***
Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church claims that sheep, not wolves are the main trouble with churches
***
***
Yesterday, Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church tweeted this:
***
He is assuming the primary problem are the “sheepiness” of sheep??? That does not surprise me. Let me show you my personal experience with three pastors at Grace Community Church. It is my opinion that Grace Community Church’s default mode is:
1) Protect the pastor at all costs
2) Assume the sheep are the cause of your church’s problems.
**
I will share with you my personal experience that led me to come to those conclusions.
A few years ago, in response to my negative Google review, my former pastor said publicly that he had contacted a pastor at Grace Community who gave him the green light to sue me (my wording). I hadn’t received a subpoena yet, but knowing my pastor, I knew that me being sued was a likely possibility.
Here is the screenshot from Pastor Chuck O’Neal’s public lawsuit threat:
By the way, notice how O’Neal says “under John MacArthur” – – – he meant waaaaaaaay under John MacArthur, but the way he words it, it almost implies the person he spoke with was at the top of the leadership.
So, after seeing that note from O’Neal on Google Review, I contacted Grace Community Church (GCC) and spoke with the volunteer pastor of the day and told him my story of spiritual abuse at BGBC. My intention was to find out if there was any record of O’Neal calling GCC and a pastor telling him it was okay to sue a former congregant.
This volunteer pastor said that he could see no record of my pastor calling, but couldn’t rule it out, either, saying that he may have had a direct number with another pastor instead of through the number where they log all calls.
This volunteer pastor and I talked for a while. I noticed that he didn’t have anything to say about my pastor’s behavior of threatening to sue me. I was shocked. But what he did do was turn the conversation around to me my sin issues which he was trying to get me to confess. He questioned the state of my family/marriage and clearly did not like that I had posted something publicly about my pastor.
Verdict with Pastor 1:
Pastor = innocent (even when told about lawsuit)
Congregant = automatically guilty even before hearing story
***
Fast forward about a week, I did receive the lawsuit. Days later, I also received a phone call from Bill Shannon of Grace Community. I had no idea who this man was and he seemed surprised that I didn’t know who he was in the GCC chain of command. He said everyone knows who he is. He actually told me to look him up which seemed a bit arrogant to me, but I did look him up as I spoke with him.
Since this guy was a counselor, surely he would be able to listen to me share my experiences and would have understanding that I was dealing with an abusive pastor. I had heard John MacArthur’s sermons on spiritual wolves. At the time, I was devouring them trying to understand what I had gone through. My experiences lined up with what MacArthur described as a spiritual wolf.
Well, funny thing happened. Bill Shannon nearly duplicated the previous phone call conversation with the volunteer pastor of the day. I also felt like I was a less than – that my story didn’t matter and that my only respectable Biblical place for me was to be using all my time on my family/husband. He said he was trying to hear my side, but yet he defended my pastor. For the first time in my life, I felt like being a woman was hindering me from having a normal conversation with him. In fact, I told him something like: “I feel that if I handed the phone to my husband, you would give him the time of day.”
But what stumped me about these phone calls is this: what kind of church leadership defends a pastor who is threatening to sue a former congregant? Just the fact that a pastor was suing 4 and then later 5 congregants against scripture should scream “abusive pastor.” We already had the evidence that he was going against scripture on suing Christians.
Verdict with Pastor 2:
Pastor = innocent (even when told about lawsuit).
Congregant = guilty
***
Fast forward a bit and Phil Johnson got involved after The Wartburg Watch blog covered my story.
Pastor Makes International News by Suing Blogging Critic-Is John MacArthur’s Church Involved?Phil Johnson Responds for John MacArthur and Grace Community Church
Phil Johnson Responds for John MacArthur and Grace Community Church
Phil Johnson was on damage control mission trying to do whatever he could do to protect Grace Community Church from getting in the spotlight of encouraging a podunk pastor to sue former congregants.
I heard that Phil Johnson had talked with Dee Parsons of The Wartburg Watch and he shared with her what he knew, but what about me? I was the stay-at-home homemaker sitting in Eastern Washington with a $500,000 lawsuit and had 10 days to respond to the court. If he found out that Grace Community pastors did not encourage Chuck O’Neal to sue me or even if they did and now were regretting it, wouldn’t a pastoral response (Phil Johnson is first and foremost a pastor) be for him to initiate a call to me? Ask how I am doing? Maybe offer prayer or assistance of some kind? To reach out to Dee Parsons before reaching out to me personally showed that he was more interested in protecting Grace Community Church’s reputation.
I reached out to Phil Johnson and he called me. He did acknowledge that the lawsuit was wrong. Regarding some of the stories of spiritual abuse, he in general said something like, “if what you say is true about your pastor, then that is wrong.” I felt like he heard me well and even blogged about it in a positive light.
