Taylor Joy Responds to the recent developments at The Gospel Coalition involving Joe Carter, Tullian Tchividjian, C.J. Mahaney
Many people are responding to the recent developments with Tullian Tchividjian being booted from The Gospel Coalition (TGC), ridiculous comments and vitriol by Joe Carter, public spokesman of The Gospel Coalition, TGC’s support of and even promotion of C.J. Mahaney in his ministry efforts, despite the fact that he and the family of churches he presided over are under investigation for covering up and failure to report sex abuse crimes. One such person is Taylor Joy, a regular reader here.
Last night she shared with me a post she was going to put on her own blog and graciously gave me permission to post it here. Her voice resonates with mine. Let’s hear Taylor Joy share her thoughts on the matter. ~Julie Anne
Edited to add:
BREAKING: C.J. Mahaney issues public statement:
“Even with those constraints, however, let me be clear about this: I have never conspired to protect a child predator, and I also deny all the claims made against me in the civil suit.”
Why The Gospel Coalition – or at least Al Mohler and Company – Must Apologize
I read this exchange with Joe Carter of The Gospel Coalition, and my stomach sank. Carter seems completely oblivious to the culpability that members of TGC—heck, FOUNDERS of TGC!!!–have towards the Nate Morales abuse survivors.
Since he can’t seem to put the connections together, allow me to spell it out for him:
1) Carter claims that “TGC has no authority to get involved in matters at the local church level.”
REALLY? Well, apparently, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Ligon Duncan, and others didn’t get that memo. They are the face of TGC, and they’ve publically supported C.J. Mahaney since the civil lawsuit began.
Even better–Mahaney sat on the front speakers’ row at the Together 4 the Gospel conference. Sorry, when founding members of TGC support a local pastor–that’s an involvement! Like it or not, Mr. Carter, The Gospel Coalition **members** have been actively endorsing C.J. Mahaney for a long time, except for Tullian Tchividjian.
Oh, whoopsie–Tchividjian is not a member anymore, is he?
If TGC has no authority over the cover-up of Nate Morales’ abuse, then why were Mohler et al allowed to use Together 4 the Gospel slogans and stationary to support C.J. Mahaney? Or does TGC have no authority over T4G matters either?
2) Carter claims that many protestants want a hierarchical organization for the church, similar to Catholicism, but then claims that such a structure doesn’t exist, and that each church is autonomous.
Carter must have his head in the sand, because the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement promotes a different–but just as binding–type of authority structure:
The Neo-Calvinist crowd cannot promote such stringent authoritarianism in the home and the church, then claim that TGC has nothing to apologize for. If Mohler, Piper, and friends weren’t actively promoting that everyone submit to some figurehead above them, then parents of abused kids at Sovereign Grace wouldn’t have been programmed to submit to their pastor’s “authority,” and keep the abuse from the police. You can’t program “authority” into the hearts and minds of the sheep, then disavow any responsibility once the wolves come in.
3) Carter claims that TGC has already spoken out against child sexual abuse, and that its critics are saying it “wasn’t enough.” He refuses to make a statement in support of the victims, because he thinks critics will CONTINUE to say it wasn’t enough, unless TGC outright condemns Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Founding TGC members supported Mahaney, who was just revealed to be a bald-faced liar!! That was a slap in the face to every victim who had to endure the cover-up, and submit to their pastoral “authority!!” These victims and their parents believed the falsehood that GOD HIMSELF set up this type of authority, and if they didn’t SUBMIT, they were disobeying GOD, and where do you think they GOT THAT IDEA???
From YOU GUYS.
So. No. Speaking out against the amorphous idea of child abuse in general is not enough. It will never be enough. Your organization has specific sins to repent of:
1) Supporting Mahaney vocally, and publically, despite multiple witnesses to a HUGE cover-up of sexual abuse.
2) Teaching unBiblical hierarchical authority structures for the church and home, and even going so far as to imply that if a church member disagrees with these authority structures, he or she may not be saved. This created such a culture of fear that few were willing to break with the authority, and go to the police.
