSD that you got. I went to Gordon College shortly afterward, and Lindsey was pretty much ignored there in favor of some pretty solid OT theology. I got decompressed from the End-Times crap pretty gently.

Haven’t had any flashbacks since the late Eighties (somewhere between the Jupiter Effect Rapture Scare and the 88 Reasons Rapture Scare).

What decompressed me was finding End Time Prophecy books from 40-50 years before, PROVING the same verses through now-forgotten news items. And a Seventh Day Adventist ETP book which used the exact same verses to PROVE a completely-different checklist/choreography. (SDAs have a shall we say “unique” take on Revelation.)

ishy wrote:

There’s no easy life, and there’s no reason any pastor should expect everyone to agree or even be nice all the time. This doesn’t happen to anyone. And if that pastor is trying to force the congregation to do so, then he is not a follower of Christ, and people should avoid that church, which is the point of this article.

I love reading this blog, but it’s interesting from our context. In our denomination traditionally the minister is the lowest on the totem pole. The elders control everything. I relate to the stories of bullying and abuse, because in our group many times the elders or a disgruntled group in the congregation will lash out at the preacher. The preacher is not treated as a member of the congregation, he is a paid employee. After my husband was told I was not allowed at the church building during the week with our newborn daughter, I asked an elder about it. He said the church was a business.

I realize that sometimes there are other things going on in people’s lives, and sometimes they just need a place to vent. But, if a man has a bad day at work it would not be acceptable for him to take it out on a stranger, or his wife, or his kids. Why should it be okay to take it out on the minister? Neither my husband nor I expected ministry to be easy and we don’t expect people to agree with us on everything, but we do expect Christians (including ourselves) to act like Christians instead of the rest of the world. Imagine the hurt when your life revolves around a congregation only for them to turn on you, slander you to nearby congregations and leave you unemployed and homeless (there was a parsonage involved). It was almost enough to lose faith entirely.

It can be a mixed bag when looking for what a church believes from their web sites. My SBC church does not have much info – just a very short statement of beliefs. It has not yet gone YRR, but I think a couple of the pastors are sipping the Kool-Aid. Based on the searching I have done so far, I think this is fairly typical of churches that have not gone full YRR.

By contrast, here is the constitution from the 9Marks flagship church (available on its website): http://b1033ecbf0be9f1f78e0-9ff91644b80b1213b3e9d43ad0f0e963.r47.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploaded/c/0e4565226_1443648153_chbcconstitution.pdf. Note this little gem:

The church shall have authority to refuse a member’s voluntary resignation or transfer of membership to another church, either for the purpose of proceeding with a process of church discipline, or for any other biblical reason.

It seems to me that the strong YRR churches don’t hide it. It’s the ones that have not yet fully come out as YRR that are more difficult to spot via their web sites because they seem to be more reluctant to be truthful in advertising.

Ken F wrote:

The church shall have authority to refuse a member’s voluntary resignation or transfer of membership to another church, either for the purpose of proceeding with a process of church discipline, or for any other biblical reason.

It seems to me that the strong YRR churches don’t hide it.

What kind of American would pledge allegiance to something so destructive of their own personal freedom? It’s one thing to follow Christ, but these places make a prisoner of people instead of setting them free from chains and from fear. How can these people KNOW and still sign on????

Christiane wrote:

What kind of American would pledge allegiance to something so destructive of their own personal freedom? It’s one thing to follow Christ, but these places make a prisoner of people instead of setting them free from chains and from fear. How can these people KNOW and still sign on????

On the bright side, they let you know ahead of time what they plan to do to you. But who reads the fine print? John Piper’s old church is even more wordy – perhaps to discourage people reading the fine print? Here is the link to their constitution: http://www.hopeingod.org/document/constitution-and-laws. But don’t stop there, you also have to read their document on “Relational Commitments.” That’s were they spell out in detail how they handle church discipline, divorce, accountability, child safety, etc. Their statement on child safety is pretty weak compared to how well they spell out other topics:

Children are a blessing from God, and He calls the church to support parents in their responsibility to train children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. Therefore, the church should be a place of safety and blessing for children, where they can grow, play, form friendships, and learn to experience and share the love of Christ.

Since sin affects every person and organization in the world, it is possible that children could be harmed even during church activities. We cannot guarantee that such things will never happen at Bethlehem, but we are committed to taking reasonable precautions to protect our children and youth from foreseeable harm.

If a child or youth is harmed in our church, we will take immediate steps to inform the parents, to accept responsibility for our role in the situation, and to hold offending workers fully responsible for their actions.

I went to a fairly large college church in the South where there was a huge emphasis on ‘unity’ and “friendship” in the sense of the first part of the post. At first it was a great way to make new friends, but eventually the signs of groupthink were far too prevalent to ignore. It made me shudder a few times when a few of the more entrenched YRR ringleaders of the college ministry removed any bond of fellowship after I disagreed with them and the pastor on some secondary issues. After any disagreement over Reformed theology (which was heavily pushed, and assumed as the de facto spiritual foundation of the entire church), or questions concerning extrabiblical authority models, not to mention the Calvinist can of worms (Is that why it’s called “worm theology?” Just a thought), a few hard-charging youths being groomed for leadership even turned a little bit aggressive–they would become defensive the instant I showed disagreement, and question my salvation over issues as trivial as speeding laws.

Now, don’t get me wrong, most of my friends at that church actually were my friends; but after witnessing some of the utilitarian calculations made by some of the hyper-calvinistas concerning several members (including me) who harbored misgivings about their practices, it became clear that as soon as the evidence began going against the pet doctrines of the pastor, communication from those student leaders was either shut down entirely, or limited to terse, intentional efforts to silence the “disruptive” and “argumentative” person.

In that environment, friendship and genuine affection were not seen as ends in themselves, but merely as tools to promote “correct” or “sound” doctrine. There was a heavy emphasis on “taking delight” in correct doctrine. I had a few friends there that didn’t try that kind of stuff with me (they knew I had devoured far too much C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and George MacDonald), but in many of my ‘friendships’ there I found I was actually viewed as more of a project than a friend.

I went through that for three years, always being told by the college leadership that I wasn’t “submissive” enough when I questioned the doctrines being pushed forth vehemently by our young, intentional, slightly aggressive college pastor; doctrines such as “accountability” (as in, a spiritual weight-watchers program designed to eliminate sin by self-effort), formally arranged guidelines along which all friendly discussions should be based, placing guilt on anyone who didn’t show up to Wednesday night meetings, and the like.

Sorry for the long post, but I wish I would have known about that stuff before I even went there.

Ken F wrote:

or for any other biblical reason.

List the ‘biblical reasons’ to refuse a transfer of a member to another church? Bah.

Lea wrote:

dee wrote:

Shannon H. wrote:
The minister saying at the start of his sermon, “There are those of you who are married, those of you who have been married, and those of you who are not married yet” is what made me immediately leave that service in tears.

This make me want to cry as well. I am putting this comment into a post that I want to do on singles.

It’s defining the entire self by marriage status. I don’t know why they can’t see how damaging that can be, but beyond that, why is that your focus?

Reminds me of the pagan Greek myth of the gods splitting the first people into two, so that we’re really only HALF a person, and we’re not whole until we’re united with our “other half”.

@ Ken F:
Oh My God. That IS shocking.

Velour wrote:

very fatalistic

good description of determinism as it is taught in neo-Cal world ….. Christ wasn’t ‘needed’ until these men wanted to use Him to bump up their man-made ESS doctrine

my question was always: these Calvinists seem so self-assured, but how do THEY know that THEY personally are ‘in’ as ‘the elect’

Ken F wrote:

MidwesternEasterner wrote:
According to the 17th century Calvinist theologian Gomarus, the Bible is to be interpreted through the lens of absolute predestination, not Christ. Looks like the Gomarist mindset is alive and well.

“In the beginning was the Predestination, and the Predestination was with God, and the Predestination was God.”

Which is called “Socratic Atheism”.
Because if Predestination controls even God, then God is not God — Predestination/Fate is.
“Eh, Kismet…”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Because if Predestination controls even God, then God is not God — Predestination/Fate is.

That’s a very good point. Calvinists don’t think through the theology to the logical end.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Sorry for the long post, but I wish I would have known about that stuff before I even went there.

Outstanding comment. Thanks for joining this thread. I believe the YRRs are specifically targeting youth. It does me good to know that there are youth who can see through it.

Lydia wrote:

I think a good indicator is whether or not a church views you as an adult –able to make your own choices.

So true! If the pastor/leaders/elders want to all about your personal business then count that as Red Flags. If they feel justified in crossing personal boundaries because of their titles as leaders, count that as a Red Flag. If they want details about your marriage, count that as a Red Flag. If they want to know how you spend your money, count that as a Red Flag. If they judge how you make us of your time, count that as a Red Flag. Many other things can be added to this list. There’s lots of Red Flags to watch out for.

brian wrote:

I was loved bombed for about two months then they started with the napalm I have that effect on some religious groups.

Ah…the haranguing started after the Honey Moon phase was over.

Christiane wrote:

brian wrote:
I don’t think I could ever become a catholic or EO because of the deep seeded terror of going to hell if I went. I joke a bit about it but it’s one of those doctrines I had injected into almost every cell in my body. This is all emotional more than anything. I cant even go into an evangelical Church of any kind anymore which I am a bit sad about
Oh my God, Brian. What did those people do to you? You sound very traumatized. Prayers.

Christine, I can relate to what Brian is saying to a tea. The Christian cult I once belonged to messed up so many people that they weren’t able to attend church for decades after they left. Some still can’t attend church 30 years after leaving! This is because we were warned repeatedly by the leadership that leaving the fellowship was synonymous with leaving Jesus Christ. We were warned that in leaving, we would be subject to committing the most vile sins because we had rebelled against God and couldn’t get away with it without experiencing the anger of God. We have a few exmember sites on the Internet where people hash out their feelings, talk about their experiences and what life is like for them now. Many of my fellow survivors of that spiritual abuse speak of how they feared God would strike them dead if they dared leave the cult. They left because they were willing to risk death over remaining in a spiritually toxic environment that became torturous to live in on a daily basis.

Ken F wrote:

I should have added “weak because it says nothing about calling the police.”

I noticed that.

I’ve noticed that churches can make statements that sound strong but if it doesn’t include mandatory reporting, forget it.

@ dee:
Yes. 2017: a walk in the light.

“…God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 Jn 1:5-7NASB

Christiane wrote:

the mainline Churches respect the privacy of an individual as a part of preserving the dignity of that person as someone who is made in the image of God.

Agency.
God believes in agency, too. God doesn’t twist arms, threaten, or manipulate His children into what He wants, obedience. No matter how far off the rails are His created children, God remains a gentleman through and through, always and forever. He is stalwart, noble, in His actions and intentions.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

always being told by the college leadership that I wasn’t “submissive” enough when I questioned

That sounds very familiar. Almost identical to my fundamentalist baptist upbringing. There was always a covert or overt witchhunt for subversives who didn’t bow down to the “god ordained” (read often wrong, always authoritarian) leadership. Its sad that such narrow and petty men have to make themselves feel powerful and whole by suppressing the god given traits of fellow humans and in some respects fellow believers in Jesus.