However, the following day, Phil Johnson posted a link to a blog with commentary about pastors suing congregants (referring to my story) on his personal and public Facebook page. Here is Phil Johnson’s closing comment on that Facebook thread:
***
***
That kind of stung. It seemed as if he was now saying I was now an out-of-control complaint blog. So I actually questioned him if he was referring to my blog as “online nests of disgruntled, emotion-laden but biblically hollow chronic complaint” and his response to me was that he had never read my blog. Well, alrighty then, I guess it’s just amazingly coincidental how all of this came up: linking to a post about a pastor suing, and talking on the phone with a defendant of a $500,000 defamation lawsuit brought on by a pastor all within 24 hours.
Phil Johnson’s tweet shows what he believes: sheep create most of the church problems, pastors do not, and that is why I believe if you have experienced spiritual abuse and reach out to Grace Community, do not expecting any sympathy from their pastors. Even if you have a $500,000 defamation lawsuit in your hands from a pastor who is going against Scripture to sue you, the questions will go back to you and what sin you brought to the church.
It’s interesting that Johnson said in his Facebook note:
Abusive and heavy-handed, high-control church leadership is a serious problem among some very conservative churches, and those of us who are conservative should speak out against it. If there were fewer control freaks in church leadership, I think there would also be fewer out-of-control complaint blogs.
Aside from attempting to clear Grace Community Church’s name in the case against my pastor, it appears that Grace Community Church has not spoken out against the behavior of my pastor and in fact welcomes him and the men from BGBC with open arms each year at the Shepherds’ Conference (pics from BGBC men at Shepherds’ conference)– the very conference where O’Neal told a former church member that he would go Old Testament on him. Yea, there’s a wolf at the Shepherds’ Conference each year and: crickets.
Yea, Phil, so go ahead and blame sheep. Bah, Bah
**
Spiritual Sounding Board 
I have like…20 comments I want to make. lol Is that allowed?
LikeLiked by 3 people
My response to the issue of whether the problem is sheep or wolves is summed up in this statement from today’s post at The Junia Project: “Preachers and church leaders are in positions of power. They need to be humble and sensitive in their leadership. …”
And as for whether one should blame the sheep, Jesus certainly didn’t. He said he is the Good Shepherd who cares for his sheep. How can any pastor take a stand against Jesus’ sheep?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Diane, SSB has never had a policy limiting the voice of commenters. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
First of all, what Tim said.
Second, didn’t the apostle Paul spend 3 years of his life in tears and distress warning about wolves (teachers) who would be entering? Seems wolves ARE the big problem.
LikeLiked by 4 people
JA, I can see how his “Bottom Line” FB comment must have stung. Especially at the vulnerable stage of your life. He often comes off like a pompous person who is in love with his own vocabulary and ability to turn a phrase. Though a very bright guy. Knowledge puffs up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It sounds to me like he’s doing a double entendre with the word “sheepish.” I can’t say for sure, but the first impression I get is he means the problem in churches is the sheep are too roll-over-and-take-itish. We as Christians in this generation are too soft on sin, on ourselves, blah blah, blah, blah.
However, this is either ironic or hypocritical if he is of the opinion that you did not do a good thing by exposing CON as you did. Further, whoever he was talking about in complaining blogs he should have been commending, not rebuking if this is what he meant.
But if by “sheepishness” he meant needy after the manner of sheep, then he needs a different job. He does not have the heart of a shepherd.
Incidentally (and this may or may not be common knowledge), when he made that comment about housewives and discernment divas (the clip of which Johnson posted himself on his PYRO blog), he said in the comment section of his blog post that when he said “discernment divas” he was talking about Ingrid Schlueter. I have no idea why he would say such a thing about her. But this confused a lot of people because the Deebs thought it was them; if I recall correctly there was some thought it might have been you Julie Anne, though I’m not sure about that; and some of the commenters on that PYRO thread were afraid it was them.
I think this is a very poor communication style. If you say something publicly but only the insiders know who you mean (and I’m left to assume that as they might not know either), how are you not going to hit people who shouldn’t be hit?
And I will say this because I have heard something similar claimed more than once by certain parties not necessarily Phil Johnson (though I have no idea if he would disagree with this or not): it’s no use saying if their consciences were clear they would not think of themselves because some “sheep’s” consciences are highly sensitive and they can be overcome by false guilt, and all the more so in a culture that is always saying “look at your own sin.”