The Gospel Coalition needs to apologize. Publicly. Immediately. Now.
143 thoughts on “Why The Gospel Coalition – or at least Al Mohler and Company – Must Apologize”
Here’s something I just found while surfin’ the interwebz:
Calvin Beisner wrote a good article that explains some of the problems among new Calvinists and parses out this stuff about merging justification and sanctification.
Justification is like walking into court with God the Father sitting in the seat of judge. We are sinners and there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. When we become regenerate however, Jesus steps us and God sees us and says, “I see the Blood of my Son, and I declare you in right standing with Me because you are in Him” Jesus paid for our justification, once and for all, and it is something that we don’t lose. (God knows our hearts, so He knows up front who is going through the motions and is not really born again, though that is often not clear to us people in this life.) This is a once and done thing, and it is FORENSIC. God declares us righteous.
Luther saw sanctification as separate, and there are two parts to it as Tom explained. That first what Tom called “positional sanctification.” Beisner calls it “definitive.” This is when imputation takes place. Our sins are imputed on to Christ who became sin for us, and we are imputed with His righteousness, not because of any good we have done or will do or can do. It is an act of love on His part. Hallelujah!!!
Then comes this progressive sanctification, and that is a process of growth and change that flows from our changed hearts and lives. You don’t get to coast through this process. If all you did was sit back and coast because there was no such thing as human agency and you were powerless over sin and God did it all, we wouldn’t have many epistles, and they wouldn’t be very long. We are told to guard our hearts and to conform ourselves and to do what’s right. We are to have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness and to walk as children of the Light. If there was no agency involved on our part and it took no effort (“fear and trembling”), we wouldn’t need these admonishments.
We don’t operate under the Law of Sin and Death anymore, but we are translated into the Kingdom of God which operates under the Law of Love. The Law of Love, however is not one of lawlessness.
Click to access Rolesoffaith.pdf
Justification neither comprises nor is grounded on a renewal of our character or conduct, but definitive sanctification comprises, and progressive sanctification grows out of, just such a renewal. The initial renewal (“having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts”) is definitive sanctification; the ongoing renewal (“and those graces . . . stirred up, increased, and strengthened”) is progressive sanctification.
Beisner says this:
[A quietist is a religious mystic fixed on perfectionism via withdrawal from the world and a lot of quiet if not ecstatic contemplation. I also apologize to any Roman Catholics reading here because “Romanism” is seen as pejorative, though it is often used by Protestant theologians as it is here. Insert Roman Catholic Theology if you find this offensive. I don’t quote Beisner here to offend.]
I think that balance is the key and is the gist of what he concludes in the article. New Calvinism swings far to hard to the legalist side, and TT doesn’t. (Again, I haven’t read enough of his work to know what he believes, but the interviews that he did sound remarkably like my own perspective.)
Legalists collapse sanctifying faith into justifying faith without any distinction and so talk of an “active, living, obedient” faith in relation to justification without mentioning that it is a “resting” faith. Quietists collapse justifying faith into sanctifying faith without any distinction and so talk of a “resting” faith in relation to sanctification without mentioning an “active, living, obedient” faith.
If we conflate these two aspects of faith in either direction, we risk becoming either legalists on the one hand or quietists on the other. The former is deadly, equating with the false gospel of Romanism. The latter is debilitating, leading to practical antinomianism and long-term immaturity in the Christian life. But recognizing and preserving the distinction enables us to rest completely in the saving work of Christ at the same time that we work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).
But what they are all preaching is NOT progressive sanctification, it is PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION.
“all of our Bible training help us. Not as much as our reliance on the Holy Spirit helped us.”
I have interacted with few people full of Holy Spirit and I have to say my friend, Cindy is one of those few. (She will disagree, of course but it is true)
“Justification is like walking into court with God the Father sitting in the seat of judge. We are sinners and there is nothing that we can do to save ourselves. ”
This has always confused me because people were saved in the OT by faith. Some were even called righteous. And they were “sinners”.