I do discernment exercises often in regards to the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA). I have a ton in the works, but I do it to get people to think and examine the issues. Here are some examples I have done this past year. These are all EFCA.

Biblical Counseling program in Reseda, California
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/examining-the-bridge-bible-fellowship-in-reseda-california-and-their-biblical-based-counseling-program/

Clovis, California
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/practicing-discernment-clovis-evangelical-free-church-13-essentials-in-clovis-california/

Rio Rancho, New Mexico
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/practicing-discernment-faith-church-in-rio-rancho-new-mexico/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=6238&relatedposts_position=1

San Diego, California
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/09/16/practicing-discernment-restored-church-in-san-diego-california/

Allen, Texas
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/practicing-discernment-how-membership-is-viewed-in-grace-church-in-allen-texas/

dee wrote:

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
Uhm, I follow some people because I want to see what people are up to. I don’t want to be surprised.
Me, too. I have also set up two extra super secret twitter accounts so that I can more easily follow those who have blocked me. On one of them, to throw them off, I actually retweet a harmless tweet or two from there tweets. I also have commented on blog that don’t like me under assumed names. It’s all rather amusing.

Ah, Dee….going covert are ya? 😉

Darlene wrote:

^ *want to KNOW all about your personal business*

My old church was definitely like this. And both elders and general congregants would press you if they thought you weren’t telling them all the details when they asked you.

@ The Man who Wasn’t Thursday:

+1 on college and young adults churches with YRRism. For my small group, there was an expectation that we send nightly texts reporting if we uh, did that thing that guys do that day. It’s the ones who have clearly not achieved their aspirations in career or marital status that you have to look out for.

@ Lydia:
I wasn’t exposed to Calvinism to that degree and intensity until coming to college. One of the things that both my pastor and several student leaders at that church said which shocked me is that their methods were specifically designed for people who weren’t necessarily comfortable or practiced in thinking through these things themselves, so the heavily structured and demanding preaching was really intended to capitalize on their youthful zeal while protecting them “unnecessary doubt” as a result of heavy thinking. The pastor even told me in a private conversation that while he was happy that I was thinking through this stuff on my own, he encouraged me specifically not to talk too much about it with my peers, again because it might cause them “unnecessary doubts” or result in “shipwrecks of the faith.” After further correspondence on the matter, he finally questioned my salvation, and that’s when I knew he wasn’t open to talking about it anymore. (I’ve gotten that response a lot from outspoken Reformed proponents, actually.)

Anyway, I think that is the main reason my generation is being sucked into Calvinism. Not because they have an ambitious agenda or anything (for the most part), but because in the South there seems to be a tradition that you don’t talk about something if it causes disagreement. The problem is, people in the YRR crowd will capitalize on that desire to avoid confrontation, plus the natural humility of new or young Christians towards their spiritual elders, make people my age feel like they need to leave the deep thinking to ‘professional thinkers’ like Piper and the rest of them, and basically win over an entire generation already groomed to accept their ideology. It reminds me of the “Dilbert” comic where Dogbert wishes for world peace just so he could “conquer the whole stupid world with a butter knife.” It’s sad at best, and a little infuriating, now that I think about it.

Most of the people I know who got sucked into Calvinism are great people, some of the best I’ve ever known. The problem is, they’ve trained or groomed from the cradle to view the world only through the lens of Calvinsim, or at least an unnamed Proto-Cavlnism that’s harder to detect, and harder to question without raising doubts about salvation. All that Proto-Calvinism needs is a strong and authoritative-sounding leader to say the trigger words, and those years of subtle conditioning come to the surface, blooming into an impregnable fortress of predestination and quiet smugness. It sounds terrible to say it that way, but, having taken a few steps down that road, that psychological certainty is immensely comforting, and even a little exhilarating. The problem is that it mimics the courage brought about by real truth, though without any of the humility. “Boldness” became an excuse for licentiousness and arrogance, but since it was all for “The Gospel,” it was considered ok, and even loving, to offend people. And that, too, mimics the truth; sometimes the truth hurts, but still needs to be heard. But this particular brand of “boldness” tends to see offense itself as the evidence for the ‘truth’ of whatever that person might be saying, and commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (offense) in order to establish the veracity of the Reformed message. In short, “I’m right because you got offended, and you’re rejecting my message exactly as you would if I had really called you out on sins you knew you committed.” Guilty until proven innocent is the name of the game.

To sum it up, I think my generation is being sucked into Reformed theology for several reasons:
1. The leaders bully them into it, and make them like it.
2. The more ambitious and zealous ones sense that it will give them power.
3. Many of them mean the best, but were groomed from the cradle to accept it.
4. Once drawn in, the feeling of certainty and authority is both a comfort to the doubting (one might say “healthy”) mind, and a license to spiritual pride.

I tried to keep it short, but it could take a book to really explain it.

@ Stan:
There was HUGE pressure to join an “accountability group” or have an “accountability partner” at my old church. Your experience mirrors my church exactly, and that was one of the biggest issues I had with the leadership. It was automatically assumed that you were a filthy example of a human being (a “worm,” if I understand Piper correctly), and so depraved that you are not able to control yourself. Therefore,goes the logic, you need to team up with someone else who can’t control himself, to keep each other in line, in order that you may control yourselves.

The logical problems with that ideology are self-evident:
1. The assumption that everyone struggles with the same sin
2. The idea that you may combat it by replacing it with pride or the fear of others, both of which have far worse ramifications.

Not to mention the biggest one, if the proponents of that kind of “accountability” still want to claim biblical support for their methods of control:
3. The New Testament teaches that it is Love that frees us from sin, not Law. It is kindness, not condemnation, that brings about real change.

I had a friend at that church who committed suicide because of this kind of stuff, and others who got close. It almost destroyed them.

Sorry to make it dark, but I hope your experience didn’t bring about results like that. It looks like you can joke about it, so I’m guessing you got out fine, but that kind of ideology is terrible.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

@ Lydia:
By the way, George MacDonald is the antidote to Calvinism (and C.S. Lewis by extension). They, plus Chesterton, pulled me irresistibly away from Reformed theology. Oh, yeah, and seeing people around me get destroyed. That has a way of leaving a bad aftertaste.

Wow. I realize the potential misunderstanding in what I wrote:”George Macdonald is the antidote to…(C.S. Lewis by extension).” It should have been, “George MacDonald (and C.S. Lewis by extension) are the antidote…”

C.S. Lewis was certainly not a Calvinist!

@ The Man who Wasn’t Thursday:

I’m so sorry to hear about your friend. I am one to joke inappropriately, but I definitely can see that happening. I didn’t grow up a Christian, and guys going through with the Redemption Group process actually reminded me of a painful time in my life when I realized some of my friends were being/have been changed by drugs. In that, they were very morose and very forceful to get you to try it too.

Thankfully, I had no expectations that these people were special or superior, unlike many of them there. And thankfully, there exists The Wartburg Watch to give people like me a road map, or else I wouldn’t risk church participation at all.

Now I’m talking about “young adults” churches here, not college, and imagine being a young professional like me who can afford to live alone and does. Churches are treating young men like psych patients who need constant supervision, and that’s supposed to produce husbands and fathers who are Cary Grant, June Cleaver, and Tim Taylor all in one. No, this actually produces men who are phony creeps, wimpy Peter Pans, or atheists. I think the great mystery of the church’s man shortage is actually this simple. And, consider this: it’s not women who made the church like that, and it hurts women the most in the long run.

Don’t take it from me, here’s Matt Chandler:

http://media.thevillagechurch.net/sermons/transcripts/201409211115FMWC21ASAAA_MattChandler_ABeautifulDesignPt3-MansPurpose.pdf

First full paragraph in page 3:

When women go off to women’s retreats… In fact, a friend of mine and I were talking in the foyer.
When women go to women’s retreats, they just get encouraged. “You guys are awesome. You can do
it! All right!” Men get blown up. You go to a man thing. You’re just going to hear how much you’ve
failed and how bad you stink and why the whole world is broken because you’re so worthless.
That’s kind of how we do it, and it’s the right way to do it. With that said, two things. I want to lean
into us as men, and then I want to encourage us as men.

Todd Wilhelm wrote:

39th!

I’m thinking that qualifies for the Jack Benny award.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Anyway, I think that is the main reason my generation is being sucked into Calvinism. Not because they have an ambitious agenda or anything (for the most part), but because in the South there seems to be a tradition that you don’t talk about something if it causes disagreement.

I live in California’s Silicon Valley. I have seen NeoCalvinism make deep inroads here, including among U.C.L.A. graduates with engineering degrees working in tech and Stanford University undergraduate and graduate students.

My ex-church certainly caters to them. And ironically the senior pastor (Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley) has a fake Ph.D. from a diploma mill (Faith Bible College in Independence, Missouri) and another fake advanced degree from the same place (the U.S. Department of Education and the Missouri Attorney General said that they’re fakes and it’s a diploma mill).

Darlene wrote:

If New Calvinism isn’t squashed, it will overrun all Evangelical churches.

Yes. Their method of church governance is sticky. Once they are in charge they only allow elders/deacons who agree with them.

ishy wrote:

Roger Smith wrote:
I think the heat is going to start. My good church preaching options are very limited. I think I will follow what Wade Burleson said in his book Fraudulent authority. What do you guys think.
I somehow missed your post earlier. The way many of these churches work is that they act like normal churches with normal pastors for some time to get people in, then they switch to the authoritarian model. Even though the pastors went elsewhere, they could very well be authoritarian, anyway. My first church that split and one group went Acts29, none of them have SBC seminary degrees. They went to some other schools, too.
With recent graduates though, the most likely Calvinista candidates are being indoctrinated at SBTS and SEBTS. Pastors can still be indoctrinated elsewhere, but it’s fairly certain if they come from those schools, they will be hyper-Calvinists.

Maybe we could start a Facebook group and read Fraudulent Authority by Wade Burleson. It’s a few dollars electronically from Amazon.

Lydia wrote:

@ Roger Smith:
Hello!
My guess is you will eventually have to sign the covenant or be dismissed. Could make for a sort of high noon drama if you are so inclined. I would say, run.

Run, Roger Smith…RUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNN!

Signed,

Velour, Been There & Done That & Got Excommunicated for Critical Thinking Skills at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley

Bill M wrote:

I didn’t lose my faith, just my confidence in what we call church.

Yep, me 2.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

It was automatically assumed that you were a filthy example of a human being (a “worm,” if I understand Piper correctly), and so depraved that you are not able to control yourself. Therefore,goes the logic, you need to team up with someone else who can’t control himself, to keep each other in line, in order that you may control yourselves.

The last church we attended brought in the “authentic manhood” program for the men. My husband looked up the videos online to get a feel for what it was about and we saw this kind of thinking in it. You pointed out the logical fallacy very well. Your whole comment is excellent. I’m sorry to think of young people getting sucked into such a destructive system. That is not what faith is supposed to be about! As you rightly pointed out, love is the answer.

We decided to move on as the church was bringing in those kinds of programs and we knew it was just a matter of time. They were not open to discussing the problems with it.