So yeah. What does he mean by “sheepishness” of the sheep? And what about this broad spectrum rebuke tactic? You would think that a man who has made the crafting of words a significant part of his living, especially when coupled with pastoring, that he would not be given to ambiguous communication. Trumpets and uncertain sounds and all that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Barnabas, I remember once asking at team pyro about something I didn’t understand in a post and the response was that those it was directed to would know what it meant. I asked again for clarification since I wanted to understand what they were saying. No further response. Inside baseball is an odd way to minister.
LikeLiked by 3 people
By “in the church,” does he mean all professing Christian churches which- includes the denoms that GCC would deem hairy ticks? He should qualify that “in the church” with in the visible church…just so we know he is not referencing his own GCC-which would mean he thinks there are wolfish wolves operating there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Phil Johnson is Executive Director of Grace To You, and a former contributor at the world-famous Pyromaniacs blog.”
I had to check for myself to see that he actually has that on his twitter page. World-famous? Dos he want us to think his former blog is real cool and famous? What reason would a pastor have for such silliness? To impress?
“By the way, notice how O’Neal says “under John MacArthur” – – – he meant waaaaaaaay under John MacArthur, but the way he words it, it almost implies the person he spoke with was at the top of the leadership.”
So CON name dropped John MacArthru’s name. Why? Does he want us to think that he has the John MacArthur seal of approval? What reason would a supposed pastor have for name dropping like that? To impress?
LikeLike
“I heard that Phil Johnson had talked with Dee Parsons of The Wartburg Watch and he shared with her what he knew, but what about me? I was the stay-at-home homemaker sitting in Eastern Washington with a $500,000 lawsuit and had 10 days to respond to the court. If he found out that Grace Community pastors did not encourage Chuck O’Neal to sue me or even if they did and now were regretting it, wouldn’t a pastoral response (Phil Johnson is first and foremost a pastor) be for him to initiate a call to me? Ask how I am doing? Maybe offer prayer or assistance of some kind? To reach out to Dee Parsons before reaching out to me personally showed that he was more interested in protecting Grace Community Church’s reputation.”
Yes, those are all the things a real pastor with a heart for righteousness would have done. I am sorry he talked about you and not to you first.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Tim, I think that sounds passive aggressive and vaguely threatening, to be honest. If the ones it was directed to would know who they are, then why is it not being said directly to them? Why is it being said to “the room” with the expectation that those it concerns would know who they are? Aren’t these the guys who are all Matthew 18ish? Have the confronted said individuals such that they would know who they are? And if so, why are they not “telling it to the church” directly, as they ought? Why are they being covert about it? Why not name names? And why do I keep thinking “Al Capone” and “The Mob?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe Phil has a point here. Maybe the sheep are too sheepish. Instead of being sheep, we should be the kind of prophets Walter Brueggemann talks about, proclaiming the pain of the people to the faces of the congregational pharaohs.
LikeLike
Or, we could take a cue from Sean Palmer, and simply leave those churches. As Sean wrote, “A shepherd without sheep is just a dude with a stick!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
What reason would a supposed pastor have for name dropping like that? To impress?
Or intimidate?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JA, at some point in the convo we have to take responsibility for what we believed, who we submitted to and what we went along wit for a long time.
I do realize many of us have been fooled by some very adept narcissists and sociopaths but in order to mature in Christ, we have to take some responsibility for our parts in following man.
So, in a way, the sheep have to change. They need to stop following man. They need to ask questions, demand to see how their money is being spent. They need to remember church staffers are employees. But our country has become so socialistic that I doubt this will change. Everywhere we turn people are opting to let others in position f power make personal decisions for them. I don’t see that changing and it breaks my heart.
These guys will never change and it is a waste of time to even go there. The only way is to warn folks and perhaps one day the charlatans money flow will dry up. Of course, they will still seek stages and positions of power elswhere as Driscoll is doing. It is what they are and what they do.
Phil Johnson is no different.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“It’s interesting that Johnson said in his Facebook note:
Abusive and heavy-handed, high-control church leadership is a serious problem among some very conservative churches, and those of us who are conservative should speak out against it. If there were fewer control freaks in church leadership, I think there would also be fewer out-of-control complaint blogs.”
“Some very conservative churches”…does that mean CON’s church, since Phil already condemned the lawsuit and said it was wrong? Is he saying churches like CON’s, who sue congregants and go to the trouble of creating a blog just to denigrate a former congregant, are heavy handed and have serious problems? Seems he is saying that very thing. Now, he goes on to say those of us who are “conservative” (not “very conservative”) need to speak out.
Did Phil speak out about how CON was wrong? Let me know when that post pops up.
Finally, “If there were fewer control freaks in church leadership, I think there would also be fewer out-of-control complaint blogs.”