“When we become regenerate however, Jesus steps us and God sees us and says, “I see the Blood of my Son, and I declare you in right standing with Me because you are in Him” ”
This is another area of disagreement between Cals and non Cals. Cals say that regeneration must proceed belief because of irresistible grace. In effect, God is forcing some to believe. So it is not really our decision or choice. We really don’t have anything to do with it because it was predetermined we would be regenerated.
“Jesus paid for our justification, once and for all, and it is something that we don’t lose. (God knows our hearts, so He knows up front who is going through the motions and is not really born again, though that is often not clear to us people in this life.) This is a once and done thing, and it is FORENSIC. God declares us righteous.””
I think we can turn away from it. I think we have the power to change our minds. The book of Hebrews seems to agree. We don’t lose our “justification”. It is there. We either believe it or not.
I see justification and sanctification as two different things but the true believer has both. You cannot have one with out the other. Because they believe/repent/faith they are justified (not even sure I like the word) but without sanctification it is meaningless. Living out the kingdom now is what Christ wanted.
When I became a teenager, I continued to follow the directives I received from my parents. Why? Because I loved them and did not wish to disappoint them. Tullian teaches that our obedience to the law comes not from the law itself, but because we have been redeemed by the love God has for us and we love him in return. So we are motivated to do that which pleases him and to not do what displeases him. And the law is a guide to what displeases him! That is not antinomian at all. And I think it reflects both human behavior and scripture.
There are many reasons why I think Calvin is monster and lied about God but here is especially some of his most grievous teaching from the Institutes, book 3, chapter 2 Section 11
“I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them.”
(Some of those ‘saved’ people might be reprobate because God decided.)
“Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption.”
(So God can make them feel like they are saved but al the time not really adopting them)
“Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them.”
(An INFERIOR operation of the Spirit? The reprobate looks elect, smells elect, thinks they ARE elect but were never adopted)
“Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.”
(Notice that God is doing all this. Not the reprobate because well, you have to be elected to salvation before the foundation of the world. Not the human.So the reprobate gets to “feel” like a believer here on earth but is destined for hell. Determinism is from the pit of Hell and lies about God. Calvin lied about God
Seriously guys. After something like that should we really take Calvin seriously at all?
In order to decode Calvinism: “grace,” “what Jesus has done,” and “gospel” are all code words for justification. Is sanctification powered by justification? Calvinism says yes, which means that justification is not finished. ( Regardless of how many times Tullian says “it is finished” ,that isn’t what he is really preaching.) Biblical sanctification is powered by regeneration, the new birth, not justification. Does Christ alone obey for you in sanctification? In reformed theology, He does, and this is the “radicality” that Tullian is preaching. In biblical sanctification a believer, as a new creation, co-labors with the Holy Spirit. What you think they are saying, and what they are actually saying, are two different things.
Lydia, Calvin’s god is breathtakingly cruel. The thought of God’s children, whom He created, reaching out to Him in love and repentence but being denied because God had decided to condemn them before they were ever even born makes no sense. Why would God, who sent his only begotten Son to save us on the cross, want to do that? I just don’t understand how Calvin could teach such a thing.
If Calvin is right then God does not care for me and He most certainly does not care about child victims of heinous crimes. If Calvin is right, I cannot really blame the humans who do the evil or protect evil because it was all determined. And worse, Christians can do evil because sinners sin and all sin is equal as we are all guilty of Adams sin that was imputed to all of us. So yelling at your dog and violating children is all the same. This is all part of His Sovereign plan to Glorify Himself. Because God wanting Glory is what creation was all about. His Sovereignty is all God cares about.
If Calvin were right then burning Servetus was glorifying to God because he was a heretic. The banishments, torture and imprisonment were Glorifying to God.
We would have to believe it was never about a loving relationship which requires free will to be real. We would have to believe it is all about force, dualism, determinism. An angry God that creates laws people cannot follow on purpose. (Why since He determined who would be saved and who wouldn’t before Adam even sinned)
I found I could not live with that. I have to believe we are responsible for what we believe, how we believe, what we do and don’t do. I have to believe we have not only have choices in the matter but responsibility and accountability for what we do here as the Kingdom of God here and now.
