Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Problem of Authoritarianism in the Conservative Pulpits of America

Last week the New York Times ran a profile on the hip, conservative evangelical Seattle pastor of Mars Hill Church, a man named Mark Driscoll. The article was sent to me by one of our church members, and I enjoyed reading it. Before I criticize something the New York Times attributes Pastor Mark Driscoll saying, let me make it known that I appreciate what Mark has done in the Seattle area, and I am probably very similar to Mark in terms of theology and philosophy of church ministry. In my opinion, Mark has some great ideas, and I know that the people hear the gospel from Mark's mouth.

Yet, Mark is quoted in the article as saying something that I find quite disturbing. After the New York Times makes it known Driscoll has little patience for dissent, the newspaper writes that in 2007, two church elders protested a plan to reorganize Mars Hill Church. The elders, according to the newspaper, felt the reorganization consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides, giving to the pastor too much authority and control. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill.

“His answer was brilliant," reported the pastor. “He said, ‘I break their nose.'"

The New York Times goes on to report that when one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. Pastor Mark Driscoll then gives to the New York Times the money quote that ought to send a shiver up the spine of every member of an evangelical, conservative church in America. Pastor Driscoll said:

“They are sinning through questioning."

Huh?

The Bible tells us that true leadership is found through men who are courageous enough to be questioned. Jesus said that real leaders are servants, not masters. The incredible notion that a member of a church should be shunned, persecuted or disciplined for simply asking questions of the pastor has more in common than the cultic practices of Jim Jones than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Let me be clear. Those kind of pastors - pastors that advocate an authoritianism inherent in the pulpit, that stifle any and all dissent from the members of their congregations, that humiliate and denigrate the members who for the sake of conscience ask questions - could very well be considered great expositors of the Word of God and doctrinally orthodox. Yet those pastors display a character that is the antithesis of the character of Christ, an ironhandedness that is the opposite of genuine grace, and a disposition that should cause their congregations to realize that their pastors are but one step away from falling over the precipice of moral failure in terms of their church ministries or personal lives.

The problem in conservative pulpits of America is not a denial of the Word of God, the problem in conservative pulipits of America is the preacher acts as if his words are the Word of God.

In His Grace,


Wade

294 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 294 of 294
DL said...

Good point, Wade. Everyone knows who Benjamin Franklin is. Very few have heard of Silence Dogood.

Anonymous said...

Wade,

You are getting sucked into exactly the kind of argument that the Watchdog likes so beware. No credible pastor is going to give creedance to an anonymous letter or blog so you can figure Brunson isn't that worried.

The bottom line is that FBC Jax got the right person when they served the papers. Those people are far too influential to have made a mistake. They did their homework and found the right man and then did the right thing.

Its time for the Watchdog to own up his name and the fact that he is the one they are disfellowshipping.

Anonymous said...

Rex Ray,

I like your questions. It helps me understand better your perspective.

You said, “How in the world do you get TWO Christ?"

I don't believe there is more than One Christ, but I believe people can make up their own god and name it Christ and thus use that god to interpret the Bible.

You said "To me, ‘The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” means ‘The Bible is to be interpreted through the eyes of Jesus.’"

There is no special revelation of Jesus "outside" the Bible by which to interpret the Bible.

There IS special revelation of Jesus in the Bible [the New Testament] and thus I believe we should look at the Old testament through the "eyes" of Christ's New Testament revelation [John 5:39; Luke 24:27].

If I may be so bold to say, THAT is the main key for there to be much greater doctrinal unity amongst the people of God in my opinion.

If all believers would interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament, then you would have believers at least on the same trajectory.

You said "Christ did not come to replace the law but to fulfill the law through his eyes, his mind, and his heart."

I would say that Christ fulfills and thus replaces the law giver Moses just as Christ fulfills and thus replaces the priest Aaron and King David.

Basically, I believe to follow Christ is to follow New Testament revelation.

wadeburleson.org said...

Anonymous,

I couldn't help but laugh when I read your anonymous encouragement for the anonymous Watchdog to own up to his anonymous comments with your own anonymous comment.

The irony.

Anonymous said...

Dear Benji,

You wrote: 'There is no special revelation of Jesus "outside" the Bible by which to interpret the Bible.'

That's why you need to pray to ask the guidance of the Holy Spirit before you begin to read the Holy Writings. These writings were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It is with that in mind that you can ask for guidance and you will be heard.
'Ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you.'


God is very near. He breathed life into you and He will be there to receive your last breath.

He does not leave you forlorn of help. As a matter of faith, if you have a humble heart, He will come and make His home in your heart. And He brings great peace.

The work of the Holy Spirit is an eternal work: not restricted to any time or persons or place.
If you are 'of Christ', then the Spirit is with you. Not somewhere long ago and far away.


Benji, don't put anything between yourself and God.

Anonymous said...

HAPPY GRAM wrote:
"a wise friend once said to me
"do you pray about what is bothering you as much as you complain". praying and trusting God to intervene is effective."

I think you must earn your 'call sign' Happy Gram.

A Jewish friend of mine lost her son at the age of eleven. It was like someone had ripped her heart from her body, she grieved so deeply. I visited her within a few weeks of the funeral and was present for Shabbat Dinner on a Friday night in her home.
It was beautiful, and she was peaceful. I asked her how she could do all that she was doing for the dinner.

She said this: 'especially in the times of great trouble and sadness, spread the tablecloth, light the candles, and give thanks.'

Her act of prayer strengthened her. And for a while, the blessings of that evening comforted her. God is merciful. L's

New BBC Open Forum said...

Wade Burleson wrote to WHS:

You asked, "Is this the same reason you don't respond to NBBCOF complaints about Steve Gaines? I respect your position on anonmyninity."

Yes, it is. I don't respond to, nor give input for, anonymous blogs or comments.


That's fine with me, Wade. To my knowledge no one has ever asked you to respond to, give input to, or comment on the NBBCOF blog or address anything to do with Steve Gaines. However, no one's stopping you, and it's odd how you've always been very careful not to criticize Steve Gaines, one of the most blatantly "authoritarian" pastors ever (even when he let a confessed pedophile/sexual molester freely roam the halls of the church for six months), which I find difficult to attribute solely to the anonymity of some of the critics. The last three paragraphs of your article describe Steve Gaines to a tee!

You really need to get off this "anonymity" kick though. (I have no opinion about "anonmyninity.") I don't know "Thy Peace," "Clif Cummings," "Bob Cleveland," "absonjourney," "Steve," "Stephen," "NativeVermonter," "Alan Paul," to name a few, or anyone else here, including you; therefore, seeing a "name" associated with a particular comment means absolutely nothing to me. Those names, some probably real, others aliases, serve only to help me tell one anonymous poster from another. I remember laughing a few weeks ago when someone signed a comment "Little Mary Sunshine." Your "real" names mean nothing more to me than that -- which is the point I think the writer was making as well.

Why can't people just read the words on a blog instead of getting their knickers in a knot over who wrote the words? Is that how you read newspaper articles? Other than editorials, do you check the byline to see if you know the person so you can bring your biases about the writer to the table? That would be ridiculous... just as ridiculous as demanding bloggers sign their real names to their comments. (I can see rare cases where the person's name would be relevant, but in the vast majority of cases it is not.) Now, if I sent you or Steve Gaines or anyone else a personal letter, I would absolutely sign my name, but blogging is a whole different animal.

As for your assertion about "the writer in Jacksonville not facing the prospect of death," I don't know what he's experienced, but we've got a nutcase in Memphis who tried to physically harm two men he thought were associated with "the opposition," and he demanded one of them tell him the identity of the moderator of the NBBCOF. This same raging nut barged into a local church the next Sunday morning and tried to assault a former Bellevue minister who was working there. While I've never experienced any problems, no church situation is worth risking the safety of myself and my family over. NONE! So if you want to call me a coward, Wade, that's fine with me. I've been called worse things and couldn't care less what you think -- of me or of Steve Gaines. The only person I see dragging Bellevue's issues onto this blog is Charles Page, and as many have already warned you and you should have seen by now, you're dancing with the devil there.

Lydia had it right, Wade. You need to reconsider your position.

NASS (NotAStepfordSheep)

Bob Cleveland said...

Wade,

It seems to me that those who remain anonymous, trust their anonymity to do, for them, what they don't trust God to do.

Anonymous said...

Ideally, in some better world than this, we could be ourselves in honesty AND in harmony with others.

But we are here, and our 'reality' is sometimes that our lives are not our own to live: we give up who we are and we live for others.
When this happens, to do 'the right thing' takes a back seat to doing 'the right thing for THEM: the people we care for and protect.

I think Wade knows this.
That's why he allows people sometimes to have that opportunity to, just for a while, speak anonymously like they would if they COULD sign.

Just for a while, they can speak out and not bring harm on their loved ones, because the evil ones can't touch them, not if the evil ones don't know the identity of the writers.

There is a place for people who need to talk but can't sign, out of love for their families.
That place is Grace and Truth To You. Some sacrifices are not ours to make, if they bring about the suffering of our dependent innocents.

oc said...