The trouble with accountability groups was succinctly explained to me by a male business associate who had dipped a toe in that pond: “Men lie!” I.e. when questioned about how they had done that week, nobody would admit to having had any issues, and thus there was no accountability.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

@ Stan:
There was HUGE pressure to join an “accountability group” or have an “accountability partner” at my old church. Your experience mirrors my church exactly, and that was one of the biggest issues I had with the leadership. …Therefore,goes the logic, you need to team up with someone else who can’t control himself, to keep each other in line, in order that you may control yourselves.

Snip…

I had a friend at that church who committed suicide because of this kind of stuff, and others who got close. It almost destroyed them.

First of all I’m so sorry about your friend. That’s awful.

Second, I think Dee/Deb or someone need to do a post about ‘accountability’ groups because this is fascinating me lately. Some questions I have:

1.Did this start with promise keepers or did they coopt it?
2. Are these only for men? Because that is all I ever hear about.
3. Are members encouraged routinely to keep major sins within the group and make no amends, not call the police, not come clean to wives or girlfriends?
4. Does this inform the attitude of ‘keep it in House’ we see as relates to child abusers/spousal abuse etc?

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

To sum it up, I think my generation is being sucked into Reformed theology for several reasons:
1. The leaders bully them into it, and make them like it.
2. The more ambitious and zealous ones sense that it will give them power.
3. Many of them mean the best, but were groomed from the cradle to accept it.
4. Once drawn in, the feeling of certainty and authority is both a comfort to the doubting (one might say “healthy”) mind, and a license to spiritual pride.
I tried to keep it short, but it could take a book to really explain it.

I think this grooming process really needs a post of its own.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Excellent advice!

Lydia wrote:

I hope you [The Man who Wasn’t Thursday] visit here more often. Your insights and experience are instructive.

Yes, please.

@ Stan:
Sigh. Why can’t we just be decent human beings first and foremost? But am fully aware that in that gender exclusive determined environment, Matt Chandler is seen as a radical thinker and iconoclastic. Rather sad.

His churches treatment of Karen Hinckley communicates who they really are.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

I had a friend at that church who committed suicide because of this kind of stuff, and others who got close. It almost destroyed them.

Sorry to make it dark, but I hope your experience didn’t bring about results like that. It looks like you can joke about it, so I’m guessing you got out fine, but that kind of ideology is terrible.

I have seen some dark results over the years because I live at ground zero. I know of a few attempts by teens of such youth groups. I have, however, met quite a few formerly rabid YRR who are now rabid atheists. I think that makes sense if you were never taught any other view of God.

For one, Calvinism is not practical. It must remain in the realm of contemplation. Syncing day to day life in the real world with the navel gazing sin sniffing worm culture of Calvinism is pure cognitive dissonance. Can you imagine Piper in a real job?

I was raised on the free will/personal responsibility concept of how God operates so I could never fully accept it. (Thanks Mom!)

One thing I noticed about Neo Calvinist leaders with a bit of mileage on them is they did not raise their little kids the way they said they believed about human nature. It was weird.

I think it is all cognitive dissonance and a way for a few to control many. It reeks of group think. And these days, everything is positioned in terms of groups as that is where our society drifted. Non aligned Independent thinkers are not valued.

Lydia wrote:

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:
The problem is that it mimics the courage brought about by real truth, though without any of the humility. “Boldness” became an excuse for licentiousness and arrogance, but since it was all for “The Gospel,” it was considered ok, and even loving, to offend people.

think of the possibilities when offense is seen as evidence for truth.

This is how kindness and decency and even good manners go out the window. You must be ‘bold’. You must be ‘real’. You must be ‘offensive’. No room for kind and loving, only ‘truth in love’.

@ Bridget:

Bless your heart Bridget!

I’m southern enough to enjoy the round about way of speaking, but I don’t mind dropping to speak plainly either. I think both are useful ways to communicate. And if you speak fluent southern, you understand the roundabout just fine.

Plus, in many of these churches men may get preached at by other men, but they probably aren’t by the women (at least in a public setting). But women not only get criticized by each other, often for ridiculous reasons, but also get preached at by the men, and often in ways that show men have no respect for all the things women do in the church and at home.

Lydia wrote:

That sort of game playing was considered deceptive.

There is a difference between being polite and being deceptive, imo. People being people, some of them are going to be sneaky even in the north. I grew up in the south and I went to school with a bunch of yankees.

I prefer polite. That doesn’t mean you can’t be truthful at the same time.

Lydia wrote:

Well it is not Universal in the South because I certainly wasn’t raised around women like that. That sort of game playing was considered deceptive.

I come from where you come from and indeed that is not the female communications style there. But then I moved to the other side of the Appalachian mountains and became one who was ‘not from around here’. Lots of differences, communication style being one of many.

ishy wrote:

I wish that were true,

But it isn’t.
Your experience is different from mine because I was married, a pastor’s wife, homeschooled and wasn’t overly heavy.

And no, they weren’t cruel to me in the cliquish sense. But everything was so plastic, fluffy, and empty. No life whatsoever
There were no solutions to the hard questions.

Marriage not going right, then you need to go back and try harder, i.e. It’s your fault, submit more, be sweeter, soften your approach more or something. Pray about it. God will show you where you are screwing up so bad.

Husband not leading as he should, then, again, it’s your fault. Let go and he’ll step up because that’s how he’s made.

Uhm. No he won’t. He hasn’t for decades. Thanks for continuing to give advice that has only caused financial destruction, emotional devastation, and spiritual bankruptcy.

The last time I ever listened to a Dobson radio program, I was driving along a county road. It was a recording of some woman at some retreat telling all the other women to step back so the husband can step up into his God-given, divine-right position of authority. He’ll step if you just back the gosh-darn off and let him. She spoke so sweetly, with so much misguided ‘biblical’ certainty that it only made the false message more sour.

I screamed back at that radio about how wrong she was and how damaging her advice was and about how much she leading women astray from God and real answers.

It wasn’t a pretty sight. Good thing I was driving down a country road and not in the middle of some city somewhere.

I tried so hard not to trip over that-which-is-not-to-be-named. But I did anyway.

Lydia wrote:

Well it is not Universal in the South because I certainly wasn’t raised around women like that. That sort of game playing was considered deceptive.

Exactly. I’ve lived my whole life 20-25 miles north of the Tennessee state line, and there is a mixture of those behaviors among females.

@ okrapod:

Oops. That comment referred to Marie’s situation. Wrong place for comment-see prior post.

Mara wrote:

I tried so hard not to trip over that-which-is-not-to-be-named. But I did anyway.

It really makes me wonder how Mars Hill got so big, as the stuff Driscoll says is so utterly ridiculous.

Lea wrote:

There is a difference between being polite and being deceptive

That’s why Scripture warns us that the enemy of our souls can come to us even as an angel of light, just as it warns to beware of flattering lips. American Christians need to pray for a new measure of discernment, particularly in regard to New Calvinist message and method. Don’t let a deceiving young pastor polite you into bondage.

ishy wrote:

It really makes me wonder how Mars Hill got so big, as the stuff Driscoll says is so utterly ridiculous.

Just as any Christian in their right mind wonders how John Piper got so big, since he also suffers from a bad case of uttering utterly ridiculous words.

For those who may be offended at the imagery of a blenderized puppy, I will state that I would grieve the puppy. In my 43 years in the Kingdom, I have seen the spiritual lives of vulnerable believers blenderized by poor leadership, even with the best of intentions.

My basis of discernment regarding elder or pastoral behavior is simply this:

1. If it looks like Jesus, it might be–but be careful and observe in the context of time.
2. If it does not look like Jesus, it simply is not. No need to try to reform or correct it; run for your life from such leadership.

Was reading this over at another blog and found his comparison to the police force to be interesting. Its unfortunate that people have such sn issue calling something or someone what it is or what they are.

https://cryingoutforjustice.com/

I always appreciate the input of Todd Wilhelm; having been functionally and dysfunctionally excommunicated several times, if one has not been asked to leave one is probably not trying in terms of authentic faith.

I think sometimes Christians live with a zero-sum view of Jesus and leadership; the higher view of leadership one holds, the less influence Jesus has–in other words we imprint on a man rather than Christ. Disappointment in human leadership often, sadly, diminishes our view of Christ. I wish the opposite were true, that as we see the failings of men, that we would engage a higher view of Christ. It would awaken mercy, in my experience, for those who have failed and hurt us. A natural result of imprinting on Christ, rather than men.

SouthShore will dismiss members to protect the flock with the ultimate goal of bringing the offending member to a realization of the consequences of his identified sin. This policy will apply to all professing Christians, member or non-member, who regularly attend or fellowship with this church.

The hubris this statement requires is breathtaking. If you voluntarily fellowship with SS, but do not join, and get into a disagreement with the leadership persist in living in sin, they will kick you out and prohibit your return? Why would anyone choose to attend, much less join, a ‘church’ like that???

Burwell wrote:

The OP stated that New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary (NOBTS) has shifted towards Neo Calvinism…is that truly the case? I thought Paige Patterson’s brother-in-law (Dorothy’s brother) was president there; if so, I assumed he was a die-hard Arminian.

I think the trustees can overrule hiring, so you could have a Calvinista trustee board and still put Calvinistas on staff.

Lea wrote:

I said something about a heaping teaspoon or a scant one and she accused me of being southern about it because of that. Because I guess I should have been more precise. Ha.

I’m a Southern Kentucky female, but I’m an analytical/logical/mathematical person. Give me exact measurements, please ……. down to 1/32 of a teaspoon!
But, there are some things …… Beef stew, for example ….. No measurements, add potatoes and carrots until it “looks right”, add seasonings until it “smells right”. I’ve recently started writing stuff down so I can hopefully get what “right” is, in exact measurements. I will “Doctor” recipes, too.

Nancy2 wrote:

Get your life straight before you set foot in the door?

Reminds me of a situation a friend told me about.

She was visiting a new boyfriend’s church. And above the door of the sanctuary it told women that if they were not wearing a dress or a skirt then they were not allowed to enter.

She concluded her story with, “Whatever happened to ‘God bless you’?”

Lea wrote:

heaping teaspoon or a scant one

I’m from the Midwest, born and raised. And we did heaping/scant in my family. None of them from the South.

Ishy, I avoid women’s retreats myself for the reasons you listed, plus one more. Like books geared toward Christian women, ministries, even a majority of Bible studies, they tend to be dominated by the most girly, ultrafeminine types. I’m kind of outside the norm in that regard, and when that is subtly held up as the female way to follow Christ, it’s one of the things tempting me to leave protestantism.

Here is a blog post that I did a while ago where I share someone else’s story about the need to think for yourself.

https://ikdg.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/a-favorite-story-about-the-need-to-think-for-yourself/

This story I am sure is pretty applicable to this discussion.

@ okrapod:
and yet the South has produced authors the likes of Flannery O’Connor …. in her gift of writing subtlety and honesty come together like a giant tsunami … then there’s Eudora Welty …. then there’s my great uncle, McGilbray Ausbon, a wounded private in the Confederate Army 17th NC Troops. They called him ‘Gib’ and we have copies of his letter written from the battlefield that is heart-breaking in its gentle humility as he asks if the family can make him a ‘suit of clothes’ from a woolen blanket …. I have read many historical letters in my time, and maybe it’s because Gib was of my blood, but his letter speaks of another generation, another way of ‘being’, where humility and grace were not excluded in the name of ‘being honest’.