Joanna wrote, in part, “I did expect to be branded an idolater. Again, how dare you. I will not be coming back here. Ever.”
This breaks my heart. Prior to this, Lydia, Anne, and Christianagostic had sought to answer her questions. After this, Julie Anne, Cindy K, and Lydia did so again– but she was likelygone forever by then. I don’t know if her “you” was singular or collective, but only one commenter drove her away. I wish, dear commenter, that you’d take a deeper breath sometimes and let others answer when someone like Joanna works up the courage to post here. Think of this from the sidebar, perhaps: “Out of our wounds flow compassion, understanding, & grace. May we all be “wounded healers” who do no harm.”
“(An INFERIOR operation of the Spirit? The reprobate looks elect, smells elect, thinks they ARE elect but were never adopted)”
How could Calvin be sure of his standing?
I must confess in light of some of the comments related to the commenter Joanna and to Calvinists in general that I, as a Calvinist, am a little confused as to the purpose of this thread. Is it to try to discuss abuse in the church, or assert that every Calvinist (or perhaps in this thread I should derogatorily say “Calvinistas” or Calvinism’s “ilk”) is an abuser who preaches hate and has no concern for others? As I have grown older and learned about more denominations than the non-Calvinist one in which I grew up, I have been encouraged to find sincere followers of Christ in many denominations, and I believe that all of those who are sincerely Christian are my brothers and sisters in Christ, whether Arminian, Calvinist or something in between. So for those of you commenting who are Christian, please treat Calvinists like me with at least some respect, whether or not you agree with us. Many of us love Christ and our fellow people too. And we do not support abuse in the church. It is true that I disagree with much of this blog’s assessment of the Gospel Coalition, but if you want to convince me of your views regarding recent events, it would help me to not have to sort through blanket attacks and insinuations about all Calvinists. We are people too, not just some punching bag that can be battered at will.
“How could Calvin be sure of his standing?”
Because he was a determinist and God determined him to have power over others in Geneva. If all is determined then why did Calvin have so much power the second time around in Geneva? It makes perfect sense in that determinist paradigm. In fact, when the plague broke out and some were coming to Calvin saying the dying were asking for him, he instructed his servants to tell people he was not there. In a letter later he wrote to a friend that he was too important to the church to take the chance.
We see the same thinking all the time here in both Calvinist and non Calvinist protestant circles here. “Touch not thine anointed”. Or “obey your leaders”.
I heard a Calvinist speaker not long ago tell a group of teens that God decides who is rich and who will be given other blessings besides riches. So God made Soros and Buffet rich along with Sheiks who oppress.
Once you apply “God is in control”, the conclusions cannot be anything else no matter how much they are denied or explained away.
There is MUCH confusion on what reformed leaders of our day are teaching. When some of us watch the application of their teaching to daily life, we are alarmed & warn others to be careful. Be careful before: signing a membership agreement, be aware of heavy-handed church discipline, of shunning, of submitting to any sort of abuse, of leadership making your own personal decisions for you, of being sued & taken to the cleaners for disagreement. Be aware of a possible imbalance of power, control, authority of pastors & elders, etc.
What I see is a consistent denial of:
1.An individual, personal choice to follow Jesus. Count the cost, weigh your decision to follow Jesus is denied because they say God picks & chooses. Why must we count the cost? Because if you want to follow Jesus you must choose to turn away from wrong-doing & choose abundant & everlasting life which is to love God, love ourselves & others. Choosing Jesus is choosing life, not death. Jesus offers a life raft. He doesn’t force anyone. Each decides to reach out to Jesus or not.