If there were fewer control freak wolfish wolves being their wolfish selves in church leadership trying to beat the sheep into submission to their authoriteeeee and insisting the sheep submit to their extra-biblical doctrines and requiring the sheep to believe they must have THE PASTOR and only the pastor to hear the words of God every Sunday, there might also be fewer sheepish sheep because they would have been taught properly by a loving shepherd/pastor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Besides, according to Phil, Christians are just sheep. Sheep are sheepish. You can’t knock sheep for being sheepish (even though he is doing that in his tweet). But you can knock a shepherd for letting the wolves get to the sheep.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John MacArthur and any of his “Grace” churches have nothing at all to do with grace, so it doesn’t surprise me at this attitude.
From Jeremiah 23:
1“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!” declares the Lord. 2Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord.
Sorry, I just had to get that out there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The sheep metaphors in scripture are about the Shepherds — not the sheep! Shepherds that make the metaphors about what the sheep are like shouldn’t be pastors, elders, or teachers in churches. They ARE the wolves. Yes, Phil Johnson, I’m talking about you who cared so much about GCC’s reputation but not the people being abused.
end of rant . . .
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Pyromaniacs blog is a joke. They are a whiny bunch of men who can only handle those who agree with them – much unlike the Discernment Divas (whichever female blogger he was talking about) who all (to my knowledge) accept criticism on their/our blogs.
What’s really funny/sad is that if you look at Phil Johnson’s Twitter feed right now (https://twitter.com/Phil_Johnson_), you will see he is going after a female – not a pastor, a female author/speaker, Beth Moore. He calls her by name yet crickets on men like O’Neal.
Hey, look here, Phil’s going to be speaking along side JD Hall. What do you know: http://www.reformationmontana.org/2015-conference-info/index.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with this in part, but at the same time, I truly believe that some abusers keep their sheep held in psychological bondage, it usually takes something pretty major to wake someone up from that dark cloud.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because the sheep are not all willingly offering their throats to the Godly slaughter knife when Pastor wants Mutton for every meal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Bridget:
They’re not even wolves.
They’re feral dogs.
Wolves have more class than that.
LikeLike
I really think what Johnson wants is not unsheepish sheep, but controlled sheep that are controlled by those whom he and his gang approve. It sounds like properly pastoral shepherding, but is really more like benevolent dictatorship, without the benevolent part. You can think what you want and say what you want, as long as you think and say what we want. Thus we have no “out of control complaint” blogs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with this in part, but at the same time, I truly believe that some abusers keep their sheep held in psychological bondage, it usually takes something pretty major to wake someone up from that dark cloud.”
Totally agree. But in the meantime, more and more sheep are starting to Google things. and as many do they come across the spiritual abuse blogs. that is why it is so important for people to share their stories.
there is a reason Phil Johnson calls them complaint blogs. he desperately needs to position them for thought control. the irony is his sheep blaming could possibly backfire. sheep blaming could make an excellent topic.
if you really watch these guys close you start seeing a theme….. they hate free speech for others. when we stop and think about it from that point of view it really is ridiculous in America. name really do seek to stifle and control speech…in the Name of Jesus, of course.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I might have given the wrong impression, Barnabas. The post at pyro had to do with some talk one of them gave, and it was recounted on the blog. All I can surmise from the refusal to clue the readers in as to what the talk was about is that the talk wasn’t all that worthy of posting on the blog if they weren’t going to explain to the non-participants what it all meant.
LikeLike
JA said: “The Pyromaniacs blog is a joke.”
Well, they certainly are incendiary (pun intended) in their posts and in how they handle commenters. That’s why I had to stop visiting the site.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Or intimidate?”
Yes, more likely.
LikeLike
Tim, yeah. That is odd. “We’re going to post something we don’t want to discuss.”
???
LikeLiked by 1 person
The church I attended in Charlotte for almost 19 years gave the outward appearance of being open to congregational concerns. Unfortunately if any of the female members had a concern, the go-to question my pastor asked was,” How are you and your husband doing?” or “How are things at home?” The assumption was if a woman wanted to voice an opinion, her underlying problem must be marital in nature. If a man had a concern, he would be listened to, but generally ignored (unless the pastor agreed). By the time we left, the church staff and elders were comprised totally of “yes men” who served at the whim of the head pastor.
I believe there are those “sheep” who like to be close to the “power” and will follow any “order” to remain in that position. These people prop up the pastor as he continues to use the church as an extension of his ego. I don’t know what the answer is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim and Barnabas,
Barnabas said:
“But if by “sheepishness” he meant needy after the manner of sheep, then he needs a different job. He does not have the heart of a shepherd.”