I love the Southern writers, I grew up on Faulkner and Twain. It was never a mystery to me that there was a certain ‘grace’ in a world where the contrasts were so grim: that the old ‘Aunt Lulie’ my Grandmother mentioned was once a family slave who stayed by the family after the War (known in euphemism as ‘the late unpleasantness’) and was cared for in her last days …..

‘Christ-haunted’ is Flannery’s term for the South in which half my family (maternal) is deeply rooted, and I have feelings for the little town of my ancestors where I have never lived, only visited …. feelings that I cannot explain except only that they are real to me. Genetic memory? I wonder ….

NJ wrote:

Like books geared toward Christian women, ministries, even a majority of Bible studies, they tend to be dominated by the most girly, ultrafeminine types. I’m kind of outside the norm in that regard, and when that is subtly held up as the female way to follow Christ,

But those women don’t follow Christ! Their ultimate trust and faith rests in the men who tell them what to do and how to behave!

NJ wrote:

I usually prep my beef chunks with a flour mixture I don’t even bother to measure, sear them, deglaze the pan

Me, too. The amount of beef and how much/whether or not it shrinks when I sear it kinda dictates how much of everything else goes in the pot!

NJ wrote:

I usually prep my beef chunks with a flour mixture I don’t even bother to measure, sear them, deglaze the pan with some cabernet sauvignon, and put everything in the crockpot for 8 hours or so. I need to hurry up and make my beef stock, though.

I was taught this way of treating beef by my mother-in-law (German heritage) with an iron Dutch oven, oil, flouring the beef, salting and peppering it, and SEARING the heck out of it before lowering the heat, adding a little water, and covering it so that it cooked at simmer for hours, then adding onions, carrots, potatoes, and love. Best roast beef from cheaper cuts ever eaten! She also taught me how to cook ‘roladen’ (beef and bacon roll-ups, mustard on the meat) and serve it with red cabbage …. my husband loves this!

I like your idea of de-glazing with the Cabernet though. Sign of someone who knows food. 🙂

@ ishy:

“God does clearly place love, truth, and humility as very important to Him, and I rarely see these preached. If they really placed such a high value on the doctrine of the Bible, they’d make these important, too.”
++++++++++++++++

agreed… but there’s only so much you can do with those, sermon-wise. in fact, i think the scope of their jobs would greatly diminish (as it should). but careers with an optimal ratio of rewarding-enjoyable-convenient, chunky salaries, and industry preservation are a driving force.

but this is old news.

@ Christiane:

I usually put beef broth or stock in the pot, along with a little bit more wine–also never measured. I have learned to put the potatos in during the last hour; maybe I should try the same thing with the other vegetables.

My husband and I have found it tastes best with a glass of good red wine, especially on rainy evenings.

@ Nancy2:

My grandmothers cornbread recipe says something like ‘add buttermilk until consistency is right’

@ ishy:

I probably don’t, but I’m reporting on my experiences as a young man. And yes, as a former atheist I say some of those gospel-centered church ladies-in-training I’ve encountered are some of the meanest and most pompous people I’ve met in my life. And those churches are full of idiot guys who are just so glad that they’re safe from the “feminists”.

@ Mara:

I spent 14 years living in Hawai’i, if women were required to wear a dress or skirt to attend any of the churches my wife and I went to at the time, there would be very few women there. Shorts, t-shirts and sandals were common.

@ NJ:
try some crusty French bread with it 🙂
nice green salad with a light dressing

yes … a dessert (my family always liked the simple ones: rice puddings, bread puddings, tapioca puddings, and they were even satisfied with cinnamon toast when there was nothing but bread, butter, sugar

today it’s apple pie with the good hot beef and vegetables …. we call these meat and potato hot dishes ‘winter’s real food’

Christiane wrote:

@ NJ:
try some crusty French bread with it
nice green salad with a light dressing

yes … a dessert (my family always liked the simple ones: rice puddings, bread puddings, tapioca puddings, and they were even satisfied with cinnamon toast when there was nothing but bread, butter, sugar

today it’s apple pie with the good hot beef and vegetables …. we call these meat and potato hot dishes ‘winter’s real food’

French bread is always good. Ditto for rolls and monkeybread.

Either apple pie, my upside down pear pie, or cobbler. 🙂

@ Burwell:
please join in …. Walker Percy is an interesting choice

somehow, our use of ‘language’ conversation turned into literature and cooking and everyone has something to contribute, I imagine 🙂

Max wrote:

“Institutes of the Christian Religion” (John Calvin)
“Systematic Theology” (Wayne Grudem)
“Desiring God” (John Piper)
“Nine Marks of a Healthy Church” (Mark Dever)
“Real Marriage” (Mark Driscoll)

There are, of course, many others (New Calvinists are prolific writers) … but these are red flags.

If I may add my bugaboo,
“Humility: True Greatness” C. J. Mahaney
I’ve seen it on the resource page for a number of church websites. I cannot get over the irony of that tile connected with the author.

Max wrote:

Good Lord, there are so many goober celebrities in New Calvinism!

comment of the day

@ okrapod:

We have traveled in overlapping, though not concurrent, geographic circles. I was born in Raleigh, lived in Louisville until kindergarten, and then returned to Raleigh. While I live in a county north of Wake now, I work in an eastern county – Wilson, which is where both my parents are from. As far as NW Piedmont cities are concerned, Winston Salem is my favorite.

@ The Man who Wasn’t Thursday:

“Ironically, I find it easiest and most freeing to engage with non-believers, since their doubt is refreshingly honest (as opposed to contrived signs of belief), and they don’t have all the years of being trained to look at God through an abysmal lens. I find it strange that non-believers often have an easier time believing in the goodness of God than do many Christians.”
++++++++++++++++

while many things shape human thinking, there’s nothing like ‘church’ — it can do crazy things to one’s brain. influential people wielding the concept of God in an environment of trust and surrender. ooooh, i got a shiver and prickling skin from typing that!

@ nathan priddis:
oops. life lesson #3021 – you will turn blue if you backspace to far

Max wrote:

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

C.S. Lewis was certainly not a Calvinist!

Most New Calvinists claim Lewis as one of their own. Piper, a little more elusive on this, says that Lewis ‘might’ have been a Calvinist. However, a thorough look at the whole of Lewis’ works indicates that he falls squarely and soundly within an Arminian theological framework.

But for the final word on his exact theological leaning, we should accept the analysis of Doug Wilson, eminent theologian, as fact (tongue in cheek): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOe4-IpwJX4

NOT! Good Lord, there are so many goober celebrities in New Calvinism!

good grief! Neo-Cals claiming CS Lewis as a Calvinist???? He, of the group that included Tolkien, the author of the very catholic ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy????

I don’t see how neo-Cals, with their ‘eternally submissive Jesus as model to women’ relating to the awesomely powerful Aslan of Narnia fame, for whom many a Christian person is thrilled when the great lion comes back to life in Lewis’s beloved novel….

no way: the neo-Cals have chosen their path and they wouldn’t want Aslan as a ‘Christ-figure’ in their male-idolatry cult, no. They have made up their own ‘Jesus’, and their creation does not resemble the Lord of Life, no. Even the author Lewis does a better job of presenting a Christ-figure, as he enables people to ‘sneak passed those watchful dragons’. Poor neo-Cals, they can’t have their ESS and their Aslan, too.

Lewis? a catholic Anglican, if anything …. and his Aslan? Call Aslan a Calvinist and you can close your eyes and imagine the great lion roaring his displeasure …. silly neo-Cals 🙂

@ Lowlandseer:
I’m beginning to realize just how ‘enmeshed’ some of these congregations are. I knew there was a community of faith with evangelical congregations, but what is being described sounds ….. not healthy. ‘Enmeshed’ means that proper boundaries have not been observed and people are too much in each other’s business …. it does no good in a real family for boundaries to be ‘enmeshed’ and it is a DISASTER, apparently, when this takes place in a church community. Where’s the respect for persons? for their privacy? for their dignity?

This seems to be a big part of what’s wrong, I think.

Christiane wrote:
no way: the neo-Cals have chosen their path and they wouldn’t want Aslan as a ‘Christ-figure’ in their male-idolatry cult, no. They have made up their own ‘Jesus’, and their creation does not resemble the Lord of Life, no.

+1000, Christiane!

Neo-Cals seem to believe in a good, tame, safe, predictable Jesus who makes them feel secure and spiritually superior, and who would never ever ask them to consider whether or not they could be wrong in their assumptions.

The real Jesus will leap from the pages of the four Gospels, offering you His own body and blood, whilst He throws a glass of ice water in your face to wake you up and challenge you to question everything you’ve ever thought about anything.

@ Jenny:

Jesus is real and alive and present in His Kingdom and with His people, but He’s not dancing to the tune of our doctrines du jour. He won’t conform to a religious system of thought control. He won’t be put in a theological box.

@ okrapod:
I wonder if some of that ‘Southern speech’ was ‘code’ during the time just after the Civil War. I do know that my mother’s aunts spoke ‘differently’ with sometimes poetic and archaic phrases but each generation does seem to have its own unique voice, I guess.

Burwell wrote:

the intended target is apparently not Jesus; therefore, the it seems the post was written to please his superiors – the ones who have the ability to increase certain pastor’s standings and audiences within the Neo Cal movement.

yes, they certainly don’t need Christ for this kind of worldly busine$$

Christiane wrote:

I wonder if some of that ‘Southern speech’ was ‘code’ during the time just after the Civil War.

I’m old but not that old.

Stan wrote:

And yes, as a former atheist I say some of those gospel-centered church ladies-in-training I’ve encountered are some of the meanest and most pompous people I’ve met in my life.

What do you think inspired Dana Carvey to do “Church Lady”?
She was based on actual Church Ladies he’d encountered while growing up.

@ The Man who Wasn’t Thursday:
In rereading my statement, I should say “that church” not “evangelicals”. People here, including many evangelicals, have been very engaging.

So I retract my last statement and issue an apology

However, it does highlight the strong emotions that religion can engender, even for those of us who think we’ve left it behind.

Aside from the abuse, I perceive that a lot of those who are in or have left authoritarian churches are angry at being judged as a non-believer when their faith is very much alive. They know it’s wrong but the programming and group think messes with the psyche

Who decides what is Christian? I think that is between God and the individual.

As always, lots to reflect on.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Heaven is a physical planet located in a specific location in the northern sky

Nibiru?

AnonInNC wrote:

Darlene wrote:

^ *want to KNOW all about your personal business*

My old church was definitely like this. And both elders and general congregants would press you if they thought you weren’t telling them all the details when they asked you.

Especially the JUICY! details. (nudge nudge wink wink know what I mean know what I mean…)

okrapod wrote:

I’m old but not that old.

LOL.

Burwell wrote:

@ The Man who Wasn’t Thursday:

Where in the South did you go to college?

I’d rather not answer too specifically, in the interest of anonymity, but let’s just say that that part of the SEC is heavily influenced by David Platt.

From what some of my friends at other colleges have told me, their campuses throughout that zone have similar churches to the one I spoke of.

Christiane wrote:

no way: the neo-Cals have chosen their path and they wouldn’t want Aslan as a ‘Christ-figure’ in their male-idolatry cult, no. They have made up their own ‘Jesus’, and their creation does not resemble the Lord of Life, no. Even the author Lewis does a better job of presenting a Christ-figure, as he enables people to ‘sneak passed those watchful dragons’. Poor neo-Cals, they can’t have their ESS and their Aslan, too.