2.An individual, personal choice (along with the indwelling help of Holy Spirit) to love God, love ourselves, love others. We go & do good, not harm. Prominent reformed leaders have substituted themselves for the HS thru their visions & endless rules: stay at home adults, homeschool (I am a hs mom, btw), no Frozen movie, 1st time obedience, & on. It’s their many rules, not God’s moral law you must follow. So we see that children AND PARENTS are brought up with many very specific rules & ARE NOT encouraged to think for themselves, to discern, to CHOOSE. Children are hedged in, but not protected, IMO. Please observe on your own with eyes wide open.
So there are many created specific rules & many handbooks (Piper & Grudem’s 576 page of Comp rules) that deny an individual can know what good is themselves & choose good. That is the denial of the new birth creature in Christ, isn’t it? In this movement, you are made to be very, very reliant on the leaders & to do what they tell you to do. They say the law was abolished, but in reality they just replace moral law with a lengthy list of their own rules. And that’s how immoral abuse isn’t recognized as horrific but breaking 1st time obedience without question (or fill in their rule blank) is definitely a no-no.
What I see & can’t stand is the majority of this movement’s leadership use or agree with church discipline to go after ordinary people who disagree and/or leave (sometimes suing them), & then ignores/is silent to abuse, cover up, crimes. Think about the belief (what it actually is) that leads to that kind of action…. long & hard.
“It is true that I disagree with much of this blog’s assessment of the Gospel Coalition, but if you want to convince me of your views regarding recent events, it would help me to not have to sort through blanket attacks and insinuations about all Calvinists. We are people too, not just some punching bag that can be battered at will.”
Cal, if you cannot see how badly TGC dissed the victims of heinous sex abuse from SGM by their actions defending Mahaney over the past 2 years, there is nothing I can say to help you see it,
My comments here are about what Calvin taught and how that is played out with celebrity Calvinists in some cases. I have quite a few friends who are Calvinists or lean that way. Most of them would not set foot in a YRR church.
“Is it to try to discuss abuse in the church, or assert that every Calvinist (or perhaps in this thread I should derogatorily say “Calvinistas” or Calvinism’s “ilk”) is an abuser who preaches hate and has no concern for others?” Cal
Cal, I 100% agree with you on this.
I can only speak for myself…. I am not speaking about Calvinists in the pews. I am no speaking about laity. I am speaking about what I see & observe about the reformed or Calvinist main LEADERSHIP today.
That’s the big difference. What do you see in the LEADERSHIP today?
“Because he was a determinist and God determined him to have power over others in Geneva.”
But what if this determination by God for him to have power and be a religious leader/teacher/ruler were just a mean trick God played on Calvin? He really can’t be sure of his election if he teaches that God plays these kinds of tricks on people. I am not following the logic, or lack of it.
“But what if this determination by God for him to have power and be a religious leader/teacher/ruler were just a mean trick God played on Calvin? He really can’t be sure of his election if he teaches that God plays these kinds of tricks on people. I am not following the logic, or lack of it”
Oops! I forgot about his teaching on reprobates looking like they are saved and thinking they are saved but aren’t. Hmmmm. You have a point. .
I think about what love is. If I see any leadership that is wrong, dangerous, even harmful I am obligated to warn. We are talking about my words here. I have no power over anyone else.
Love is not 1st time obedience, which is really automatic robot obedience without question. Silence. I don’t want that from my child, other children, other adults, or anyone. That teaching is quite dangerous. It is a breeding ground for abuse.
Put it this way, when believers & unbelievers alike were outraged when the Catholic priest abuse was exposed, were they right to be upset at Catholic leadership & the priests who knew & remained silent instead of working to rectify the situation? Is it wrong to talk about why & factors that enable it within a church, religion, or org? Even pew-sitting, laity Catholics were outraged. BTW, I believe there are many Catholics who are brothers & sisters in Christ.
Cal, This post is about TGC, reformed leadership. Do you think it is wrong for you to be upset with the leadership? Do you think those of us who speak out about what our concerns are & what we see wrong with the leadership are wrong?
DEFAULT MODERATOR FOR THE MORNING UNTIL THE CANADIANS AND WEST COAST FOLKS WAKE UP:
This thread is getting too off target. I may have contributed to that by trying to explain in more depth what the issues possibly could be that caused The Gospel Coalition to have wanted to part ways with Tullian Tchividjian.