Tim said:
“And as for whether one should blame the sheep, Jesus certainly didn’t. He said he is the Good Shepherd who cares for his sheep. How can any pastor take a stand against Jesus’ sheep?”
My response:
John 10:12-13 (NIV)
12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The church I attended in Charlotte for almost 19 years gave the outward appearance of being open to congregational concerns. Unfortunately if any of the female members had a concern, the go-to question my pastor asked was,” How are you and your husband doing?” or “How are things at home?””
Reminds me of those pastors who want to know if you tithe before they will address your concerns…
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is hard for me to fathom that this was allowed to happen to this degree. One pastor/counselor, I don’t remember which, being arrogant enough to question that you didn’t know who he was in the pecking order. Please. I was in churches in the Missionary Baptist Assoc for almost 25 years. I couldn’t tell you who was at the top of that mess. I just know that we were expected to send them a % of what we brought in each month to them. We never had a paid pastor. We couldn’t afford it, but I finally figured out those running the association had excess.
It is all about power. There was no excuse for this law suit to ever have happened. If anyone in the church has a beef with the pastor, he should be humble enough to take his knocks and look in the mirror and seek truth. The pastor is no more than a sheep, he just happens to do the preaching. I like the term feral dog for this one. Wolves are quite pretty. You can’t really have them around sheep though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Phil Johnson is intelligent. He is well spoken. But he is also a jerk, in my opinion, who often shows no semblance of the fruits of the spirit in his online communication. Just look at the way he not only criticized Beth Moore, but mocked her looks and her pants suit. What does something she wore have to do with the price of rice in China?
I think it you said it correctly one time. These guys went to the school of mean.
By the way, who died and made John MacArthur pope? Why does everyone consult him about they do in their denominationally unaffiliated churches? For a guy who so adamantly claims that apostolic authority ended with the original apostles, he seems to allow himself to be treated like one.
Phil Johnson reminds me a lot of James White. They both seem to spend a whole lot of time on Twitter attack dogging people over every little matter they claim to be of gospel importance, and very little time outside of their cheerleading spheres of influence actually proclaiming the gospel. I can almost guarantee if you take the smallest exception against something PJ says, you will quickly find yourself on the receiving end of an attack.
By the way, I know you, Julie Anne, have cut Johnny Mac some slack in the past, especially because of his lack of online presence, but I still have to hold him responsible for the immature, rude and disrespectful way his minions act when they are out there, especially on social media. They represent him, especially Phil Johnson, and I don’t buy his lack of internet presence as an excuse for not calling his folks on the carpet for being rude bullies without an ounce of grace. Personally, I am curious if it is meant to be that way. PJ is like an underboss who does the dirty work while Johnny Mac gets to keep his reputation of being above the fray. Does he just send his bulldog out to say what he really thinks?
**The above mentioned comments are my opinions only based on my own observations. Sense it seems the folks at GCC have various opinions on whether it is okay to sue another believer, I just want to go ahead and clarify that PJ being a jerk is just my opinion, therefore not slanderous***
LikeLiked by 3 people
**By George, since, not sense**
LikeLike
Quickly: I pretty much disagree with the premise that the “sheep” bear all or most of the burden in what’s wrong with churches.
That so many Christians keep giving money to these frauds and wolves and thereby supporting them to continue, I guess a case could be made, but I see a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing heading churches now.
Seems to me that the Phil Johnsons of the Christian world don’t want to recognize or really grapple with the reality that there are such things as controlling, abusive churches and preachers.
It’s much easier for them to point the finger of blame at the pew sitters than examine the systems of cultures that allow the abuse (by preachers) to continue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@WendellG:
“Tithe” or “Pay the Squeeze”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They represent him, especially Phil Johnson, and I don’t buy his lack of internet presence as an excuse for not calling his folks on the carpet for being rude bullies without an ounce of grace. Personally, I am curious if it is meant to be that way. PJ is like an underboss who does the dirty work while Johnny Mac gets to keep his reputation of being above the fray. Does he just send his bulldog out to say what he really thinks?
Larry, I have often wondered exactly the same thing.
LikeLike
Is there a difference, HUG?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll have to read the rest of the post later and maybe comment more, but as for the names I’m seeing, Phil Johnson (from the PyroManiac blog) and John MacArthur, my impression right away:
My impression of Johnson is that he’s one of those guys who is fairly dogmatic about having right doctrine, and his definition (and those whom he runs around with, associates with) of right doctrine is that right doctrine is doctrine he personally agrees with or approves of.
I also agree with Larry’s impressions of Johnson in his post of JANUARY 13, 2015 @ 1:00 PM.