This whole scenario bears striking resemblance to the situation in “The Last Battle,” where Shift the Ape forces Puzzle the Donkey to wear a rotten lion skin. The Ape then claims to be the mouthpiece of Aslan, and has anyone who disagrees with him killed. The Ape lives in grand luxury at the expense of the people he deceives. Not to mention, when the Narnians ask to see Aslan for themselves, the Ape only allows them to see the disguised donkey at night, under cover of sophistry. If anyone questions his authority, he berates them and tells them that no true People of Aslan would dare question him, and Aslan will come devour them or something like that because of his ‘just condemnation.’

Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

Christiane wrote:

I’m beginning to realize just how ‘enmeshed’ some of these congregations are.

They are Borg. Resistance is futile.

@ StillWiggling:
I have only been to one retreat, and I loved it. It was mixed gender, for the staff of a Christian school where I taught. We had several speakers, but the main one was our high school Bible teacher …… a wife of a missionary ….. a mother of four. She taught Bible to 9-12 grade mixed gender classes. BTW, our headmaster was a woman, too!

Lea wrote:

Second, I think Dee/Deb or someone need to do a post about ‘accountability’ groups because this is fascinating me lately.

On July 10 I posted a short paper on accountability on the Open Discussion Page. I wrote it a couple of years ago for my sons who were facing very stiff pressure to be in accountability groups. Here is the link: http://thewartburgwatch.com/open-discussion-page/comment-page-9/#comment-266978. Right below that comment is the appendix on the pitfalls of accountability. These might be helpful, but they don’t go into as much depth as I think you might be looking for. I could not find any solid evidence of where these groups started, other than the weight loss industry.

Nancy2 wrote:

How about Piper, Platt, and Dever ……. all in one sermon?

Wow! That preacher has a bad case of New Calvinism! Don’t let it get on you!

Ken F wrote:

Did anyone yell “BINGO!”?

Or “TULIP!”

Max wrote:

Well, the Promise Keepers movement certainly put accountability groups on the map in the American church.

Yes, they did push it hard, and I was caught up in that when I was much younger. It was a few years after that experience that I first did an exhaustive search in the Bible for any words related to accountability among believers. Nothing in the Bible supports it. I was not able to find which Christian group first started focusing on it. I think Christians brought it over from the weight loss industry, but that’s the best guess I can make right now.

@ Christiane:
Flannery was a Catholic in the South. An outsider for that reason and for others (e.g. her chronic ill heath). She looked at the South askew. But, yes, she was a Southerner. Did she express herself in simple direct speech? No, she told stories. Btw the Appalachian South is very different from the deep South. Politeness there is staying out of other’s business but one can be direct if needed.

Ken F wrote:

Yes, they did push it hard, and I was caught up in that when I was much younger.

The Promise Keepers accountability group director in my community since holding that position years ago has been divorced, remarried, divorced again and is now living unmarried with a woman. He obviously didn’t keep his promises!

Burwell wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Heaven is a physical planet located in a specific location in the northern sky

Nibiru?

Considering the sheer psychotic WEIRDNESS of some of Dake’s commentary, I would NOT be surprised.

Max wrote:

He obviously didn’t keep his promises!

Well, maybe one.

http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/05/promise-keepers-hurt-my-marriage.html

@ Dew:
Thank you. I am very familiar with her biography. She found it very interesting that people would read her stories and miss the ‘horror’ she really was attempting to portray, seemingly finding it in the obvious where she had in fact hidden it within the shadows of her stories ….. I like how her ego was detached enough from her writing so that she could be interested in how people reacted to it.
Yeah, she was most certainly a devout Catholic. And that contributes some layers to the depth of her writing, yes. For those who don’t know her writing, here’s a short story sample of some of her famous Southern Gothic:
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~drbr/goodman.html

Muff Potter wrote:

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it?

“Life imitates art far more than art imitates life.”
— Oscar Wilde —

you honestly cannot make this stuff up

Mara wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
Get your life straight before you set foot in the door?
Reminds me of a situation a friend told me about.
She was visiting a new boyfriend’s church. And above the door of the sanctuary it told women that if they were not wearing a dress or a skirt then they were not allowed to enter.
She concluded her story with, “Whatever happened to ‘God bless you’?”

Even if I were wearing a dress or skirt, I would have walked out the door. Since when is the church supposed to be the judge of how visitors dress? Are they the fashion police?

Mara wrote:

Max wrote:

He obviously didn’t keep his promises!

Well, maybe one.

http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/05/promise-keepers-hurt-my-marriage.html

I hadn’t seen that. What a mess! I remember the big dc promise keepers thing, but I guess I had no idea what they were telling them.

Ken f, I will have to check out your links sometime.

Speaking of Russell Moore (I believe he was mentioned upstream), there is a post over at SBC Voices pertaining to the backlash Mr. Moore is getting from the Christian community about his statements during the U.S. Presidential campaign. As President of SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Moore has not represented the majority view of Southern Baptists on various issues. SBC Voices, a platform for SBC’s young, restless and reformed defends Moore:

“Dr. Moore speaks with a prophetic voice to our faith community about how to live for Christ and his kingdom in our culture … He’s a leader raised up by God to help guide us in this new day.”

A prophet raised up by God for such a time as this?! Thus, another what-to-look-for in New Calvinist churches: Idolatry of Christian celebrities! The institutional church has not seen so much idolizing of men and message since Calvin himself walked the earth!

@ Max:

Moore seems to be having a bad day. He told people to practice patriarchy, and then we hear him lamenting that even those who claim to be doing that, in fact, are not. Then he tried to tell people how to vote, and we see how that played out. The poor man can’t win for losing it seems.

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

it was considered ok, and even loving, to offend people. And that, too, mimics the truth; sometimes the truth hurts, but still needs to be heard. But this particular brand of “boldness” tends to see offense itself as the evidence for the ‘truth’ of whatever that person might be saying

Very wise observance.

Ken F wrote:

I think Christians brought it over from the weight loss industry, but that’s the best guess I can make right now.

I know someone with family caught in the Weigh Down Workshop’s cultic web. Who would think that christian weight loss could lead to a mind-controlling cult?

@ Lydia:
and lots more people agree with Edmund Burke:

““Rudeness is the weak man’s imitation of strength.” (Edmund Burke)

you see rudeness a lot in the young people from the inner city as a ‘defense’ because they have such low self-esteem and no social skills at coping with the world outside the one they live in where rude and crude pass for a kind of strength ….. the iconic figure of the ‘angry black woman’ was celebrated beautifully by the character ‘Madea’ and we all loved it, but it was entertainment. It was fun.

But when a group of those poor inner city kids ends up in a court room and disses the judge, there is hell to pay, because their form of ‘strength’ doesn’t translate there at all and they are the worse for their efforts to act ‘big’ in the face of an authority they cannot manipulate, shame, or control by their antics.

So YES to Madea’s rude and strong persona. It’s funny and joyful and refreshing in a world where most of us dwell in dire frustration with one another and our limitations. But let’s keep ‘rude’ in its proper perspective. The Golden Rule is still the Commandment. There is no ‘Golden Rude’ that has replaced it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PciNHczM6Lc

refugee wrote:

How did he tell them to vote? Just curious.
(In the back of my head, connected with mention of patriarchy, would be exhorting the womenfolk *not* to vote… but I don’t think that’s what you meant.)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/march-web-only/should-christians-vote-for-lesser-of-two-evils.html

@ Muff Potter:

@ Darlene:

I know, right?

@ Christiane:
A lot of people think forthrightness is rude. At the seeker mega any negative truths were rude. Disagreement was rude, too. It was cookie cutterville like so many groups today. I guess we would have to define rude. Many evil people are extremely charming and nice. Like Ted Bundy. :o)

Meaningless syrupy vague Platitudes that never solve real peoblems seem to be what is acceptable for many today. I hope it is not rude to not like such communication. (Wink)

Lydia wrote:

A lot of people think forthrightness is rude.

http://bit.ly/1tT7V2z at 10.00 minutes and following. “You don’t have to be nice to be a good leader…” … a good leader maximizes the potential of people. TED Talk, Simon Sinek

@ Lydia:

I hear you. I really think that inappropriate and excessive platitudinaceounessnes should be in the DSM as a early sign of losing contact with reality.

refugee wrote:

Promise Keepers sounded like a godsend, actually. Who would have guessed what would come of it?

Do you remember the days when smoking was considered healthy? And when cigarettes had asbestos filters? Things that start out seeming like a good idea at first can later be found harmful. I think this is a bit similar with PK. My wife enthusiastically sent me to one of the conferences in 1994, and I think I went to another one a few years later. At the time, the goal seemed honorable, which is why it attracted so many people (the men who went and the women who supported them). I don’t remember why I eventually lost interest. I think it was after I attended a small men’s conference led by David DeWitt (see http://www.relationalconcepts.org/Home.aspx). I read his book years ago, but had not followed him since. I looked up his ministry just now and it appears to be very patriarchal. But the one thing I took away from that conference was his teaching that accountability does not produce wisdom. I very much needed to hear that. It was what got me diving into the biblical basis for accountability, which eventually resulted in the paper I recently wrote and posted here. That investigation resulted in me questioning a lot of other things that I had been taught as “gospel truth.” I’m still doing that.

I like something the Not Thursday Man wrote above about the great people who were in his messed up church. All of these movements have some very bad fruit, but not everything they teach is wrong and not everyone involved is evil. Based on where I was at the time, I benefited in some ways from those ministries in my past. But I am also very grateful that I did not get absorbed by them based on where they were headed. I’m wondering if groups like that are analogous to junk food – it is very attractive and has some nutritional value, but you cannot live on it and you are much healthier without it because the good nutrition it does have is overshadowed by the bad.

I am grateful for having so much opportunity to question everything. It gets me in a lot of trouble with religious people, but it’s helped me to find some nuggets among otherwise unhealthy ministries/theologies that I’ve been exposed to.

I don’t feel like I can endorse the path I was once on, but I don’t regret the lessons I learned along the way. That path led me to TWW less than a year ago, which has been a tremendous blessing so far.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 – “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;”

Mara wrote:

Well, maybe one.

http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/05/promise-keepers-hurt-my-marriage.html

Back in the later ’90s, when PK was really huge and featured on the cover of Newsweek, a woman from New York wrote in and said she was divorcing her husband, and the “fault” (as NY required fault for a divorce in those days) was Promise Keepers. I was gobsmacked.

@ Ken F:
I can see the cultural connection to weight-loss accountability groups, yes. People were already using this model for years …. Weight Watchers, the weigh-ins, the ‘pig mask’, etc. …. all meant to help people using the dynamics of a ‘group therapy’ approach. But those cultural entities were businesses, profit-making. I see no ‘biblical’ basis for ‘accountability’ groups myself. If anything in Church we are turned ‘outward’, to ‘go and serve’, rather than to be self-obsessed. And it didn’t really matter if who we served was a member of the faith or not, just that they were placed in our path by the Good Lord and they needed our help.

Encouraging a needy self-obsession seems to foster something that is not part of a mature Christian life, which is meant to be one of service and of giving of self.