Taylor Joy graciously wrote this article, allowed SSB to post it, and is guest blogging here. It does her a disservice to discuss something else, even if it is peripheral to the discussion.
Take it to the Calvinism thread. If it doesn’t have something to do with Tullian’s and TGC’s doctrine, and how he’s been treated in regard to the SGM/Mahaney matter, it doesn’t belong here.
“Breaking News” seems to be a different matter.
Thank you, Cindy. Yes, what she said. I’m away at a family camp with limited internet availability.
Brent Detwiler sent this out today, related to the Nathaniel Morales case:
Taylor Joy, Thank you for calling them out in such a succinct way. There’s no way to avoid the fact that their authoritarian, highly controlling teaching and way of life is absolutely linked to how the sex abuse cases were handled (or not handled, rather).
For those like Joanna who fear that these men are innocent until proven otherwise and are clinging to the PR pleas by TFG to “assume the best” about CJ (one of the many SGMese phrases used to silence naysayers), at some point you have to draw your own conclusion based on the series of events of the last few years. In my opinion, even if by some miracle CJ was not aware of the same info as Grant Layman was, he most certainly knew something.
As was stated earlier in this thread, SGM and Covenant Life Church functions in a very efficient model of info from the lay people being passed on to caregroup leaders, who report to pastors. They keep files on members. When I finally woke up and left my SG church, my pastor used things I thought Ibhad shared in confidence in my “care” group against me, and out of context. This has happened over and over to pretty muh any one who tries to leave the cult. Yes, I see it as a cult now in retrospect. You try to leave and they threaten to accuse of sin in front of the congregation (and follow through with this when some leave- their “sin” is not submitting to authority by staying.)
This kind of crap happened under CJ’s watch. Whatever he knew about the sex abuse cases, Taylor Joy is absolutely correct in that these guya are guilty based on their teaching alone. If you value church leaders as the ultimate authority in all matters, silence women and girls, and scare people into staying in your church, what the hell is a sex abuse victim to do? Um yes, an apology from this brand is long overdue.
Also, someone asked earlier when CJ was the senior pastor- in 2004, CJ passed the baton to Josh Harris but remained president of SGM which was headquartered in the same building until their exodus to Kentucky a year or two ago.
“A Mom: Piper is even wackier….
Here’s his “Vision (for Husbandly Leadership) for Your Family Vacation” audio interview. Yes, Vision is in his title. A vision for your vacation is what he had for today’s listening audience. Sorry manly men, Piper’s vision doesn’t give you a leadership break, not even during vacation. 😉
Okay, so, against my natural inclination to avoid all things Piper, I listened to the interview… and honestly, it just has me shaking my head in frustration. Piper’s gender gospel is crazy-making. Apparently taking the kids for a couple hours so that your wife can have time to herself is “leadership”? But the wife keeping the kids for a couple hours so her husband can have time to himself isn’t “leadership”, it’s.. what. More submission?
How about, just don’t be a selfish jerk. Whether you’re a wife or a husband, help plan activities and try to ensure that your partner has a nice, relaxing time away. Don’t make your husband do all the planning, don’t make your wife do all the work. Work and plan together. Boom, simple. It’s not that complicated, Johnny. There doesn’t need to be a “leader” or a “follower”. Just two grown ups wearing big boy and big girl panties, doing whatever needs to be done.
I suppose I’m not a godly wife because I’m the one taking the initiative to plan and organize our family vacation this year.. because my husband works, and he relies on me (submits to me?) to get it accomplished. I’m sure Piper would spin it as “He’s leading but not micromanaging” to which I say, Horse Buckey!
My church in Maryland functioned the same way that SGM did (and we ran our order of services in a very similar way). Old Mike Ratliffe would bee line from Gaithersburg up to our church in Severn when he cruised through town, too. In the early days, these folks all followed the Shepherding Discipleship model and learned the same stuff.