Wow Bob Cleveland. That is quite a judgment you just made. I hope you are worthy of it.

Scott Shaffer said...

Here is one reason to not post anonymously: It is a common courtesy to introduce yourself to whomever you are speaking.

Here is a second reason: This post has over 200 comments on it, a good percentage of which are anonymous. It becomes very difficult to carry on a dialog with these folks because you just don't know who you are responding to.

Here is a third reason: Credibility. This doesn't necessarily mean you have no credibility if you post anonymously; rather, over time you develop credibility and people understand your perspective. This is impossible with anonymous posters. When people don't use their names it is only natural to wonder why the person is hiding their identity.

Fourth reason: Own your words and ideas.

Scott Shaffer said...

By the way, Wade used to refer to anonymous commenters as "anonymouse".

John Daly said...

"You really need to get off this "anonymity" kick though. (I have no opinion about "anonmyninity.") I don't know "Thy Peace," "Clif Cummings," "Bob Cleveland," "absonjourney," "Steve," "Stephen," "NativeVermonter," "Alan Paul," to name a few..."

Ah young grasshopper but you could know me if you wanted too. I make no judgment about anonymous comments save one...you guys are wimps. I think anon comments add no substance to blogs and frankly your comments lack credibility.

So "man-up" or go to a gardening blog.

John Daly
St. Louis, Missouri

Anonymous said...

Wade,

What I like about you is that we can disagree on things here, amicably. For that, I cannot thank you ehough.

Lydia

DL said...

I agree about anonymous comments. When I see Wade Burleson comment on another blog, I know who it is, and have an immediate perspective for why he's commenting and the point he's making. The same would be true of others, myself included. That's why there's the little profile page. I think people wouldn't talk around each other so much if they researched just a little on who they're talking to. The problem is that many just want to trade barbs, get in digs and pass the time rather than do anything productive with their comments.

oc said...

There is a person behind every comment. A person who is loved by Christ. Stop calliing them "cowards".

Larry.

Bob Cleveland said...

oc,

Had I called those remaining anonymous "cowards", I would have been making a judgment. I stated what seemed, to me.

I have been there and done that.

But I have also seen God come through.

oc said...

Come on Bob,
What "seemed to" you was actually seen to others of us as a judgment you made. And quite frankly, I was very suprised with that unloving statement coming from you.
I'm still shaking my head with Wade's attitude towards it too.

Larry.
(And you, and anyone else, can get more info about me by emailing me. I'm no coward.)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

I believe the Holy Spirit is with me. In fact, I believe the Holy Spirit indwells me.

The longing of Moses came true at Pentecost--ALL of God's people came under the Holy Spirit's influence.

One could not even call all of God's people the temple of God where He dwells in the Spirit before Pentecost since the Holy Spirit had not been given yet [Jn 7:39].

I don't believe the Holy Spirit's work stopped long ago, but continues today.

However, I do not believe the Holy Spirit is now giving anyone special revelation in addition to the special revelation He gave the apostles of old.

That revelation [to the Apostles] has been given and written down.

Now, the Holy Spirit leads believers and empowers them to bear fruit--with the Apostolic writings being their foundation [Eph. 2:20].

Grace

Benji Ramsaur

oc said...

PS Vermonter. Your call to "man up".

Look more closely at Matthew 5-7 if you care to see what I have not yet been but yet pray to be.
So don't try the world's way to persuade and intimidate. Not impressed. I could probably do it better than most in that aspect if I wanted to revert. Capeche?

I choose a different way.

oc.

FBC Jax Watchdog said...

"The bottom line is that FBC Jax got the right person when they served the papers. Those people are far too influential to have made a mistake. They did their homework and found the right man and then did the right thing."

Yep, just trust them that they got the right guy. They are far too influential to lie, right Wade? Why, Deb Brunson would never tell lies about Wade to the staffers at FBC Jax, would she? Mac wouldn't tell a bald-faced lie to his congregation about Sheri Klouda, would he? Isn't Mac "far too influential" to actually lie in his pulpit about someone?

Anonymous said...

This is not limited to conservative pulpits. Sadly we are teaching this "Saddleback" leadership style junk in many of our seminaries. Talk about going to "seed" on Hebrews 13!!! It's rampant and the lay people are being tired of being bullied. Is there any question why our churches are divergent and NOT growing?

Anonymous said...

I'd get away from Mark Driscoll as fast(and as far away) as I could. His website now refers to himself as a 'sexpert' and recommends linking to "ChristianNymphos.org" which is nothing more than a porno sight. What was the first clue with Driscoll?...a flippant disregard for God's holiness, an ok attitude w/alcohol, hottie nights, brew classes and the list goes on and on and on. He is the "preacher" of the modern day Corinth church...all because he wants to be cool.......sick.

New BBC Open Forum said...

Anonymous 9:16,

Amen and thank you. Of course, many here will ignore your words because you didn't sign a name. Notice I said "a" name. Any name will do whether it's yours or not because who knows the difference?

There's nothing preventing the blog host from requiring people to register before they leave comments. I do not allow anonymous comments on the NBBCOF. Multiple anonymous comments are confusing, and it's impossible to tell if the same person is posting ten times or ten people are posting once or two or three people are tag team posting.

Anyone can register and create a unique screen name, be it his real name or an alias. That way you can tell one anon from another, but at the same time preserve anonymity for those who desire it. To keep harping ad nauseum about people leaving anonymous comments while still allowing anonymous comments is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

The fact is, if I don't know you, I don't know if you're signing your real name or not (nor do I care). Look, I could pull a name from the phone book, create a detailed profile for myself, even post a photo of some unsuspecting (or dead) relative from a 1970's family reunion, and none of you would know the difference, would you?

And Wade telling the Watchdog he'd spill the rest of the dirt on Mac and Debbie Brunson if the Watchdog would reveal his identity is ridiculous. If you have something to say, just say it. Sounds like Deb committed the ultimate offense -- she called you a {gasp!} "liberal"! So let's give Deb a few barbs, but by all means withhold the really juicy stuff until the Watchdog 'fesses up. What difference does the Watchdog's name make if you're speaking the truth? My head is about to explode at the total illogicality of that line of thought.

New BBC Open Forum said...

"It seems to me that those who remain anonymous, trust their anonymity to do, for them, what they don't trust God to do."

It seems to me this is how many a person has died or been seriously injured in churches which practice this.

"Had I called those remaining anonymous 'cowards', I would have been making a judgment. I stated what seemed, to me."

Two words for that... straining gnats. Or maybe just one... backpedaling.

Steve said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve said...

The person who found a porno site must have been mis-directed. I Googled Mark Driscoll and found his church site and a blog. While I have criticized his approach to questioning, I give him credit for getting doctrine right. It is very easy to fake web addresses and the look of others' sites, as people who have been "phished" for financial information know quite well.

Anonymous said...

The person who found a porno site must have been mis-directed. I Googled Mark Driscoll and found his church site and a blog. While I have criticized his approach to questioning, I give him credit for getting doctrine right. It is very easy to fake web addresses and the look of others' sites, as people who have been "phished" for financial information know quite well.

Sat Jan 17, 03:28:00 AM 2009


Here is the Mars Hill blog

http://blog.marshillchurch.org/2008/11/30/question-21-can-i-perform-anal-sex-on-my-wife/

There is a link to 'christiannymphos' in the article.



Lydia

Anonymous said...

Bummer. I finally found a reason to dislike being a missionary. I can't post with my real name and no one will like me or read my comments. :(

I wish there was a way you could note (maybe with a *) those who are actually serving overseas and still allow their comments to carry weight with just a nickname.

I guess I'll just be a reader from now on.

SL1M

Anonymous said...

SL1M

Since you do sign a unique nickname, can you do it the same way that I do it. By just choosing name without any URL connected to it.


Besides, I think that the problems that are being discussed are the postings where people are both anonymous in header and at the end of the comment.

Anna A

ezekiel said...

Rex,

"In the Old Testament a young boy was stoned for gathering firewood for his mother on the Lord’s day."


Is this the scripture that you refer to? If so, where do you get the young boy and the mother?


Num 15:32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man who was gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.
Num 15:33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation.

ezekiel said...

A couple of thoughts as some seem to really chafe at anonymous commenters.

1)Heb 13:2 Do not forget or neglect or refuse to extend hospitality to strangers [in the brotherhood--being friendly, cordial, and gracious, sharing the comforts of your home and doing your part generously], for through it some have entertained angels without knowing it. [Gen. 18:1-8; 19:1-3.]

2)What was the donkeys name?

Num 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you that you should strike me these three times?
Num 22:29 And Balaam said to the donkey, Because you have ridiculed and provoked me! I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!
Num 22:30 And the donkey said to Balaam, Am not I your donkey, upon which you have ridden all your life long until this day? Was I ever accustomed to do so to you? And he said, No.

3)Has anyone got a name for the blind man?