Lea wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I guess we would have to define rude.

I heard a definition of class/manners/being a ‘gentlemen’ that was you only offend someone when you mean to!

I think that’s the difficulty here. There is a time to be polite, and tactful, and respect people’s boundaries, and there is a time to be direct in a slightly uncomfortable way and to call them out. Knowing when to do one or the other is part of growing up.

maybe the focus for Christians needs to be more on not being personally offended but having the ability to look at someone who is ‘acting out’ rudely and seeing that they might be in some kind of distress or trouble, and INSTEAD of ‘re-acting’ negatively to their rudeness, try asking them ‘what’s wrong?’ and then be ready to listen

I’ve done this. On the job. With an irate mother. And it worked for good. Long story. Very sad trouble she was in, too. Her ‘rudeness’ wasn’t her REAL problem at all, her rudeness was just a ‘presenting’ problem because she was needing help but didn’t know where how who what to do ….. yeah, she talked and yes, I listened. Constructive? Absolutely.

Lea wrote:

I wouldn’t have thought weight loss, I think the accountability thing feels very AA.

At the time I was investigating it a couple of years ago all the leads were pointing to weight loss. But I could be wrong. I tried searching again just now and came across this: https://jesus.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/documents/books/others/accountability-discipleship-groups.pdf. John Wesley was doing this in the 18th century. But I don’t get the sense that the current version of accountability among “evangelicals” came directly from the Methodists. It seems more like a rediscovery. The PK site cites a book by The Navigators as their source. I don’t know if that book traces it back to the Methodists. In any case, it’s not biblical.

Christiane wrote:

maybe the focus for Christians needs to be more on not being personally offended but having the ability to look at someone who is ‘acting out’ rudely and seeing that they might be in some kind of distress or trouble, and INSTEAD of ‘re-acting’ negatively to their rudeness, try asking them ‘what’s wrong?’ and then be ready to listen

I don’t think being rude is really the problem with some people. They just say that to get you to stop talking about whatever they are avoiding dealing with.

Christians should never be afraid of dealing with our problems head-on, but most have learned from the world to be terrified of honesty. It does hurt, but really not for that long. Really, I think many people’s lives would be 1000000000x easier if they just admitted they had a problem and needed help, but they are willing to metaphorically eat glass for years rather than face that problem.

Max wrote:

Speaking of Russell Moore …

Keep your eye on Russell Moore. He may get thrown out on his butt if he keeps going up against main-stream SBC/Religious Right. Latest affront is to get caught calling Paula White a charlatan. She will be offering a prayer at Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

For me, Russ Moore is one ray of hope in the Religious Right circus.

Ted wrote:

Latest affront is to get caught calling Paula White a charlatan. She will be offering a prayer at Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

I’m no Paula White fan, but Russell Moore really needs to get out of Mr. Trump’s face with stuff like this. If he wants to engage the culture with the gospel, he needs to come up with another angle.

@ Ted:
TED, I just heard that the infamous Cardinal Dolan is also going to offer a prayer.

Lydia wrote:

Meaningless syrupy vague Platitudes that never solve real peoblems seem to be what is acceptable for many today. I hope it is not rude to not like such communication. (Wink)

The more you have to put up with “meaningless syrupy vague Platitudes” and get victimized by oh-so-Polite abusers, the more you go in the other direction and get In Your Face with as much Impact as you can. After growing up with an oh-so-Polite NPD/sociopath, Polite = Deceit.

Christiane wrote:

you see rudeness a lot in the young people from the inner city as a ‘defense’ because they have such low self-esteem and no social skills at coping with the world outside the one they live in where rude and crude pass for a kind of strength ….

And at the bottom of a rough place like that, you don’t dare show any sign of weakness.
Nothing that can identify you to all the predators as Prey.

Lydia wrote:

Meaningless syrupy vague Platitudes that never solve real peoblems seem to be what is acceptable for many today. I hope it is not rude to not like such communication.

I’ve seen many an occasion when someone’s point was dismissed because it was not said in the “right way”. While I think it is most effective to say something without unnecessarily offending, I would give close to 100% odds that the same people would dismiss you even if it were said the “right way”.

Mara wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:

Get your life straight before you set foot in the door?

Reminds me of a situation a friend told me about.

She was visiting a new boyfriend’s church. And above the door of the sanctuary it told women that if they were not wearing a dress or a skirt then they were not allowed to enter.

She concluded her story with, “Whatever happened to ‘God bless you’?”

“No women with makeup, no men with long hair, no swearing, no tobacco, no booze…”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF9q_q89ZmE

@ Ken F:
If you want a lengthy read on the history of accountability groups, the following article is fairly comprehensive. I don’t know anything about the author other than he seems to favour them.

http://celycecomiskey.tripod.com/new_page_2.htm

@ Ken F

And for an even lengthier discussion on Baptist polity, you have this from the Center for Church Reform, published in 2001.
http://9marks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Polity.pdf

Lea wrote:

“Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife points to the love between Christ and his church.”

And where exactly does scripture make this assertion? Simply put, no where!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lydia wrote:

If one has to choose, I would prefer up front rude. The knife in the back usually comes with lots of public syrupy love bombing masking the knife.

Same here. For the same reasons. I don’t have much back left.

You learned the hard way from your brother, didn’t you?

@ Ted:
I don’t expect people to pay me to insult them. Russ Moore does.

Lea wrote:

I heard a definition of class/manners/being a ‘gentlemen’ that was you only offend someone when you mean to!

Yes. Exactly. You know the USSR used labels like mentally unstable or morally deginerate to marginalize people who dared disagree with the prevailing ruling class. They got to define such for an entire nation. And of course the exceptions were part of the ruling elite. (As always)

China had similar tactics during the Cultural Revolution. People were labeled and marginalized until they publicly agreed with the prevailing thought police in order to operate as part of society. Disagreeing was rude while those who agreed were nice. Period. No matter how they approached it. And people learned to look for any perceived offenses to exploit that were not politically correct.

Lydia wrote:

I don’t expect people to pay me to insult them. Russ Moore does.

You and Mike Huckabee would get along just fine regarding Mr. Moore:

“I am utterly stunned that Russell Moore is being paid by Southern Baptists to insult them.” (Mike Huckabee)

Brother Huckabee would not only be stunned, but utterly shocked, to know that Southern Baptists are paying the salaries of several knuckleheads these days! They include seminary presidents and entity heads who are wresting control of the denomination away from majority Southern Baptists who don’t agree with their theological leaning. Yep, a lot of things have changed in SBC life since Gov. Huckabee was an SBC pastor!

Lydia wrote:

But then he needs the national platform and budget to build his new personal brand.

New Calvinists are good at that!

Ted wrote:

Keep your eye on Russell Moore.

One of the problems with the glitterati, we give them way too much credit and attention, and they will say or do all kinds of things to get or stay in the limelight. When we disagree with the celebrities we dismiss them as gliteratti, when they say something we agree with, are we to tell everyone “look at them”? Personally I am skeptical that he is more about politics than principle, given his political past what he is saying now seems all to convenient to me. I do think he will have a hard time reconciling himself to his new found friends on the political stage given his history of supporting patriarchy. Time will tell.

Darlene wrote:

If I were to take a guess, it’s because they’re obsessed with SEX, SEX, & more SEX. In my former cult, members confessed their sins publicly at meetings held specifically for that purpose. Sexual sins were at the top of the list.

This reminds me of a story I heard some time ago. Two young boys attending Christian school went to the pastor for advice. Both had a similar story. They were experiencing lustful thoughts about a girl attending the school. The pastor questioned them about which girl was the focus of their lust. They said they were much too embarrassed to mention the girl’s name. The pastor then mentioned some names – is it Jane, the new girls? is it Mary? etc. Each time the boys said no; it wasn’t any of the girls the pastor mentioned. On the way out of church, the boys compared notes and were very happy. They got some good names!

Bill M wrote:

given his political past what he is saying now seems all to convenient to me

Mr. Moore received his theo-political stripes in the New Calvinist movement. He learned that it is OK to be deceptive to accomplish an agenda.

Lea wrote:

I don’t get why they are so obsessed with this topic!

I think it is a throwback from GrecoRoman Code stuff and having to do with Patriarchy/King/Lord owning the sexuality of not only his wife (wives, concubines), but of his slaves, serfs, servants, whatever. It’s an ownership.

For the wife it was a matter of making sure the heir was his own.

I could be wrong on this. It is just a thought.

Darlene wrote:

Can someone please give a practical explanation of that metaphor?

They can’t just read about Christ’s self sacrificing love and see it as love. Love = sex= control? Is this their way of viewing it? No wonder their theology is a mess.

Darlene wrote:

Yeah…And just what exactly does this mean anyhow? Can someone please give a practical explanation of that metaphor? Come to think of it, the thought of someone trying to do that would cause me to be just a wee bit uncomfortable. Me thinks I’ll pass.

It is beyond uncomfortable. Associating Christ’s relationship with the church to marital sex??? It is just plain gross.

You all check out Ezekial 16, especially verse 8. The prophet is saying a thus saith the Lord, and either the prophet himself or else the actual word of the Lord which had come to the prophet puts in the mouth of God that He had sex with Jerusalem, when she had come of an age for love…

Sexual imagery permeates religion(s). IMO it is offensive only if one finds sexuality offensive. For that matter, a lot of sexuality is so far off track that it is offensive, but the basic idea comes from God himself. And, yes, I have seen the time in my life when I said to God about this idea ‘You got to be kidding…Were You even paying attention?’ I did not get any divine reply, by the way.

Bridget wrote:

And where exactly does scripture make this assertion? Simply put, no where!

In my opinion this approach to Scripture is not more than 40-45 years old and almost exclusively American in origin. Huey (helicopter) verses out from the way back then, construct all manner application to apply in the here and now, and voila!, you (generic you) have doctrine!
In fundagelical circles, it has evolved into an art form.
No wonder some have dubbed it chrislam.

Lydia wrote:

You mean the manly men “brides” can sing love songs to Jesus. Hee hee. They always conveniently ignore that metaphor or refrain from taking it too far.

Heh… My pastor comes right out and says, “Yeah, guys, we’re Jesus’s woman. Yeah, it’s weird, and as a guy, I can’t quite wrap my brain around it myself, but I can’t pretend it isn’t so, either.” Or something to that effect.

Here’s a great description of 9Marks: https://thouarttheman.org/2016/12/29/9marks-churches-unhealthy/

Muff Potter wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Long ago I concluded that Christians are just as messed up sexually as everyone else, just in a different direction. And Christianese Purity Culture encourages paraphiliae/fetishes. Don’t think about pink elephants… “NIKE!”
They really are (messed up in an extreme opposite direction from secular culture). Here’s a gem from Denny Burk which illustrates the point nicely:
http://www.dennyburk.com/ten-reasons-you-should-not-indulge-in-solo-sex-desiringgod/

As you rightly point out, this is exactly the reason why there is so much sexual abuse in churches. The celibacy rule in Roman Catholicism and the purity culture in evangelicalism. His reasons are pure nonsense and are rooted in a false ideology – the pagan, ascetic “sex is dirty” paradigm of the early church fathers and an idolatry of marriage as an institution. Focus on the Family, who oppose any form of sex outside of marriage have stated:

“Although the physical need for sex can be compartmentalized in a man’s life, his sexual behavior still has ramifications for every other part of his life. Many women make the assumption that because sex is a physical need for their husbands, it doesn’t have an emotional or relational impact. Nothing could be further from the truth. A man’s sexuality has a tremendous impact on his emotional, marital, and spiritual well-being.” (Source: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/sex-and-intimacy/understanding-your-husbands-sexual-needs/sex-is-a-physical-need)

So on the one hand, they say that human sexuality is a “physical need” but on the other, they also teach that the fulfillment of this need is only available for married couples. This reminds me of another preacher who once said that “gay Christians should consign themselves to celibacy” but then promoted and celebrated false research that “married couples enjoy better health, wealth, longevity and happiness than single people”. They have not thought through the cruel implications of their ideology and this is why I am done with church!