When I was a homegroup leader (we also had the same caregroup system), I was asked or rather told to make reports on members and then pass them up the chain of command to my assigned elder. I was floored. We quit after that first leader’s meeting and then were seen as a problem because we didn’t jump back into someone else’s home group.
When I worked in the church office, I learned that the pastors in the area had monthly luncheons with other “like minded” churches in the area. They shared information about people who had left with the pastors who received those members — almost like they passed on a rap sheet for their “sins.” The Vineyard pastor would find out about all of the “problems” someone created while at our church, and our new members who migrated from there would reported on to our pastors. So you couldn’t even leave the church and find a similar Charismatic church. We also had a relationship with the Episcopal Charismatics in the area, and I was terrified to go to one of their churches when I left mine.
It is what these guys were taught in the early shepherding movement, and the only thing that changed in terms of church government about People of Destiny when they became Sovereign Grace was the name. You need only to read a little of Ken Sande to demonstrate that they stuck with the party line, even though shepherding allegedly disbanded. It disbanded in name only.
Why was it necessary for Pastor John to dispense his “wisdom” re: family vacations, anyway? Is it really that foreign for these manly-men leader types to think “Maybe my wife needs help planning/organizing/executing the family vacation”. Are they that imbecilic?
My completely heathen, fully egalitarian in-laws would hear stuff like that interview and their eyeballs would bulge out of their heads. Husbands should help their wives plan things? Well DUH! It’s just so obvious to anyone with half a brain! Your wife needs help? Help her! Husband needs help? Help him! Don’t confuse it with “what’s my role here” “am I being a godly leader if I do dishes or watch children for a couple hours?” HELP YOUR WIFE, DUMMY! Jeeez!
Since Al Mohler and company will probably not answer unless Mahaney testifies under oath in court and is found guilty, could anyone tell me if, and when, that will happen?
But what they are all preaching is NOT progressive sanctification, it is PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION.
That’s what Beisner says, too. The legalists collapse justifying faith in with sanctifying faith, melding them together. It becomes a salvation by works deal, then.
If you die with a venial sin on your heart before having a chance to confess and are suddenly killed, are you no longer justified? Old line Roman Catholicism talked about moral and venial sins for this reason, but in the Reformed faith (allegedly), there is no need for panic and one can rest in assurance of God knowing your heart and will. (Vatican II might be different. I don’t know.) One flub up doesn’t remove your justification (though you still have to answer to the judge for your sins — and that is part of progressive sanctification).
Lots of New Calvinists seem to have made Christians impotent by almost arguing against the Spirit of Love, Power and a Sound Mind given to Christians, against the mind of Christ, against the new creation status/Gospel of reconciliation. Justification doesn’t stick, and Christians are stuck in the hapless peril of law-keeping that Paul talks about in Romans chapter 7. They are the guys who end up preaching progressive justification which is why Beisner likens it to Roman Catholicism.
It’s subtle, but that’s why it’s slick. And it’s complicated, and it diverts us from what Paul called the simplicity that is in Christ.
And if you look at Beisner’s dichotomy of too much quietism and too much legalism, it’s almost like the New Calvinists prescribe the legalism for us, but folks like CJ and Piper come out looking like quietists. Their standards our fluid. Ours are woe.
“Apparently taking the kids for a couple hours so that your wife can have time to herself is “leadership”? But the wife keeping the kids for a couple hours so her husband can have time to himself isn’t “leadership”, it’s.. what. More submission?”
Sarah, I had to laugh at your comment. When I listened, it sounded to me like Christian joint custody while on vacation. 😉 He said his kids spent 1/2 time with him & 1/2 time with his wife. Whatever works.
“I suppose I’m not a godly wife because I’m the one taking the initiative to plan and organize our family vacation this year.. because my husband works, and he relies on me (submits to me?) to get it accomplished. I’m sure Piper would spin it as “He’s leading but not micromanaging” to which I say, Horse Buckey!”