Joh 9:28 And they stormed at him [they jeered, they sneered, they reviled him] and retorted, You are His disciple yourself, but we are the disciples of Moses.
Joh 9:29 We know for certain that God spoke with Moses, but as for this Fellow, we know nothing about where He hails from.
Joh 9:30 The man replied, Well, this is astonishing! Here a Man has opened my eyes, and yet you do not know where He comes from. [That is amazing!]
Joh 9:31 We know that God does not listen to sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and a worshiper of Him and does His will, He listens to him.
Joh 9:32 Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind.
Joh 9:33 If this Man were not from God, He would not be able to do anything like this.
Joh 9:34 They retorted, You were wholly born in sin [from head to foot]; and do you [presume to] teach us? So they cast him out [threw him clear outside the synagogue].



Is this about my social stature, economic position and how sinful/righteous I am or is it all about the NAME and His stature and position? Is it about my authority to speak or is it ultimately about the only authority, The WORD.

It would appear that what we now have is more of the same old story.

Luk 9:46 But a controversy arose among them as to which of them might be the greatest [surpassing the others in excellence, worth, and authority].
Luk 9:47 But Jesus, as He perceived the thoughts of their hearts, took a little child and put him at His side
Luk 9:48 And told them, Whoever receives and accepts and welcomes this child in My name and for My sake receives and accepts and welcomes Me; and whoever so receives Me so also receives Him Who sent Me. For he who is least and lowliest among you all--he is [the one who is truly] great.

Is this name thing just an extension of something that should have been settled on the football field or the locker room?

Anonymous said...

There are some examples of anonymity which have value:

in 'giving' anonymously, with no credit or obligation coming back to you, there is a certain grace to this:
you, the donor, remain unknown,
your gift to the needy is given in the name of Christ, not yours.

People have become obsessed with 'getting credit' for what they say and do. As long as what is said and not is NOT mean-spirited or malicious, and as long as it is done for another in Christ's name, who needs recognition?

There is a time and place for 'owning your own words': Wade's idea of honorably speaking out when you see something being done that is just plain wrong: that is a good example. That IS putting yourself on the line and taking a stand. But, for some, it may not (yet) be an option.

In the case of those who most post anonymously, why not develop an 'underground' and communicate, organize and then stand up as a group? Power in numbers? Not always: didn't work for those seventy-seven missionaries. But it is one more option. The BEST option is the Southern Baptist people to say: no more. Enough.
Stop. End the harassment of those who have a different opinion and end the firing of those who won't sign a 'man-made' loyalty oath.
Baptists, historically, fought for their individual rights to worship freely. They need, AS A PEOPLE, to end the hemorrhage of decent, honorable people who are eliminated from their midst by autocratic, authoritarian bullies.

'nuff said.'

oc said...

To me it's sad about all this "identity" and "anti-anonymous" horse doo doo.

It looks that is still the Garden of Eden. It looks like pride.

We are to die to sin, and live to
Christ. Total depravity, right? So your name means nothing, and acknowleging such and in doing so you gave your life away, and you gave your name away... when you trusted Christ.

Stop being uppedity with "the who's who in Christianity" which you may have developed in your systematic world. You must remember you are but a worm, other than your relationship to Jesus.

Don't forget where you came from.

oc/Larry.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, OC/Larry

Now I know my name in anonymity:

it is 'Christian' :)

oc said...

And anon 4:40,
It's a name which is derived from the name that is above all names. Excellent choice I might say...

oc. oops.... Christian. :)

Anonymous said...

RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY
ALWAYS A GOOD THING???????????

or 'I AM A VICTIM,
NOT A MONSTER. . . '

"I grew up in Nazi times and that meant the need to be controlled and respect authority," said Fritzl. Elisabeth, he said, was a wild girl, constantly partying and mixing with the bad crowd. He saw his daughter as wayward and in need of discipline and so devised the ultimate punishment. .



. Fritzl wanted to tame his daughter and to groom her into a “perfect” wife and mother so that society could be proud of her.

This is a value he inherited from the Nazi period. The fear at that time was that the blue-eyed, blonde hair people would vanish along with the ideal of the 'perfect' family if women were not taught by the authorities to be 'perfect' mothers and wives of a society of the pure race.

Fritzl told the police of his “beautiful idea” to have a perfect, large second family with his daughter. In a statement he wrote that in time his daughter Elisabeth became just as good a housewife and mother as his wife Rosemarie upstairs. “I grew up in the Nazi times and that meant the need to be controlled and respect authority,” admits Fritzl. To punish, to lock up in dark rooms and to physically and psychologically hurt those who do not obey is an old habit here.

A beloved phrase in Austria: “I am a victim and not a monster,” Fritzl says from custody, an echo of what many here say about the role of Austria during World War II. In most discussions on 1938, when Austria voted in favour of annexation by Nazi Germany, it is not rare for an Austrian to insist that the country was a victim of Nazism and not a partner in crime.

Anonymous said...

COULD THIS BE HAPPENING TO YOU?

KNOW THE SIGNS OF SPIRITUAL ABUSE BY CHURCH AUTHORITIES

!. Exalting leadership to God-like status in and over the group;

2. Absolute authority of the leadership;

3. No real accountability of the leadership to the corporate body;
Hand-picked sub-leaders (trustees), based on their demonstration of submissiveness to the ultimate leader
rather than on the basis of their leadership skills, spirituality, and anointing and appointment by God;

4. Pervasive abuse and misuse of authority in personal dealings with members;

5. Paranoia and insecurity by the leaders; Abuse, misuse, and inordinate incidence of "church discipline;"

6. Personal materialism, covetousness,
and self-aggrandizement by the leaders; (mansions, trips, high salaries, extravagant entertaining)

7. Members and/or sub-leaders
must make a "spiritual covenant," sometimes a signed covenant agreement,
pledging their total commitment to the leadership and church/ministry;
(HINT: 'must' sign 2000 BF&M or else')

8. Partitioning of the group into smaller groups that are led by internally "raised up" lay-leaders who have not been anointed or appointed by God for leadership within the church;

9. Financial exploitation
of the members;

10. Inordinate attention to maintaining the public "image" of the ministry;

11. Doctrinal demeanment and devaluation — the requisite of espousing and teaching "sound doctrine" is demeaned and devalued; (HINT: doctrinal changes in the 1963 BF&M)

12. Theological incompetency by the leadership, especially with respect to the rules of hermeneutics and Bible exegesis employed in the formulation of doctrine, giving license to twisting and adulteration of Scripture in order to provide proof-texts for unorthodox and invented doctrines; (HINT: you can choose from your favorite example)

13. Esotericism — hidden agendas and requirements revealed to members only as they successfully advance through various stages of "spiritual enlightenment," i.e., unorthodox, unproven indigenous doctrines;

14. Isolationism — corporate and individual, especially with respect to exposure to outside ministry sources;

15. Performance-based approval and promotion system of members predicated on "proven" "loyalty"
(i.e., submission) to the leadership;

16. evaluation, suppression, and non-recognition of members' bona fide God-given talents, abilities, gifts, callings, and anointing, as a means of subjugation;
(HINT: treatment of Eve's Daughters as a sub-human group in the church)

17. Constant indoctrination with a "group" or "family" mentality that impels members to exalt the corporate "life" and goals of the church-group over their personal goals, callings, and objectives;

18. Members are psychologically traumatized and indoctrinated with numerous improper fears and phobias aimed at keeping them reeling in diffidence and an over-dependence or co-dependence on their leaders and the corporate group;

19. Lack of true personal spiritual growth and development, especially in terms of genuine faith and experiencing the abounding grace, forgiveness, goodness, blessings, kindness, and agape-love of God;

20. Frequent preaching from the pulpit regarding not getting out from under the "spiritual covering" of the leadership;

21. Members departing without the prior permission and blessing of the leadership leave the group under a cloud of manufactured suspicion, shame, and slander;

22. Horror stories frequently told by leaders about individuals or families who left the group without the prior permission and blessing of the leadership, and the terrible consequences and curses they suffered as a result;

23. Departing members often suffer from various psychological problems and display the classic symptoms associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).


So...what to do?


Well, here's a few questions for you to ponder:

Do you know what the signs of hyper-authoritarianism, control, and domination in a group or church and how to recognize them?

Do you know if the signs are simple, overt, and obvious, or are they sophisticated and complex, covert, and hidden?

Could you be objective enough about your church or group and leaders to correctly analyze if authoritarian abuse is taking place at your church?

Do you know how to explain what the signs are to prospective or suspected victims in order to convince them they are under it?

Do you know how to throw out a lifeline to rescue them?

Do you know what steps are necessary for victims to recover from the psychologically traumatizing and spiritually damaging effects of years of subjection to spiritual abuse?

Do you know why hyper-authoritarian doctrines and practices ARE UNSCRIPTURAL and Biblically-prohibited, and could you cite some of the Scripture passages in which God condemns them?

SO IMPORTANT:

Do you know from a biblical standpoint if God requires you to always "obey your leaders," even when they set requirements that contravene Scripture or your conscience, or when they behave as unscrupulous and undisciplined tyrants rather than model the characteristics of servanthood that Jesus modeled and instructs His under-shepherds to likewise model?