John MacArthur. He’s very much against the use of medications and secular counseling to treat things like clinical depression.
Here’s a link about it,
_Church Sued Over a Suicide Says It Will Change Training_,
New York Times, from 1985,
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Julie Anne,
Thanks to you, The Wartburg Watch, and many other blogs out here, I think it’s gonna be the end of an era for these kinds of guys, the ones who rule churches as heavy-handed autocrats. May your tribe increase!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lydia00 said
This is a variation of a point I was making in a post on the Marital Rape thread,
_in this post_
And _in this post_
LikeLike
I just saw this article in my email, so haven’t had a chance to really digest it, but on the surface, I wonder if these personalities we are talking about have bought the idea that they are kings? After all, it is Jane and Joe pew sitter who tend to elevate them to that status or at least feed their egos so that they take on the mantle themselves.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/parse/2015/january/pastors-we-are-not-kings.html?utm_source=leadership-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=9540581&utm_content=328186411&utm_campaign=2013
LikeLike
Don’t get me wrong, please. I am not saying it is the sheep’s (in general)
fault at all. I am saying that some of the sheep don’t want to think for themselves, becoming totally dependent on the wolf, thus enabling him to abuse ALL the sheep, especially those who recognize him for what he is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wendell G,
Actually, I think that it was the wolves that trained the sheep to not think for themselves. It isn’t that the sheep don’t want to, it is because that is what they were trained. They were trained to become totally dependent. After all, isn’t that what putting your TRUST in the Lord is all about? It is the wolves that twist that by telling the sheep that they speak FOR God, so what they say goes. It’s mind manipulation.
Ed
LikeLiked by 3 people
Wendell G,
Good article and valid point.
LikeLike
Regarding:
Churches really need to get over the sexism stuff and deal with women as full human beings, not as roles or stereotypes.
I’ve never married and never had children, so how would that guy have diverted the conversation with me? He would not have been able to use the “what about your husband and kids” ploy on me.
LikeLike
Did the guys at Pyro go to Beth Moore in private first, before they started mocking her looks and criticizing her for being the wrong sex to teach the Bible?
Seems like so many of us were told to go to pastor so and so in private before we discussed our concerns publicly.
But-oh, I forgot-guys like Phil Johnson are mucho importante to the Kingdom and their words are like rain to the flowers.
In my opinion, he comes across as arrogant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Larry, When I read comments in which people are openly criticizing someone, I have my lawsuit in mind. Your words above were clearly an opinion without the disclaimer. BTW, I may have (in the course of blogging) edited less than a handful of comments to make sure they were safe. I also will notate the comment.
LikeLike
Ann said:
I think you’ve got the overall problem figured out. I was a woman who was complaining about a pastor. In their minds, the husband should be doing the complaining. So I was overstepping my husband’s role in their eyes.
I did tell them that I had my husband’s permission to start the blog. That wasn’t good enough.
It was like I was enlisted jumping rank going straight to the commanding officer. That’s a no no.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It is always saddening to hear a shepherd say anything disparaging about the people he/she is called to serve–the church. The “rod and staff” of the Good Shepherd are to be used to defend and protect and support, not afflict. These kinds of statements, “The main trouble in the church today is not the wolfishness of the wolves; it’s the sheepishness of the sheep” betray ignorance of the plethora of Scriptural statements about the reality and supernatural empowerment of Abusive Leaders, and an astonishing callousness to the experience of someone who has been victimized by church leadership and robbed of a voice to express protest against such abuse.
I think they days are coming when there will be decreasing profit and gain to be found in hitching one’s wagon up to these arrogant, famous, pontificating leaders, and more young leaders will avoid the trappings of sucking up to the top-dogs of their religion, and instead will entrust themselves to the Chief Shepherd alone. Hoping.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ken, I’m privileged to know such a kind and caring man (and that I get to catch up with you in Pdx every now and then). Pastors like you are rare. Thanks!
LikeLike
“And as for whether one should blame the sheep, Jesus certainly didn’t. He said he is the Good Shepherd who cares for his sheep. How can any pastor take a stand against Jesus’ sheep?”
Tim already wrote the very first thought that came to my mind. Phil Johnson clearly doesn’t know his Bible well enough for someone in his position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Julie Anne, your JANUARY 13, 2015 @ 3:31 PM post.
I know you’re busy, but I linked to this on a thread or two ago, and you may find it very interesting – it’s about transgender people and how men and woman are treated differently.