Exactly how we do it. I am the more adventurous one & it works great, so I say bull honkey. 🙂
I posted a question about the comment that Brent Detwiler made about the trial going forward this past week when he said that more info would come to light. I didn’t get any answer from him — but I haven’t yet looked at the new materials he posted on facebook this morning, either.
To summarize Brent Detweiler’s new info this AM, I’ll summarize matters here:
Two additional cases were scheduled to go forward against Morales this week. James Roberts’ case was supposed to be heard this week. As part of a larger strategy and because of “Judicial Prudence,” those pending trials were cancelled. Not all of the matters are settled, and elements of Roberts’ case hinge on other investigations currently pursued or of some interest by the Maryland State DA. Considering the penalty demanded by Morales’ conviction on the 18th, it is not in the interest of the public and the DA’s office to follow through with the other trials at this time. I get the impression from Roberts’ statement that the DA may revisit this after sentencing of Morales in August.
As I understand things, there were elements of the two remaining cases implicating Morales that would expose more information about Mahaney’s level of knowledge if not involvement with this particular individual pastor, Nate Morales. They may be explored by the DA’s office in the future, if I’ve read these things correctly.
The other post that Brent Detweiler offered on Facebook this morning draws attention to a response statement made by parents of the children who were abused at the Northern Virginia SGM church. Brent cross posted information from a Wartburg Watch article summarizing their stance on the matter and noting the comments of the parents.
In response to CJ Mahaney’s recent statement, we offer this rebuttal.
> We met with CJ in January 2009 to discuss our daughter’s molestation and how Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax had handled it.
> There were 3 meetings with CJ and we have emails to verify this.
> He also sent us an article, When Child Sex Abuse Occurs: Considerations for Pastors.
> Details of our family’s meetings are in “Wallace’s Story” April 8, 2011.
> CJ mentioned in one of his emails that he found Noel’s story “heartbreaking”. Her story was made public on December 31, 2008.
> Kenneth Maresco (CLC pastor) was also involved with 2 separate meetings that we had with Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax.
> Both men were well informed on the situation regarding the Fairfax church.
Please keep victim’s and victim’s families in your prayers.
Wallace & Happymom
Husbands should help their wives plan things? Well DUH! It’s just so obvious to anyone with half a brain! Your wife needs help? Help her! Husband needs help? Help him! Don’t confuse it with “what’s my role here” “am I being a godly leader if I do dishes or watch children for a couple hours?” HELP YOUR WIFE, DUMMY! Jeeez!
Right? Why does he have to make things so complicated and difficult? What is wrong with plain old common sense?
Common sense doesn’t allow you to get rich off of Jesus. With John Piper, the money flows into Desiring God, buying Piper the attention he craves. I wish someone would just say the obvious…you don’t want a marriage like John Piper’s.
I listened to a recent sermon where a pastor was telling his congregation that they need to have men like John Piper in their lives. As John Piper follows Christ, you follow John Piper. Where does an Orthodox Presbyterian minister, trained at Westminster Seminary, CA., find in Scripture that you should be exalting men from the pulpit in a sermon? It grieves me.
If your kid needs a diaper change, man up and do it. If the kid needs a nose wiped, man up and do it. If the dishes are dirty and the woman is nursing your child, man up and do them. And if you can barbecue, you can cook on the stove. Stir fry some ground sausage (1 lb roll), maybe with a little diced onion, blot out the extra grease with a paper towel, put the sausage in a 2 qt pan, drain and rinse 3 cans of beans (pinto, black, kidney, etc., not green or lima!), add a can of tomatoes (diced is best) or crushed tomatoes (or one of each), rinse the cans with water into the pot, add a dash of cinnamon, a dash of salt, and a table spoon of chili powder, bring to a boil, turn to very low and simmer 1/2 hour. Some times a crushed clove of garlic adds some kick). Eat it like chili or serve it over rice or pasta. Not a bit hard to do with a 90 IQ and an 8th grade education, so why can’t you?!
An Attorney: Marry me!
Just spied this but have not yet read it.
Read it. Jaw on floor. Wondering who “shame attacked” him.