COMMENT: Now you are empowered by awareness of what is considered SPIRITUAL ABUSE by
HYPER (extreme) AUTHORITARIANS.

Hopefully, you don't recognize any of the above as happening to YOU or any in your family.

IF YOU DO: I sincerely hope you make it out alive. God bless,

CHRISTIAN

Rex Ray said...

To ‘Nuff Said’,
You gave examples of value of being Anonymous (as summarized):

1. The ‘giving’ is grace without being recognized or praised.
2. The ‘giving’ is in the name of Christ; not yours.

I will suggest also the ‘giving’ could be in the name of the devil; not yours.

But you didn’t mention another value—very important to some; YOU NEVER HAVE TO EAT CROW or admit you were wrong!

Woe oh woe is me. Ezekiel nailed me to the wall with (Numbers 15:32-35) The Lord didn’t stone a boy but a MAN for gathering firewood on the Sabbath.

And “for his mother”—how did I come up with that?

Well, let’s see now…we know it wasn’t to keep warm, so it must have been for cooking. So he was helping some female because goodness knows women knew their place in those days. Smile

But I’m getting off point. BTW ‘Nuff Said’, did you get your ‘name’ from the same movie I saw?

Ezekiel,
You quoted “For he who is least and lowliest among you all—he is [the one who is truly] great.” (Luke 9:48b)

This verse used to bother me as I’m a simple layman (boy…mother…lost memory?) until I read the meaning in the Living Bible: “Your care for others is the measure of your greatness.”

Wade,
You said, “Pastors that…stifle any and all dissent from the members…display an ironhandedness that is the opposite of genuine grace…one step away from falling over the precipice of moral failure…”

I’ll add Frank Harbor as an example who has fallen over the edge caused by ego and pride.

Members that questioned him were kicked out of church by a Board where he was the leader.

Later the Board fired Harbor. He said he would ‘go far away’ if they gave him a million dollars. The Board refused and the church split.

He lost his million dollar house being built. Many that left with him came back.

Last year, he apologized to one that had been kicked out…saying he didn’t do it…it was the Board…he didn’t even own a home etc.

The person was well to do and had been a trustee of the church and a trustee at Dallas Baptist University. The person suggested Harbor apologize to the other three.

Wade, should a Christian accept an apology that lies about any wrong doing?

From one of the others, all the ‘acceptance’ from Harbor’s phone call was: “Have a good Christmas, Frank.”

The ‘four’ agreed all Harbor wanted was money.

Anonymous said...

TO REX RAY who wrote that giving in secret might be 'in the name of the Devil, please read this:


"Be careful! When you do good things, don't do those things in front of people. Don't do those things for people to see you. If you do that, then you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. "When you give to poor people, don't announce that you are giving. Don't do like the hypocrites do. They blow trumpets before they give so that people will see them. They do that in the synagogues and on the streets. They want other people to give honor to them. I tell you the truth. Those hypocrites already have their full reward. So when you give to poor people, give very secretly. Don't let any person know what you are doing.
Your giving should be done in secret. Your Father can see the things that are done in secret. And he will reward you. "When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites. The hypocrites love to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners and pray loudly. They want people to see them pray. I tell you the truth. They already have their full reward. When you pray, you should go into your room and close the door. Then pray to your Father. He is there in that secret place. Your Father can see the things that are done in secret. And he will reward you. "And when you pray, don't be like those people that don't know God. They continue saying things that mean nothing. Don't pray like that. They think that God will hear them because of the many things they say. Don't be like those people. Your Father knows the things you need before you ask him. So when you pray, you should pray like this: 'Our Father in heaven, we pray that your name will always be kept holy. We pray that your kingdom will come, and that the things you want will be done here on earth, the same as in heaven. Give us the food we need for each day. Forgive the sins we have done, the same as we have forgiven the people that did wrong to us. Don't let us be tempted (tested); but save us from the Evil One (the devil).' Yes, if you forgive other people for the things they do wrong, then your Fatherin heaven will also forgive you for the things you do wrong. But if you don't forgive the wrong things people do to you, then your Father in heaven will not forgive the wrong things you do. "When you fast, don't make yourselves look sad. The hypocrites do that. Don't be like the hypocrites. They make their faces look strange to show people that they are fasting. I tell you the truth, those hypocrites already have their full reward. So when you fast, make yourself look nice. Wash your face. Then people will not know that you are fasting. But your Father that you cannot see will see you. Your Father sees the things that are done in secret. And he will reward you.

— based on Matthew 6:1-18


COMMENT: i'm 'nuff' and I prolly saw the same movie you did, but MY MOVIE was the 'cleaned up' version. :)))))))

BTW, story about Frank Harbor sounds familiar, maybe like the legend of someone in SBC whose name starts with 'P' who is setting us up for the same treatment???????
Oh, I forgot, 'P' hand-picked the trustees. Oh, well.
Sooner or later the "%@+^%@>!%%" rises to the top and floats. Then it can be flushed away. :) (Sorry, thought a little profanity would jazz up the comment, bein' as it's Saturday nite and all.)

What church was blessed by the supreme authority of Frank Harbor anyway?

Maybe ALL SBC churches should hold workshops in out-of-control hyper-authoritarianism, so the churches can guard against it.

If these creeps know the sheep are wise to their antics, the creeps won't try to take the sheep to the shearers. Then the sheep would not be wooling to be fleeced
by a wolf dressed like a shepherd.

'nuff said'


PS. There's SO MANY of these 'creeps' out there that i start to wonder if there is a special seminary out there with courses in 'sheep shearing'.
Such baaaaaaaad boys.

Rex Ray said...

‘nuff said’,
Hey! I thought you understood I agreed with the two values you gave for being anonymous. ‘Don’t let your right hand know what your left hand is doing…’ You’re talking to the choir.

I said, “the ‘giving’ could be in the name of the devil; not yours.”

The “giving” I was referring to was not grace but hate, slander, ridicule, mockery etc. by being anonymous and motivated by the devil.

You asked, “What church was blessed…” FBC Colleyville, TX.

The meeting that passed Harbor’s new bylaws started in the morning service and lasted until late afternoon.

Some sent out for hamburgers. Some wanted others to leave, and others were afraid to leave.

“A vote for bylaws is a vote for the pastor…A vote against the bylaws is a vote against the pastor!” They had everything but the drum roll.

The bylaws were twenty pages, but in short:

“The highest ecclesiastical tribunal of the Church shall be the Leadership Board. (LB) The LB shall be the express and final arbiter of ecclesiastical polity, Christian doctrine, membership discipline, questions of Church property, and shall make the final decision with respect to any other matter that shall arise concerning the Church, its internal workings, and its governance in every respect.

The Senior Pastor (SP) shall be leader of the LB, the Church congregation, the Church staff, all Church organizations, all Church ministries, and all Church Advisory Committees.

The SP shall be President of the Corporation and shall be in charge of all ministries of the Church. The SP shall be responsible for hiring a staff and determine their salary and benefits. The SP shall be vested with authority to terminate any staff member with or without cause.

Any person deemed by the LB to be causing, about to cause, or capable of causing disruption, may be ejected summarily.

We confirm our belief in and adopt as our Statement of Faith, the BFM 2000, or any subsequent revision of the BFM 2000.”


I visited his church in 2005. He was quite the entertainer. The whole service was about him, and his problems of playing golf.

I looked around at laughing people and thought they’re frogs in boiling water and don’t know it.

I thought if Jesus came back with a whip, he would say ‘You’ve made my Father’s House a YMCA!’

The climax of the service ended with a cheer instigated by Harbor for the chiropractor that demonstrated with weights how she relaxed his neck so he would keep his head down when he hit the ball.

Before he preached the second service, I met him in the hall and told him he was the only one that could handle this situation.

I handed him one small piece of paper of the 700 I had in my hand.

The paper said:
1. Leadership Board dissolved the Colleyville Senior Adult Bible Explorers Class on 11-6-05.
2. The teacher was fired because he would not promise to always support the Senior Pastor.
3. However, about 50 long time members have continued to meet with their fired teacher.
4. Consequently, they have been denied Sunday school literature and a Christmas party.
5. If the Board rules their disobedience is “disruption”, they may be ejected for the church.
6. Is it sad the new bylaws prevent anyone standing for them? Outsider, Rex Ray 11-27-05.

During the three minutes we met, he said, “I know this man. I read his letter in the Baptist Standard. He is evil!”

He handed the paper to one of his three ‘bodyguards?’ and said, “Take care of this!”

I was escorted past a policeman to my car and told never to come back.

It was reported when Harbor started to preach a few minutes later, he was so angry he could only stutter…saying he had been accosted.

About a month later on the coldest day of 2006, the class was locked out of the church and the next day the ‘four’ received their ‘walking papers’ saying no reason was given to save embarrassment.

Most of the class moved their membership.

‘nuff said’ said, “…the creeps won’t try to take the sheep to the shearers…by a wolf dressed like a shepherd.”

Your statement reminds me our church hasn’t had pledge cards since I was a charter member in 1944.

Several of us said we would not sign one, but it was reported to be a big success. The ‘pitch’ given was the Finance Team (Yeah, that’s been changed from Committee) needed to know, but it leaked out the pastor said in general people tended to give more.