A person was born a woman, switched to the male gender, and he/she says he’s noticed a huge difference in how he is treated as a man vs being a woman (he gets more respect and listened to more carefully as a man than when he posed as a woman):
_Why Aren’t Women Advancing At Work? Ask a Transgender Person._
Also:
_The Essay That Launched the Term “Mansplaining” – Rebecca Solnit’s ‘Men Explain Things to Me’ explains this international scourge_
LikeLike
“So CON name dropped John MacArthru’s name. Why? Does he want us to think that he has the John MacArthur seal of approval? What reason would a supposed pastor have for name dropping like that? To impress?”
CON LOVES John MacArthur. He frequently tells a story where he was invited to eat dinner with him trying to say that because he was humble and sat at the farthest seat from John he was invited to sit right next to him. CON also goes to MacArthur’s Shepherd’s conference every year. I believe it was his intimidation and holier than thou attitude trying to say “See – I’ve got MacArthur on my side – I’m right”.
LikeLike
I was talking with a group of conservative Christian friends recently and about 1/3 of us had walked away from bad churches and/or arrogant pastors. I estimated that the tithe this group represented averaged $7,000 – $25,000 per person per year.
Maybe pastors should care just a little bit more before alienating people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Title of this blog post:”Phil Johnson of Grace Community Church claims that sheep, not wolves are the main trouble with churches”
I am commenting only on the title of this blog post, which mentions a “Phil Johnson” whom I’ve never heard of, who has zero influence on me, and something silly that he is said to have said.
Obviously, there are simply *heaps* of problems in the church today, which don’t involve at all the predation of predatory predators, “wolves” so-to-speak, upon their prey, “sheep”, about which the Lord Jesus Christ Himself took the trouble to warn his little flock.
Leaving aside that consideration, thinking for now *only* of the tiny wolf-sheep paradigm church problems, it strikes me that Mr Johnson might as well be saying that it is the *positive* terminal of a battery that is “more” the cause of the electric current in a circuit, than the negative terminal, rather than a deficit in the “resistance” of the circuit. That is such a manifest absurdity that it surely doesn’t need an entire blog post that I haven’t read to ridicule it, nor the comments that I haven’t read either.
Jesus said that things that cause people to sin were “bound to come”. He specifically warned against false prophets. He warned us to avoid sin caused by following false prophets.
LikeLike
Phil has been drinking the Kool-Aid for a little too long.
At my independent Bible church (also a Grace church located in Sunnyvale, CA) the senior pastor/elder, with the support of the other three elders, ordered that one of Pastor John MacArthur’s long-time good friends who is a doctor be excommunicated and shunned! This godly doctor has been married to his wife for 40+ years, they have a loving marriage, and he has loving relationships with his grown children. What was the good doctor’s ‘crime’? He questioned the pastors/elders about how they were running the church and about Biblical error. They were threatened by him and got rid of him, instead of taking the counsel of this good and godly man. They trashed this good doctor’s name. He had done so much for our church and for our senior pastor.
The doctor had paid for many of the resources for our church library and lending library, CDs, DVDs, and books. He had invited and paid for our senior pastor to join him and Pastor MacArthur (and another man) on a trip to North Carolina to meet the Rev. Billy Graham in person at Rev. Graham’s log cabin home. That occurred just a few years ago.
And for all of that…this good doctor got stabbed in the back by this despicable pastor and elders. The senior pastor was completely lacking in character.
Next up, it was my turn to be excommunicated and shunned. My “crime”? I’d inadvertently discovered, while doing a research project for a former prosecutor, that a fellow church member was a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List. When I reported it to the church, the four pastors/elders met with me. I was treated to being screamed at by them and them defending the sex offender. It turns out that he’s a personal friend of theirs. They have placed him in positions of leadership and even invited him to volunteer at our church’s summer basketball camp for children, a week long event. The pastors/elders were so arrogant, they bypassed the authority of all of the parents who entrusted their children to us (believers and unbelievers) and who’d never been told that a Megan’s List sex offender was invited to show up and volunteer! The pastors/elders also betrayed the Seventh Day Adventists, who rented their school and gym to us, not knowing that a sex offender had been invited to show up at any time. The SDA’s are self-insured and can be sued for my church’s acts of negligence on their property; plus the SDA’s have very strict rules about child safety.
The pastors/elders told me that the sex offender “said he was coming off Megan’s List”. OK, since when do you ‘take the word’ of a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List instead of ‘taking the word’ of his supervising law enforcement agency (The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s sex offender’s task force)?
The task force called what my pastors/elders told me “total lies” and were so alarmed the Sheriff was so concerned they contacted The California Attorney General who runs my state’s Megan’s List. The Attorney General also confirmed that it “was all lies”.
My pastors/elders had closed the meeting with me, about child safety, by reading me a Scripture that I was deceived, an unbeliever, and destined for Hell and should be avoided. Basically a threat.