@ Ken F:

That is a lot of questions!

Christiane wrote:

no ‘accountability group’ can take the place of a person’s conscience

Okay, but a good list of questions might help.

https://www.google.com/#q=guide+for+catholic+examination+of+conscience

http://www.kofc.org/en/resources/cis/devotionals/2075.pdf

Lydia wrote:

But even I agree with the Pope now and then

I just choked on my coffee. Whisky Tango ….
Lydia agreeing with a Jesuit pope…… !!!! ????

🙂

I commented with links about what a Catholic examination of conscience looks like. To me it looks similar to the idea of what the accountability groups may be trying to do. I am wondering if the Catholic procedure might be the prototype for the groups procedures. Anyhow, check back later for the links is anybody is interested.

@ Christiane:
If he’s right. :o)

@ Lowlandseer:
Which history? The pro slaver one of Boyce/SBTS or that later history where they discovered God was not on their side, after all. :o)

The Man who Wasn’t Thursday wrote:

There is a far richer picture of atonement than either of these two doctrines, taught by the early church fathers,and is found in the New Testament quite in contrast to Calvinism and its offshoot Arminianism.

AMEN! As Vance Havner used to say “Why Not Just Be Christians?”

Lowlandseer wrote:

Well, if you had read the article you would have seen that it talks about holding one another accountable, among the many other facets of the cell group.

The article only mentions that type of accountability once, and it is in the context of how cell groups operate today, not how they got that way. The rest of the seven instances of accountability in that article focus more on the accountability of group leaders to the larger organization. Consequently, the article does not help in describing the origin of accountability groups along the line that PK promotes. In any case, one cannot use the Bible to argue for believers holding each other accountable. One has to look outside the Bible for that.

Max wrote:

The Southern Baptist Convention has an aggressive church planting strategy to plant 1,000 new churches per year. In recent years, these have been staffed by young, restless and reformed graduates of SBC seminaries who do church following a cookie-cutter New Calvinist model. These “lead pastors” are spiritually immature, arrogant and controlling, and sincerely believe they have come into the world for such a time as this to restore the true gospel that the rest of us have lost. They tote ESV Bibles and church covenants, indoctrinate with reformed theology via small group meetings, and will shun or excommunicate you if you don’t walk the line…

Quite likely a significant percentage of them are malignant, conscienceless narcissists who lack empathy, compassion and any genuine belief in Jesus. Many are lovers of doctrine and dead church fathers (some of whom themselves were possibly malignant narcissists) and haters of anyone, including Jesus Himself and those who love Him, who would stand in the way of them sucking the life out of their narcissistic supply.

Law Prof wrote:

Quite likely a significant percentage of them are malignant, conscienceless narcissists who lack empathy, compassion …

If you encounter one, just tell them they remind you of “The Squire of Gothos”.

Muff Potter wrote:

ZechZav wrote:
So on the one hand, they say that human sexuality is a “physical need” but on the other, they also teach that the fulfillment of this need is only available for married couples. This reminds me of another preacher who once said that “gay Christians should consign themselves to celibacy” but then promoted and celebrated false research that “married couples enjoy better health, wealth, longevity and happiness than single people”. They have not thought through the cruel implications of their ideology and this is why I am done with church!
I heard of a beautiful Rabbi from Nazareth who told the Denny Burks and the James Dobsons of his day something to the effect of:
“And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.”

That verse is very appropriate. When I attended a local complimentarian church I was told that I should “remain single and celibate” because I “struggled with same sex attraction”. Yet none of them lifted a finger to help – they did not visit me when I was ill and gave me no emotional or practical support when I went through a period of unemployment. As long as I was “staying celibate” that was all they cared about. Looking back, it was abuse but I was not aware at the time. But I don’t want to compare it to the complimentarian abuse of battered wives which is far more dangerous, although the root of it is the same ideology.

preacher’s wife wrote:

I’ve known a few congregations that had this attitude towards their minister. The only reason they went to class was to try to catch some doctrinal error. That’s very disheartening for a young minister.

Were I a young minister, I’d hope someone would attend class to find doctrinal error, because I’d assume as a young minister, I had plenty because I was young, ignorant and had a lot to learn. In fact, were I a young minister, I’d hope that someone would tell me to read the part in the Bible about young men submitting to those older than them and then decide to resign my position immediately, realizing I was most likely not qualified.

On top of my last comment, I should also add that many people in my previous comp church raved about John the Pied Piper. They danced to his tune and followed him. One sister church still sells books by CJ Mahaney even after I sent the evidence against him many months ago. I had a blessed escape when I left.

AnonInNC wrote:

I *hate* the tactic of love bombing. There was one guy at my former church who was frighteningly good at it. He’d approach everybody walking through the doors, grinning from ear to ear, hug them unless they resisted (like I did), and proceed to ask a bunch of questions about what you did that week, how you were doing, etc. I started using a back entrance to avoid him and pretended not to notice him if he approached me while trying to leave. He also liked to yell “Amen!” at the top of his lungs during sermons, so no doubt he was one of the pastor’s favorite sycophants.

I can tell you stories of two loudmouths in church, the kinds who yell out “amen!” during the sermon or who, when they’re asked to pray, make a huge spectacle of it, blubbering, screeching, etc. The “amen!” shouter was at the neocal I attended. He has now left the church (not bad in and of itself) and according to a close friend who really loves Jesus, refuses to even discuss Christ and refuses to pray (granted, this may be a result of PTSD rather than a sign of him leaving the faith); the blubbering, look-at-me praying guy left his wife and made a public mockery of her, making a big show of sleeping around in our small town and humiliating her to the core.

I immediately am suspicious of the big show church-goers as well as the perfect family crowd.

ishy wrote:

I know very few people that have these kinds of friendships. Maybe it’s just my generation, I dunno.
I don’t think a lot of people want honesty in their lives, or the work it takes to maintain such friendships. They want a quick emotional fix and someone to be there when they are needy or lonely.

It’s possible that’s why these abuse clubs masquerading as church have gained a foothold in this most recent generation. Of course there were the issues with the Fort Lauderdale Five and the ugliness of cult leaders like Gothard, and this is nothing new, Paul has his go rounds with the superapostles and the Pharisees seem strikingly like a modern day neocalvinist cultist, but there does seem to be something about the last couple decades that’s substantively different from anything I’ve seen in my fifty years.

Law Prof wrote:

but there does seem to be something about the last couple decades that’s substantively different from anything I’ve seen in my fifty years.

I know broken families have a lot to do with it, too. Nearly everyone I know has a broken family.

My generation seems a lot more transient in general. My dad worked for the same company for 37 years, and really can’t comprehend why my brother and I haven’t kept the same job for years and years like he has. We’ve both been laid off or been put in legally compromising situations for work. I think it’s both that we’re more rootless, but also that employers are more likely to view people as expendable.

ishy wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
but there does seem to be something about the last couple decades that’s substantively different from anything I’ve seen in my fifty years.
I know broken families have a lot to do with it, too. Nearly everyone I know has a broken family.
My generation seems a lot more transient in general.

Sounds about right, very possible. I came from a transient family with parents who changed careers about every half dozen to dozen years from 1950 through retirement around 2000. I’ve changed jobs quite a bit also, current gig at eight years and counting is my personal record. But I did have parents who stayed married til death and was rooted well there, and have never been able to conform to the cults and get into the microwave relationships. Have a handful of friends, most of whom we’ve had for decades, people who’ve proven themselves. I don’t need some 30 year old pastor in tight jeans and hipster glasses to tell me how to “do life”.

Todd Wilhelm wrote:

What I received from my question was icy stares and the beginning of the shunning process. Oh, and an invitation to lunch to discuss the question in depth, where, what actually happened is my Christian character was questioned.

Oh yeah, I’ve had two such lunch meetings that were supposed to just be nice times together to sharpen each other’s iron and grow together in Christ. Of course, they end up being a pastor with a long bony finger that’s pointed right at your face and a voice that rises a couple octaves by the end and you’re looking round hoping to goodness you don’t know anybody in the restaurant who’ll see you on the embarrassing public end of narcissistic rage.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

The more you have to put up with “meaningless syrupy vague Platitudes” and get victimized by oh-so-Polite abusers, the more you go in the other direction and get In Your Face with as much Impact as you can.

I think sometimes that’s your only defense. You can’t play nice games. Jesus never played nice games. I’ve found that if you flat out stand up to an abuser, even an NPD lacking a conscience, and tell them exactly what they are and what they’re doing and refuse to be shouted down and just Do. Not. Back. Down., they are left spluttering and fold. So long as they have no legitimate means of getting back at you (which doesn’t work so well if they happen to be a family member, leader at a church you attend or boss, alas), you can take care of matters.

Law Prof wrote:

So long as they have no legitimate means of getting back at you (which doesn’t work so well if they happen to be a family member, leader at a church you attend or boss, alas), you can take care of matters.

None of the other people really bother me. The people who can get revenge are usually the ones who cause immense pain in their betrayal.

@ Law Prof:
Seminary does not prepare them for people who don’t back down and who don’t care what they think. And you are right to advise being careful you are protected. They are a vengeful lot who love to blindside and set people up. Even going after the kids to turn them against parents.

StillWiggling wrote:

Heh… My pastor comes right out and says, “Yeah, guys, we’re Jesus’s woman. Yeah, it’s weird, and as a guy, I can’t quite wrap my brain around it myself, but I can’t pretend it isn’t so, either.” Or something to that effect.

Spiritual Gender Dysphoria?

Max wrote:

Sooner or later, those “good pastors” will show their bad side and get after you for not signing their membership covenant. You ‘must’ submit to them. If there are no other viable church options in your area, stay home and read your Bible … and pray that God will start cleaning house soon.

Actually, I believe God is cleaning house, just not in the way that we think. He’s cleaning His True Church out of the fraudulent one.

ishy wrote:

None of the other people really bother me. The people who can get revenge are usually the ones who cause immense pain in their betrayal.

That’s right, only one you actually think cares about you can really hurt you to the core. I never had any illusions about any pastor I’ve heard for the last decade, they all ranged between full blown evil liar and confused blind guide.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

ZechZav wrote:
That verse is very appropriate. When I attended a local complimentarian church I was told that I should “remain single and celibate” because I “struggled with same sex attraction”.
Let me guess… Just like high school? Where you weren’t getting any so you had to be Queer?