He’s probably right, but is that the purpose of a loving Shepard, or a fleecier.

You said, you wondered if there was a special seminary out there with courses in ‘sheep shearing’.

Harbor set a record of getting his Doctors Degree in the shortest time at…you guest it—SWBTS.

He’s been quoted as saying, “I’ve been trained how to run a church.”

Anonymous said...

Rex: I disagree that we can replace Christ with the Bible, when the only way we can know the true Christ is found in the God breathed Bible.

Rex Ray said...

Debbie,
I said, “Christ did not come to replace the law but to fulfill the law through his eyes, his mind, and his heart. The 2000 confession replaced Christ with the Bible which in my opinion was a very poor swap.”

I agree with you in your saying, “I disagree that we can replace Christ with the Bible…”

You could portray the same truth by saying, ‘I AGREE that we CANNOT replace Christ with the Bible…’

Perhaps if you put my words in quotes, you would see we’re saying the same thing.

I further disagree with the 2000 confession since it is made higher than the Bible by it being promoted as “Our doctrinal guideline.” Real Baptist have no doctrinal guideline other than the Bible.

oc said...

Before I even ask, know that I believe the Bible innerrant, without error...


Is the Bible all that is of Christ?
Even the book of John says that all the books in the world can't contain what Jesus did in His worldly ministry.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit can write more (pesonally) on the hearts of those who love Jesus?

What can the Lord do in the hearts of men? Is his power limited to the printed Word?

Who has the authority to limit God's revelation to the individual?

Is the Bible the end and all of the ministry of Jesus?

Is God limited to the words printed in the Bible?

Just some questions I am wrestling with.

oc.

Anonymous said...

.
"I'm amazed at the number of people here who are using the media stereotype of Driscoll and Mars Hill to base their judgment...rather than actually checking out what he has said..."

Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ReallySad1

http://www.prayingheart.wordpress.com

.

Anonymous said...

Some thoughts on a Sabbath morning:

OC asked the following:

Is the Bible all that is of Christ?
Even the book of John says that all the books in the world can't contain what Jesus did in His worldly ministry.
COMMENT: No, Christ is the Living Word, the LOGOS, in existence before the inspired writings were collected and compiled: in existence from all eternity to all eternity.


Could it be that the Holy Spirit can write more (pesonally) on the hearts of those who love Jesus?
COMMENT: we do not know the 'limits' or 'exclusions' of the workings of God; we cannot understand His Ways; His Ways are far above our ways. There are some things we may not know.


What can the Lord do in the hearts of men? Is his power limited to the printed Word?
COMMENT: The Lord can do what men invite Him to do. He does not 'force' Himself on us; but if we ask sincerely, He will come and change our hearts. God will make His Home in the hearts of the humble.
The 'printed word' was a creation born out of the inspiration of writers by the Holy Spirit.
No, God is NOT LIMITED by His creation.
But, if the scriptures are taken 'into the heart' then they can help a man to avoid sin.


Who has the authority to limit God's revelation to the individual?
COMMENT: no creature can do this, no entity on earth can do this'


Is the Bible the end and all of the ministry of Jesus?
COMMENT: no, but for some, it may be the beginning, as it prompts them to seek Him in their lives.
For many in past centuries who never saw the 'Bible' as we buy it in a Christian book store, there were the teachings that came down through the centuries that told of Christ.
For these people, the 'word' may have been spread orally and by the witness of believers. The Holy Spirit was sent as a Guide before the scriptures were written, printed, compiled, and made available centuries after Christ to the people in their vernacular languages. There is much confusion over the 'details' but the core teachings (of the words and actions of the Lord Christ) have survived and are available to all mankind today.


Is God limited to the words printed in the Bible?
COMMENT: NO. How could this be?
Who would foster such a belief?
And why?

Just some questions I am wrestling with.

COMMENT: Just a few thoughts from an anonymous Christian on a Sunday morning. Hope it helped a little.
I encourage all to consider these questions and form their own comments to help oc. :)

CHRISTIAN

Rex Ray said...

Debbie,
I see now maybe your comment was agreeing with me instead of disagreeing.

Oh my, I may be getting too ‘thin skinned’ from working on our Church Constitution.

I’ve been ‘jumpy ‘ever since we agreed on two pages…I missed a meeting and it went to four. Sounds like a long winded preacher that forgot his point and keeps trying to find it when the real rule is KISS.

Anonymous said...

to REX RAY, who wrote: 'Harbor set a record of getting his Doctors Degree in the shortest time at…you guest it—SWBTS.

He’s been quoted as saying, “I’ve been trained how to run a church.”'

Wow. A true son of the conservative resurgency, this 'Dr.' Harbor.
Was it ACTUALLY Southwestern Baptiest Theological Seminary he went to, or is there another
SWBTS that stands for
"Shearing While Beating The Sheep"
????????

What is going on in the seminary to produce this monster?
If HE is the type they're turning out: they can close SWBTS and have this guy cloned.

The Cloning of Dr. Harbor.
A nightmare from the dark side.

Well, the church survived him, probably not intact, and YOU helped, Rex, I'm sure. But tell me, what kind of 'replacement' did the church find and where did they find her, I mean 'him'?

'Nuff'

Anonymous said...

Hi Debbie,

You cannot contain the 'Logos', the Living Word, within the scriptures.

The Scriptures can lead you to Him. The Scriptures point towards Him. The Scriptures contain His Teachings. But HE is more than words on a page. And the Holy Spirit is more than what He has inspired.

No limitations can we place on the ways God comes to us in our lives,

CHRISTIAN

Rex Ray said...

OC and CHRISTIAN,
I enjoyed your excellent thoughts on this Sunday morning.

Our purpose in life is to know more of God so we can enjoy Him more throughout eternity.

Are we not told to “see the lilies” and ‘study the ant’?

BTW OC,
You said, “Before I even ask, know that I believe the Bible innerrant, without error…”

Have you given the ‘code word’ to be accepted in the “one of us” crowd? Will you be in trouble for the spelling since some have made it sacred? You forgot to say, ‘…without mixture of error…’ as the BFM states. And do you believe the Bible with or without “illusions” as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states?

Ut oh, it just got cloudy, but ‘battles’ are when seeking truth. I’m glad they did away with the ‘stake’.

Rex Ray said...

‘Nuff’,
If your were a man, err...woman, I’d blow you a kiss.

Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

Blogger Vince said...

I think Ptr. Driscoll doesn't mean so much to what he said. However, let me point this out concerning Autocratic rulings of the Church.

With all my conviction, I really do not support nor believe that full autocracy of the pastor inside the church would help the propagation of the gospel except probably with those very rare cases.

I also don't believe with the "total" congregational churches like some of the traditional "Southern Baptist Churches" (in our case in the Philippines. I still believed that pastors were called to lead, and not to be lead just because the congregation did not vote for it.

I believe that as pastors, we still have to listen to our members sometimes especially when there are two or more people who have been telling us about a possible problem. I think the key here is love and respect for our members, especially to our church leaders.

Well, I am talking about the governance in the church and not the doctrinal part of the church, just to be clear.

I believe that the best thing to reconcile autocracy and congregationalism is the mixture of both. Let our church leaders do their respective ministries and guiding them to do it right.

I do hope that people reading this blog will get at least the idea of what I am talking about. God bless to your ministries.

More things on:
www.thedisciplers.com
www.lighthouseresource.blogspot.com

Ramesh said...

PROPHEZEI: Ten Things The Ninth Commandment Isn’t by Kevin D. Johnson

"However, if you study the Bible closely enough, you’ll find that remaining silent when you should speak the truth is as much a matter of false witness as lying about your neighbor. Saying nothing when what is really called for is absolute repentance on the part of a brother or officer of the church is also condemned by the Ninth Commandment. Appearing and standing for the truth are also required by those who not only value justice but seek to carry out the commands of God fully.
...
The following do not qualify as bearing false witness:

1. Disagreeing strongly with a minister or denominational leader in person or in a blog post
2. Questioning the commitment or intentions of an elder
3. Wanting to get to the bottom of a matter
4. Outlining alternate ways to understand or do something
5. Calling a minister out to repent for his sin publicly
6. Calling a pastor out for his errant beliefs or opinions
7. Questioning the wisdom of a pastor
8. Detailing why a pastor’s position on a matter is just flat crazy
9. Demonstrating the unorthodox method or theology of a pastor’s predilections
10.Defending your own person from the illegitimate or fanciful claims of someone who carries the public trust"

gcwiv said...

Wade,

Are the SBC Missionaries who are anonymous due to working in middle eastern countries cowards? Should they come out?

"The Bonhoeffers, Luthers, Signers of the Declaration of Independence all faced certain death."

What makes these missionaries any different?

Anonymous said...

When the SBC leadership comes more into focus as the monster it is, then the people will sign their names in opposition to the monster.

The point of determination to sign is that point where one has
HAD ENOUGH. At that point, the only important thing for a human to do is to stand up, even if that person is the only one standing, and say 'ENOUGH'.

Maybe, like the Holocaust of the Six Million: where it is now the custom not to say 'six million died'; but rather: one died, and one died, and one died, and so on . . .. "
SO THAT WE RESPECT THOSE WHO ARE DESTROYED AS INDIVIDUALS, EACH ONE, A HUMAN BEING.

And so it is that the SBC may have to destroy you 'one', by 'one', by 'one, by 'one' and so on, until the numbers of those who STAND UP AND SAY 'ENOUGH' with their human integrity intact OVERWHELM the SBC bullies.

And what remains from the conflagration or destruction of those who stand up in overwhelming numbers?
Perhaps, from their ashes, like a phoemix, the SBC will rise again, cleansed of the powerful bullies, the members themselves cleansed of fear and cowardice, to return to the faith of the ancestors who came here to worship in freedom, without having to pay 'tribute' to a leadership in order to be called 'Southern Baptists'.

The ancestors are watching and weeping.

And your children?
Think about your children, the next time you go to kow-tow to an SBC idol, and then do what is right.
Your children are watching and learning.
Teach them.

Anonymous said...

EVIL ?

"Evil is intentionally behaving -- or causing others to act – in ways that demean,
dehumanize, harm, destroy, or kill innocent people. This behaviorally-focused definition makes
an agent of agency responsible for purposeful, motivated actions that have a range of negative
consequences to other people. "

My goodness, could there be EVIL present in the SBC leadership?

REAL EVIL?

INSPIRED BY SATAN?

just wondering . . . . .

oc said...

Thanks Rex and Christian.
I'll ponder further.

oc said...

Rex.
The answer is yes. I know the all the right words.

oc.

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine with 3 kids was laid off from SBTS this week.

I am hoping an praying that Dr. Mohler will show leadership and take a big cut in pay.

Lydia

Anonymous said...

And one more thing...his wife does not work, as is taught at SBTS, so they have nothing to fall back on and will have no health insurance.

Anonymous said...

Wade, I've been reading for over two years and have a lot of admiration for you and what you've done. That said, I have two things to say.

First, as someone who has listened to nearly every driscoll sermon for the past 3 years, I seriously doubt the accuracy of the New York times quotations. The New York times is widely known as one of the most biased publications in the US, comparable to Newsweek, and we all know how well Newsweek handled the issue of Christians and Gays in the US. I would strongly encourage you to contact Driscoll and ask him directly. He is a very humble man. Not too long ago John MacArthur criticized Mark in a public forum without going to him directly first; Mark later publicly said he wished John would have called him first b/c he would have gladly flown down to LA to take the input in person.

Second, many on this comment thread have said Mark uses profanity in the Pulpit. This is not true. As most know, the accusation comes from a line in one of Donald Miller's books, "Blue Like Jazz". Mark continually addresses this issue in his own book, "Confessions." In 3 years and a few hundred hour long plus sermons, I have never heard Mark use profanity. The closest anyone could ever get to accusing him of being even "obscene" would be using something from his Song of Solomon series.

Mark is a man's man, a theologian's theologian, and a missionary's missionary. This is why he has drawn such a large following of 20 something males like myself and garnerd the respect of such men as John Piper and Tim Keller who both have regular phone conversations with Mark (he states this in his a few of his sermons).

Thank you for all you do. I am a former Journeyman who has greatly benefited from your efforts to allow dissent.

Scott Lacy
Arkansas

Anonymous said...

LYDIA wrote:
'A friend of mine with 3 kids was laid off from SBTS this week.

I am hoping an praying that Dr. Mohler will show leadership and take a big cut in pay.

And one more thing...his wife does not work, as is taught at SBTS, so they have nothing to fall back on and will have no health insurance."


SURELY, being a Christian facility, there was a fair severance pay and an offer to pay the COBRA health insurance coverage for a while?

If not, why not?

That is just basic decency in any organization. But it should be a 'given' in a Christian organization which models itself on the mercy of God.

Anonymous said...

SCOTT LACY said, 'and we all know how well Newsweek handled the issue of Christians and Gays in the US'

Actually, no, we all don't know.
So how did Newsweek handle this issue? Hopefully it made the Christians look like something better than the usual fundamentalist gay-bashers that are the stereotypical view of the media. Or not?

Anonymous said...

In the oil field there are positions known as "pushers." (Not the druggie kind, but a real job of boss of a crew.)

A pusher pushes his men to get the job done.

Pastors, however, are not called anything remotely similar to pushers in the Bible.

They are leaders. They go first.

So let's see Mark Driscoll go first in Christlike behavior before we follow his leadership.

It sounds like just another case of putting pragmatism first. If it works, do it. If not, don't. After all, we don't need a sovereign God. We can push.

Linda

Anonymous said...

Well, with all these references, especially Lydia's, I had to go and check the Mars Hill blog.

I did, and they have an entire section dedicated to sexual issues. There is a link to the site the Lyida mentioned.

I have mixed emotions about all this. I agree that the church should help people negotiate the issues that are presented to them by today's society. If certain areas are taboo in the church, people will venture out on their own and may get bad advice.

But on the other hand, in reading the Mars Hill site and the link to the so-called nympho group, I wonder if it's something they should be doing.

Just because we CAN address and issue, and that we should in some context, does not mean that all contexts are appropriate.

This same issue was raised when Thomas Nelson came out with that Bible for teenage girls (I forget the name). It had the text of scripture, but mixed in were make up tips and dating tips etc. The issue was whether this was wrong since it was designed to appeal to teenage girls and apparently did. (Note: Both of my teenage girls think it's cheesy).

I commented at the time that we could print the text of the Bible on toilet paper with the knowledge and understanding that we would get people to read the Bible who might never read it.

All of this stuff falls into the same category. At some point, as they say in the media business, you "jump the shark" (an episode from Happy Days when Fonzie was water skiing and jumped over a shark - thus proving how bad the show had become - it had to reach for such cheesy plots).

It seems to me that there is much in this world to do, many questions to answer and many people to reach.

But our time and effort might be better spent holding ourselves with a little more dignity.

The faith is not held in high regard in this country and in the West in general today not because it has failed to be "real" (much as that is said), but because it is not seen as serious in the academy, the halls of government and other places of influence.

Becoming more accessible and answering the lowest of questions (rather than life and death or pressing questions) - such as "can my wife and I have anal sex" (yes, that is the question) is NOT the way to get there.

I found the website cheesy, and had a hard time imagining Paul writing a letter from a Roman prison to believers in Phillipi about the questions that were asked.

Anyway, I had to write this after what I just saw.

I did not object so much to the nympho site as it was just a group of Christian women talking about how much they loved their husbands etc. I saw no porno on this site, but I confess that I did not explore it for long at all.

That website is put together by a group of women.

Mars Hill's website is a website put together by a church.

And it's ironic to think of their name, what Paul said at Mars Hill, and then to go see the questions they choose to address.

Somehow I can't see Paul debating the Greek philosophers of his day on the virtues of various physical practices they might have engaged in.

Paul wanted to be taken seriously, and was dealing with other matters.

Louis

Rex Ray said...

To Whom It May Concern:
Why was the “Trail of Blood” by J.M. Carroll the pride and joy of SWBTS for many years ‘thrown out the window’?

The (CR) took over, and fundamentalists could not have anyone cast doubts on ‘Inerrancy’ since Carroll wrote:

“The Apostle John, according to history, was boiled in a great cauldron of oil. Some of the bishops or pastors began to assume authority not given them in the New Testament. They began to claim authority over other and smaller churches. They, with their many elders, began to lord it over God’s heritage (III John 9).”

‘Horrors! How dare Carroll say history records John being martyred (as Jesus said). That would mean (III John) was not written by the Apostle but by an Elder (as recorded). And insult to injury for Carroll to say John was the ‘bad guy’ in (III John 9) is outrageous! Take his picture down from SWBTS and burn his book!’

How much blood soaked ground crying ‘remember us Baptists’ has been trampled by the ‘boots’ of Inerrancy?

Tom Parker said...

Rex Ray:

Those that wanted to takeover the convention found the greatest tool in using the Bible. It was sadly, a very effective campaign tactic. It is the kiss of death for someone to be accused of not believing the Bible. It is just as fatal as calling someone a "Liberal'. The issue of inerrancy turned Christian brothers and sisters against each other in the most horrible ways. It destroyed people's lives and ministries. But they were just considered collateral damage.

If this issue of inerrancy was so important why was it not included in the 2000 BF&M. I really would love to hear a coherent answer to that question.

The CR ruined a once great Denomination and sadly to this day people can not see it.

Anonymous said...

Wade- Thank you for making the attempt to contact Pr. Mark.

To anonymous:

First, why anonymous?

Second, you are correct; not everyone is familiary with how Newseek handled the issue. Dr. Albert Molher does a good review on his blog; you'll have to look back a couple of weeks though.

Simply put, Newsweek tried to make the Bible look like it supported homosexual activity and portrayed present day evangelicals as dogmatic, judgemental biggots.

Scott
Arkansas

Rex Ray said...

Tom Parker,
Amen. You nailed it!