In many ways some churches were like the school playground. In the UK many evangelical circles impose a celibacy requirement on any church member that happens to be gay. They impose the same requirement on heterosexual singles but they encourage them to pursue a romantic partner. I left that community because I felt neglected and abused, and coming across this blog and witnessing how they are abusing women and children has really opened my eyes. Complimentarian preachers are Calvinists and creationist which gives the theological foundation for their abuse. One person in that church blatantly said (without a shred of empathy) – “if the Bible is racist, misogynistic and homophobic and if God predestines people to hell, so be it!” Of course, this came from the mouth of a married, heterosexual man with white skin. The royal command to “love your neighbour as yourself” was ignored whilst they focused on their “creational mandates of gender roles” and “predestination to heaven or hell!” And most of them were happy and complacent in their view that they were “the elect”. I should have got out sooner when I saw these warning signs.

ishy wrote:

Moore’s out. She spoke out against Trump and got a lot of them mad

Another casualty of social media abuse. The religious elite are continually doing a risk assessment on its celebrities … when your liabilities exceed your assets, they drop you like a hot potato (e.g., Driscoll).

ZechZav wrote:

I had a blessed escape when I left.

Many here at TWW have also had “blessed” escapes. Congratulations! Now you are Free To Think as an individual made in the image of God. 😉

Christiane wrote:

to be missionaries of the Mercy of God

I don’t think this concept has even entered the minds of most Neo-Calvinists. Me thinks they’r more concerned with being missionaries of the Calvinist “gospel.”

Law Prof wrote:

“…and keep in strict confidence all matters which the Elders determine are of private concern to the church.”
First, I’m curious why “Elders” is capitalized, like “Lord” and “Jesus”, but perhaps that’s nitpicky. The larger point is I’m wondering if they ever heard of this guy named Jesus Who told us about the whispers in the inner rooms being shouted from rooftops? I guess the problem there is Jesus said it and He’s not exactly relevant to to their cult.

LawProf: Hubris is written all over this statement. These *Elders* believe themselves to be above the rest of the congregation. I think what they really mean (even though their words say differently) is: what the Elders determine are of private concern to the *Elders.* Their view of “church” is not one in which all those in the body of Christ come together to make decisions. No. Because those lowly pew peons don’t have the wisdom and discernment of the “Elders.” We’ve seen how this model works out in churches. Here at The Wartburg Watch we’ve seen many examples of Elders/Pastors/Leaders harboring criminals, hiding the truth, & marginalizing and slandering truth tellers and godly Christians. I think they need to use a different model. But that’s just me.

ishy wrote:

My family was not broken in that way, but my mom died when I was a teenager, so there was that.

Ishy: My mother died when I was a teen as well. I think that experience alone shaped me into the person I am today.

Law Prof wrote:

Todd Wilhelm wrote:
What I received from my question was icy stares and the beginning of the shunning process. Oh, and an invitation to lunch to discuss the question in depth, where, what actually happened is my Christian character was questioned.
Oh yeah, I’ve had two such lunch meetings that were supposed to just be nice times together to sharpen each other’s iron and grow together in Christ. Of course, they end up being a pastor with a long bony finger that’s pointed right at your face and a voice that rises a couple octaves by the end and you’re looking round hoping to goodness you don’t know anybody in the restaurant who’ll see you on the embarrassing public end of narcissistic rage.

I think I’d lose my appetite rather quickly upon discovering their motives to “meet for lunch.” Ugh! A memory was sparked through your comments of a time when I went back to visit my former Christian cult. It was titled the “Grace Meeting” but had nothing to do with “grace.” During a break, the leader/pastor sent one of his loyal members to give me a message that he wanted to speak with me. Having been loosed from the chains of sychophantry (I know, not an actual word), I decided to oblige and have that little chat. As we began exchanging light conversation, I began to sense the manipulation tactic revving up. That was when he asked if I would be interested in eating dinner with him and his wife. Without hesitation I replied: “No.” Does a person wish to be swallowed up, or figuratively speaking, put under a microscope and sliced into a myriad of pieces? Nah…I’ll pass on that.

@ Darlene:
You are a smart girl!

Law Prof wrote:

I don’t need some 30 year old pastor in tight jeans and hipster glasses to tell me how to “do life”.

Yep, there’s just something about a young whippersnapper trying to tell me how to do life who hasn’t done life himself yet! Maybe I’m just an old fuddy-duddy, but I like my preachers on the more seasoned side … a man of God who has been through the fire of experience who can speak with wisdom, rather than a know-it-all preacher boy who hasn’t experienced much of anything yet. Age doesn’t always equal wisdom, but it helps.

I also would be cautious about any church where the rector has been there for a very long time, like 25 years or more. That’s usually a sign that he or she is wearing the golden handcuffs, or cannot move for some other reason. And people who have been in one place that long often feel an inappropriate level of ownership.

ZechZav wrote:

they did not care about my emotional health and did not visit me when I was unemployed for months, and when I was seriously ill. They only cared about my “sin” and probing me. Needless to say, I am now a “done”.

I’d be ‘done’ with that kind of abuse too. That display of neglect and disrespect is not ‘Church’, nor ever could be. You didn’t leave the Church, you left the failures of some who professed Christ but had no fruit to prove their connection to Him: they refused to be missionaries of the mercy of God.

They sinned against you. They are in need of repentance. May God have mercy on us all.

ZechZav wrote:

This opens a whole can of worms where readers of this blog and similar blogs may differ. Nate Sparks, for example, takes a gay-friendly position and his articles on Romans are worth reading. Todd Wilhelm takes a more traditional position but I respect both of these guys as brothers in Christ and for their work in combating abuse from churches.
As I have had to wrestle with this issue myself, I had to wrestle with the questions of why some people are born with “same sex attraction” and why they are not healed on conversion. I am now gay-affirming and I am happy to agree to disagree on this. If a church wants to take a position and say “We expect gay people to stay single but we will do everything to help them as a church family. We will provide for their emotional needs, create a program to ensure that they are not left isolated or alone, and will ensure that someone will visit them several times a week to ensure that they are. As we don’t allow them to have a partner (something we deem as an entitlement for ourselves) we have a moral obligation to do this…” I would have a lot of respect for a church that takes that position and makes personal sacrifices to “bear one anothers burdens.
But it usually stops at the statement “we expect them to stay single!” Then they just leave them out in the cold whilst they close the door and spend time with their families. That was my experience and they did not care about my emotional health and did not visit me when I was unemployed for months, and when I was seriously ill. They only cared about my “sin” and probing me. Needless to say, I am now a “done”. And I am not going to engage in discussions with them.
And your other point seems to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. That was offensive – many pedophiles are heterosexuals too. We have seen that time and again in many cases.

I didn’t mean for this to turn into a discussion about homosexuality. I was just using homosexuality as an example. That a sinner can be actively sinning but yet still be saved if he/she accepts Jesus in their heart. Now of course the church should patiently and gently encourage that brother to stop their sins. But there shouldn’t be any mention of discipline, unless he/she is so PROUD as to ENCOURAGE SIN to others.

I totally agree with you that if a church only cares about the sin but not care for the sinner, the church has lost and the love of God is not in them. This is when a church only talk to a homosexual person to make sure he/she isn’t practicing but doesn’t really care about his/her well being. Another example of this would be churches that are against abortion but will not lift a SINGLE finger to help out the mother and her baby. Hypocrites and Pharisees!

As for my last point I didn’t mean that only homosexuals can be pedophiles. Heterosexuals can also be pedophiles. My point is that a church MUST’T harbor criminals. If someone committed a serious crime, sent that person to jail or even execution. Do not cover up for that criminal.

Of course we have to be reasonable. For example let’s say John gave you a ride home from church. You see John sped by going 70 in a 60 zone. Do you call the cops on John? Of course not! Speeding is not a serious enough crime. But if you see John seriously drunk and driving, you should tell him to stop and let you drive instead. If he refuse maybe you do need to call the police to keep him and pedestrians safe. But if he only had 1 can of beer (not enough to be drunk) and he is clearly still sober and wants to drive, maybe you should let it go. Not everything is black and white as written in the bible. We have to discern base on how serious the situation.

ZechZav wrote:

And your other point seems to equate homosexuality with pedophilia. That was offensive – many pedophiles are heterosexuals too. We have seen that time and again in many cases.

And I’ve heard of studies where same-sex pedos self-identify as straight (and arousal trigger testing seems to confirm it). What apparently attracts the same-sex pedo is the fact that pre-pubescent boys do NOT have masculine secondary sexual characteristics but feminine — high-pitched voice, no facial hair, smooth skin.

However, same-sex ehebephiles (who go after post-pubescent but under legal age boys) DO self-identify as gay; in their case it’s just a gay version of a guy who goes after “jail bait”.

Hello Wartburgers.

Many of you are rubbish, but I hope to see you in glory anyway.

Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus.

Up Yours,
Roger Bombast

Roger Bombast wrote:

Hello Wartburgers.

Many of you are rubbish, but I hope to see you in glory anyway.

Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus.

Up Yours,
Roger Bombast

Why are you using Nick Bulbeck’s icon?

Sinners who understands the love of God can go out to love others. Those that has been forgiven much will go out to love others just as much. But whoever isn’t under grace, but is still under works will not be able to love others. (LUke 7:47)

Those that work for salvation live in constant fear of God’s wrath, and put that same fear on others. Sin is still their master.

While those under grace have freedom to love God and love their neighbors, and spread that freedom and peace to others. God is their master, not sin.

God is your master and he is already in love with you, even if you are still trapped in your sins. You can have freedom under Christ, no matter what sin is trapping you. Break you chains today. Come under the grace and freedom of Jesus. Let no men put you in chains ever again.

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who [b]are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we [c]through the Spirit, [d]by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.” (Galatians 5:1-6)

Zechzav wrote:

That is why I can’t understand why the church is campaigning against women preachers and gay marriage whilst covering up and staying silent regarding the abuses at SGM

I think it has very little to do with the Bible or with being a Christian, no matter how hard they argue that it does. There’s a power imbalance, and those with power are threatened by any change to their system that might decrease that power. They think that if they don’t force others to conform, people won’t bother to stay and support them in their cushy lives. And they probably wouldn’t.

Dropping the hierarchy and treating everyone equally means a big loss in money and attention.

Lydia wrote:

But my most horrifying experience was visiting an adult bible class type prayer circle where people ask for specific prayer. After a few “Jesus make it all wonderful” type requests, a woman asked for prayer as she had recently been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. Lots of “I am sorry’s” then the requests continue. One was, pray my new kitty acclimates to my house (a church staffer!). Pray a formal dress I have been watching goes on sale…..Etc. it made me sick to my stomach. And yes, I caught up with the serious request after in the parking lot. I never went back to that group. One visit was enough.

Holy moly. God bless you for catching up in the parking lot.

Lea wrote:

Also, way to take a metaphor to a gross and disturbing place:
“Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife points to the love between Christ and his church.”

Yuck.

Just because the relationship between husband and wife was used as a metaphor does not mean these two things are one and the same! Sheesh!

siteseer wrote:

It seems like real friendships started going out around the time home selling parties came in.

Ugh. I despise MLMs. And I’m not sorry when I offend people by refusing to buy anything from an MLM. Lately, on Facebook, people keep adding me to their selling groups, and I keep leaving, and have to put it on block to be reinvited, because they will try to. Even some of my family members have gotten rather rude about it.