Due to the confusion, misunderstanding, arguments, broken fellowship, and abandoning the ‘main thing’, I hope someday Inerrancy will go back where it came from—the Smiling Lips of the devil.

Anonymous said...

Tom Parker:

Inerrancy is the same thing as truth without any mixture of error. Not errant.

You may not agree with that statement, but that is what most conservatives believe. So, when the BFM was revised in the year 2000, most conservatives did not see any need to revise the BFM to use the term. I don't think anyone made that recommendation (to my knowledge).

The CR was never really about chaning the BFM. It was about seeing that the denomination's confession was believed by denominational employees.

The moderates did not believe that anyone had the right to question what any denominational employee believed. That was between the employee and God.

You asked why the revision was not made. I guess that's the best reason I know of. I would be interested in hearing any other suggestions.

I wonder what would have happened if the moderates had never formed any political machinery to defeat the CR. If they had just let CR candidates win. Not run anyone. But kept coming to the convention and kept serving anyway. In fact, I assume most of them have stayed in their churches etc.

I am not saying that it was wrong for them to organize and promote candidates and such. That certainly was their right and they worked hard at it. John Baugh gave a significant amount of money to try and elect Dan Vestal and Ms. Crumpler. I believe that he left a significant amount of money to Baptists Committed of Texas or some such group.

I wonder what would have happened if they never started the CBF. They just kept serving and going to church.

The older moderates in the CBF are very much like the conservatives in the SBC in many ways culturally. The younger crowd in the CBF is not at all like the SBC, culturally or theologically. Cecil Sherman has recently made some interesting statements about the Baptist Seminary at Richmond, showing the difference between the older and younger moderates.

I realize that this is a very late comment on this post, but I would be very interested in your and Rex Ray's predictions on what is going to happen to the CBF and the moderate movement in the SBC.

I recently saw an article written by the head of the so-called Baptist Center for Ethics, which was started by a former employee of the Christian Life Commission after Richard Land was elected to lead that agency. The leader of the Baptist Center for Ethics in a recent article called the moderates "feckless." I thought that was interesting because he was and is a moderate.

Since you and Rex Ray did not support the CR, I guess you were moderates.

It's just that I am finding a lot of former moderates these days not wanting to call themselves moderates (even though they voted for and supported moderates causes and candidates during the CR).

What do you see for the CBF and the moderates, generally, in the days ahead?

Louis

wadeburleson.org said...

Scott,

Thanks for the information. I have now called twice, and will refrain from saying anything further until I hear from Pastor Mark.

Hopefully, he will tell me the NY Times is a misquote.

Blessings,

Wade

Anonymous said...

Proud of you, Wade.
You are an honest person, willing to give someone a chance to explain.

:)

Tom Parker said...

Louis:

The 2000 BF&M is a creed and has cost many people their jobs if they do not sign of on it.

We never had creeds before, but we do now.

You said to me--"Since you and Rex Ray did not support the CR, I guess you were moderates."

I do not like labels, so please do not try to label me.

Labels are kisses of death and marginalization for many.

I am a Christian and that should be enough said.

Rex Ray said...

Lewis,
Like the lawyer you are, you did not refute the facts why Carroll’s ‘The Trail of Blood’ was dishonored by the CR.

You said, “Since you [Tom Parker] and Rex Ray did not support the CR, I guess you were moderates.”

See, instead of refuting facts, you attacked the witnesses with the slanderous word “moderates”. That’s smart lawyer tactics.

Lewis, would you tell me when and where did ‘moderates’ announce they were moderates? It never happened did it? In the religious world, the term is a cut down meaning new liberal ideas. Bummer!

You say, “Inerrancy is the same thing as truth without any mixture of error. Not errant.”

We’ve been over this before and you’re still ‘blind’ to the word “mixture”.

Do you see “mixture” as an illusion, because you skip it in your interpretation?

Anonymous said...

Rex:

Sorry, I did not read your story about the book. I was talking mainly about Tom Parker's question. He wanted to know why the BFM wasn't revised, and I took a stab at it.

You are right. We don't agree on the whether inerrancy and truth without any mixture of error mean the same thing.

"Moderate" was not a term invented by the Conservatives. It was a term the Moderates used for themselves. They came up with that because they did not like being called "Liberals."

I am still waiting to hear the Moderate recipe for understanding the Bible. I am very interested to understand what you mean by that should you choose to explain further.

Louis

Tom Parker said...

Louis:

Does it trouble you at all that the 2000 BF&M was required to be signed by missionaries, employees, etc. or be terminated.

To my understanding Baptists have never placed this requirement on its members.

Even if a person had one concern about the BF&M and could not in good conscience sign it they were terminated.

It is definitely a new day in the SBC and in my opinion not a good one.

As always I want to give credit to where it belongs--The CR.

Three things have driven the CR:
P--Power
C--Control
M--Money

Absolute Control
Absolute Power
Total Control of all the money

Power and Control are mighty dangerous items in the wrong hands.

Rex Ray said...

Louis,
You said, “Moderate was not a term invented by the Conservatives. It was a term the Moderates used for themselves.”

Your statement is only half true as showed by you missing the question of telling the time and place that Moderates named themselves. Why did you not answer?

I’ll tell you why—because they never did. Newspapers made up the term in referring to those against the CR.

You said, “I’m still waiting to hear the Moderate recipe for understanding the Bible.”

I guess you missed my answer as you missed ‘The Trail of Blood’ question twice.

‘Moderates’ recipe for understanding the Bible is explained in the BFM 1963.

Maybe you don’t know because the CR/BFM 2000 removed it. Here it is:

“The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”

My paraphrased is, ‘The Bible is to be interpreted through the eyes of Jesus.’

My summery of your replies: Lawyers ask questions but dodge answering them.

D.R. said...

Rex Ray,

Do you know the exact reason why the statement, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" was added to the 1963 BF&M?

Anonymous said...

from PREAMBLE to 1963 BF&M

"Baptists are a people who profess a living faith.
This faith is rooted and grounded in Jesus Christ who is "the same yesterday, and today, and forever."
Therefore, the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.'

Rex Ray said...

Thanks Anonymous,
For answering D.R.

You quote the ‘1963’ as saying, “Therefore, the sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures.”

This statement was deleted by the ‘2000’ and rewritten as: “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.”

It’s not nice to be sarcastic , but would anyone want to explain what “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ” means, and how that is better than what was deleted?

Rex Ray said...

On November 24, 1993, Marv Knox, editor of the Baptist Standard, wrote a 1,095 word editorial. I reduced his words to 269, which he thanked me. The subject was:

Baptists Differences Revolve around Priesthood of the Believer.

Since Adam and Eve, all people are sinners. Each person is born with a soul that relates him directly to God. We have a free will to accept or reject God’s love. No Christian needs a ‘go-between’ but is a priest who can approach God with needs, repentance, and understanding.

The easy half of individual priesthood is privilege. Who wouldn’t feel proud to relate directly to God?
The other half is responsibility. The emphasis that different Baptists place on responsibility is WHAT DIVIDES BAPTISTS.

Some emphasize that “me and Jesus” are sufficient to make all decisions. They discount the value of the Christian community by being the Lone Ranger who rides off alone with God. They say, ‘INDIVIDUAL PRIESTHOOD IS ALL THAT COUNTS’.

Fundamentalist assume Christians will take advantage of Jesus’ goodwill and ignore responsibility. They think that signing a paper of doctrine will insure responsibility.
Instead of the theological wall preventing sin from entering, IT CAPTURES THOSE WITHIN. They say, ‘PRIESTHOOD OF BELIEVERS with majority rule’.

Nicked-named moderates or real conservatives believe both extremes miss the mark. We exist in a community of believers, and we’re to serve and be accountable to them as (Hebrews 10:25) “Not forsaking our own assembling together…but encouraging one another.”
Christ makes Christians new creatures and the Holy Spirit teaches and guides more than any theological wall of laws. They say, ‘PRIESTHOOD OF ALL BELIEVERS’ will work together to win the world for Christ.

Confessions of faith may be theologically accurate, but if they are coerced, they become creeds that imprison souls and deny spiritual freedom.

Rex Ray said...

Oops—what was I thinking?
I was copying the date 11-24-93, but not realizing I had made a typo (9) should have been (0).

The year should have been 2003 because the BFM wasn’t changed until 2000.

I'll make the excuse I was sleepy.

Rex Ray said...

A story with the three priesthoods (INDIVIDUAL, BELIEVERS, and ALL BELIEVERS)in action.

Four 15-year-old friends were fishing in a creek at a public park.

A couple of families came.

“GET OUT OF HERE! WE’RE FISHING HERE!”

I said, “No; we got here first.”

“SON, (5-year-old) HIT HIM IN THE HEAD WITH THIS STICK, AND IF HE HURTS YOU, I’LL BEAT HIM UP!”

I’m looking at nothing but my cork, and when a rotten stick breaks on my head, I yelled, “HA! THAT DIDN’T HURT!”

“Son, here is a big green stick.”

My concentration shifted from the cork to the stick and my twin brother and friends were gone.

I joined them in a hurry.

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

WONDERFUL story, Rex. :)
L's

Tom Parker said...

D. R.:
You said to Rex Ray:

Do you know the exact reason why the statement, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" was added to the 1963 BF&M?

Do you know the answer?
Why was the above not good enough?
Why the change in 2000?
My thanks in advance.

Louis:

May I ask you again:

Louis:

Does it trouble you at all that the 2000 BF&M was required to be signed by missionaries, employees, etc. or be terminated?

To my understanding Baptists have never placed this requirement on its members.

Even if a person had one concern about the BF&M and could not in good conscience sign it they were terminated.

My thanks.

Rex Ray said...

Tom Parker,
Where are our accusers?

Back on topic of “Authoritarianism”, I’ll ask if this is an example.

For over a year in the nine ‘back and forth’ versions of writing a proposal of our church constitution, the BFM 1963 was under “Beliefs” between the pastor and me even though his choice was 2000.

Reaching the state of ‘stalemate’ on bylaws, the deacons were included on the ‘committee’. In our first meeting, the constitution was agreed upon.

I missed a deacon’s meeting, and at our second ‘bylaws’ meeting, I was handed a revision of the constitution “Beliefs”.

In the two hundred word “Beliefs” the 1963 was deleted and in its place was over eight hundred words that covered Scriptures, God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Man, Salvation, the Church, and the Second Coming.

The interesting part is “Beliefs” was just about a duplication of the BFM 2000.

The question: Was the “Priesthood of all Believers” cancelled by authoritarianism in being blindsided?

Our retired pastor is critically ill. In the hospital, I told him he had to get well so he could vote on the bylaws.

He replied, “I think I’d rather stay sick.”

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Baptists have discovered creeds, not as 'statements of faith' but in how creeds can be useful to control each other.

It's a shame.

It was better before.
It is a case of 'less' is 'more'.

Bryan Laramore said...

This is a great post, Wade. Good stuff here. Thanks for reading, thinking, and posting on this.

A SWBTS Student

D.R. said...

Rex Ray, Anonymous Replier, and Tom Parker,


I apologize that I didn't make a more prompt response. Things have become hectic on my end in the past few days. Allow me to now respond.

First, in response to Tom Parker, I do believe I know the answer, as attested by one 1963 committee member and three historians. My contention is that there is a false view out there, (which you have perpetuated, having possibly been unaware of the facts), that the reasoning why the statement, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" has to do with, or was written with a established view toward interpretational freedom or freedom of conscience (and that interpretational freedom has something to do with the Doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers - but I don't have time to deal with that topic - for that see Timothy George's article on the historic view of the Priesthood of All Believers).

What I do want to present is that three historians (one liberal and two conservative) have shown that the statement, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" was written into the BF&M 1963 in order to specifically deal with the questions raised by the controversy over Ralph Elliot's "The Message of Genesis," and other articles and books written in that time period which utilized higher criticsm methods to shed doubt on the literal historicity of the Biblical events.

Jeff Pool (a liberal historian), author of Sacred Mandates of Conscience (Smyth and Helwys, 1997), along with L. Russ Bush and Tom Nettles, authors of In Baptists and the Bible (Broadman and Holman, 1999), contend that the impetus for this additon to the BF&M came from the need to answer those who taught that Adam and Eve were not real persons and that the story of Jonah was a fable, both events that Jesus spoke of as historic occurrences, and not from a need to instill further measures on soul competency, freedom of conscience, or The Priesthood of All Believers.

"Garth Pybas, one of the last surviving members of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message committee," was interviewed in 1999 and again in 2002, recounting the reasoning for the inclusion of the new statement. Pybas claimed that this statement was inserted in order to stem the tide of those who claimed the OT did not represent historic events, especially those that Jesus Himself seemed to assert were indeed.

For Hobbs and the committee, according to Pybas and these aforementioned scholars, the sentence, "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ" was never meant to be viewed as having anything to do with the Priesthood of All Believers or Soul Competency. Thus linking these ideas is directly in contradiction with the facts. Instead, it dealt directly with those who would make Jesus a liar by asserting that the Book of Jonah was not fable or that Adam and Eve were not real individuals.

Pybas recounts that, "Elliott said a lot of [narratives] were just fairy tales, myths...And yet Jesus quoted them. Well, Jesus, the divine Son of God, had to know. I don't think he'd have quoted something that wasn't true. And that's why Dr. Hobbs suggested putting it in there."

Additionally, a good argument can be made historically for not adding these words in the first place. Never in any Baptist Confession previously or (new) since that time have these words been found. It was a phrase created to deal with a specific controversy, which in 1962 was clearly that which was brought about by the Ralph Elliot situation. To take it out of context is to invoke a postmodern "reader response" criteria, which is historically inaccurate and ethically questionable at best.

I believe people deserve to know the facts about this phrase. Even Bruce Prescott, a major critic of the BF&M, who has slammed Pybas for his comments on this (much to the chagrin of his family who demanded he remove a post about Pybas from his blog - which Prescott refused to do), has failed to prove Pybas a liar, or to prove Jeff Pool, L. Russ Bush, and Tom Nettles to be wrong.

I hope you will consider this evidence and honor the 1963 BF&M Committee by no longer presenting your opinions about the inclusion of this statement as their intentions. Clearly, in the face of this evidence, that is not the case.

Anonymous said...

Baloney.
BF&M 2000 is a control device, used as a club to beat up on those who don't conform.
How do we know this?
How many people have been harmed by the heavy-handed Patterson?

Get real.

Anonymous said...

Wade Burleson said:

"Hopefully, he will tell me the NY Times is a misquote."

It has been a couple of months.
You never got a call back, did you?
It was not a misquote.
And his comments were not taken out of context as some have suggested.
That's what is scary, and really sad.
You can actually watch and listen to those quotes on these video clips:
http://www.youtube.com/user.

Truth and Grace said...

I hope it's not too late to comment on your original post regarding Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll.

I have been doing much research on MHC, spiritual/church abuse, controlling and Narcissistic leaders in the church, etc… I am putting it all together so that people can see at a glance either what they’re getting into at MHC as they begin attending or consider joining as members.

Also, I hope my blog will be a place of validation and healing for those who have escaped the abuse of such an over-controlling system and leader at MHC.

Freedom4captives.wordpress.com is my blog exclusively about Mars Hill Church Abuse, yet general enough in some of my posts to be relevant to anyone who has been spiritually and psychologically abused.

As a mental health counselor and a survivor of spiritual abuse, I perceive many signs of cult like control/spiritual abuse: Controlling Pastor with “Yes Men” Elders; No Talk Rule; No Dissent; Emphasis on Submission/Obedience; Shunning of “Unrepentant” Former Members; Dis-fellowshipping Questioners/Critical Thinkers; By-Laws Removing Accountability of Pastor/Elders; Mind/Thought Control; Membership Covenant and Financial Giving Pledge Required; “Biblical” Counseling Only, if Referred Out, Must Sign Release Form (no confidentiality allowed); Kangaroo Court Firing of Two Elders Who Dared to Question; Extreme Gender Role Enforcement; Members Must Attend Accountability/”Community” Groups… Scary!

Preaching the Gospel is one thing, but abusing God’s sheep is NEVER acceptable, (see Ezek 34), despite some occasional good preaching. I say "occasional" because MD is very good at “beating the sheep,” laying heavy burdens on them that he himself, like the Pharisees of old, is unwilling to lift with his smallest finger!

Thank you for encouraging Christians to think, pray, read the Word and rely on the Spirit of Truth for themselves rather than allowing themselves to be beaten down by heavy handed religious leaders.

In Him always,
Freedom4Captives

Unknown said...

The problem with a lot of ministers today is that they think they have the same authority over their congregations that Moses had over the people of Israel. Not so. Jesus said in Matt 23 that his undershepherds were not to love high positions, or titles and were to be equals with the other brothers

Anonymous said...

absonjourney said:
I have listened to Driscoll for years and have found him to be intelligent, honest, and humble. The quote mentioned about breaking someone's nose was offered in jest. Further, the "sin of questioning" referred to was not asking questions but publicly disparaging leadership. Wade, I would suggest you do a little more homework on this subject...

Humble? Since the above-quoted writer was not there when this happened, perhaps we can excuse his ignorant rebuke of you and his knee-jerk defense of the perpetrator.

Driscoll was very serious when he made the comments. He clarified them by stating, in the same sermon, that if it were not for attorneys and CNN, he would go "Old Testament on" some of the leaders in his church. His tone was angry and mean-spirited. The sermon is readily available on YouTube.

Immediately after preaching the sermon, Driscoll walked off stage and fired two pastors of the church who had privately questioned his proposal to strip the entire counsel of elders of their votes, and consolidate his authority as the New York Times reported.

Although Driscoll's church still has so-called "elders" - they were all effectively stripped of their authority at the time of the firings and their authority to vote has never been restored. Because the church bylaws were also changed at the time, guess who is the only person who can restore the elders' voting authority? No one is holding their breath.

Misusing the Pulpit to Silence Members
/

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 294 of 294   Newer› Newest»