They also told me to never contact law enforcement again (the Sheriff and the Attorney General), a crime on their parts of the pastors/elders called obstruction of justice. They told me that I was “to obey” them and “to submit” to their authority.
They also said that wives would have to “obey” and “submit” to their husbands, if the husbands permitted the sex offender to touch their children. Uhhh, no. That’s a crime too. Fathers AND mothers are required by law to protect their children. A refusal to do so an get them arrested and prosecuted for child endangerment/abuse/neglect. And that can result in up to 1-year in jail or up to 6-years in state prison.
So the pastors/elders trashed my name too and ordered that I be shunned.
As the Bible says, if you dig a ditch for someone else you’re bound to fall in to yourself. One day they will get theirs!
LikeLike
I know the answer to this. John MacArthur has spoken on this and says anyone in public ministry is open to public scrutiny. I actually agree with that. I didn’t ask Phil permission to copy his tweet here and I certainly don’t call Tony Miano when I do a post. I figure what they put on social media is fair game 🙂
LikeLike
Phoenixtatgirl (aka Hannah, my daughter)
Hannah, you forgot to mention that he used this illustration to teach us about humility. Yes, he used HIMSELF as an example of humility. . . . . . just like a narcissist would.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is obviously not about humility. Good grief.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, I totally agree with you. If there going to say something publicly (tweets, sermons, pod-casts, etc…) than it can be discussed publicly.
My own experience with these types, is that they will do everything to discredit or silence those that dare disagree or question them.
If you’re a woman, you can be automatically disregarded based on your marital status and general proneness to doctrinal error. Push too hard and you’ll be labeled an unsubmissive Jezebel.
But even as a man, when I raised concerns about a radio show that used a clip of CJ Mahaney’s weird sermon on modesty-they just politely obfuscated my concerns by offering up that I should contact him directly if I had any issue with him.
Thanks to the internet and sites like this, they can no longer massage their image while acting contrary to their own creeds.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JM is not really that impressive to be honest. I could careless what he or those that are in his entourage think, but the sheep pay the bills and for that big house old JM lives in. The sheep should be able to do what they have to, to make sure their money is being spent correctly. As for all the double speak that went on concerning JA and how she was treated I E she was in sin and her x “pastor” was a “man of God”(tm). That is typical in my experience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“My own experience with these types, is that they will do everything to discredit or silence those that dare disagree or question them. If you’re a woman, you can be automatically disregarded based on your marital status and general proneness to doctrinal error. Push too hard and you’ll be labeled an unsubmissive Jezebel.
But even as a man, when I raised concerns about a radio show that used a clip of CJ Mahaney’s weird sermon on modesty-they just politely obfuscated my concerns by offering up that I should contact him directly if I had any issue with him.” C.A.
@christianagnostic,
Spot on about the discrediting of folks who disagree. And Mahaney. Well it goes along with all of the other weirdness in his ministry, including the sexual abuse scandal that was widely known and not reported. Thank goodness for the conviction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ohhhh, puhhhhllllleeeeee, Phil Johnson. What kind of (non) “man” cuts down a lady? And a lady like Beth Moore? She’s dressed modestly and with class and he makes fun of her? She shows the Lord’s love for others to women of different denominations in a gracious manners and he labels her as a ‘false teacher’?
In my opinion, Phil would kick Jesus out of church if Jesus came.
Johnny Mac…take away Phil’s Twitter account, smart phone, Facebook and the like. After all, Beth is a Texan…and that means you’ve got the men AND the women to be worried about. Don’t mess with Texas!
LikeLike
What we need here is a “pastors” test. Lets see Julie Anne is a stay at home home schooling mom from what I have seen quite an exceptional one. She makes some observations about her ex pastor, who she had some concerns about, and he gets all “hurt”, does he pray for Julie Anne, does he offer some type of response, nope, he sues her. Like a good American he takes it to court, and promptly gets trounced on the merits of the case. He plays the persecution card and JA is relegated to the dust bin of the evangelical dump. So what does JA do with her hurt and pain, starts a blog reaches out to abused individuals and puts together a community of wounded souls and seeks to offer healing. OK great.
What does her Ex Pastor do, he goes to convergences, plays the persecution card, pals around with all the other true believers and has dinner with JM. Great. Who is the real Pastor?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey all, looks like Phil got wind of “some” survivor bloggers posting on his tweet. If anyone knows of another blog covering the tweet, please let me know. I will be posting 2 of his tweets.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Thanks, Brian, you’re too kind. Just for the record, the meal O’Neal had with JMac was years ago. And as of this year, I’m no longer a homeschooling mom. The last 4 are in public school. And I’m in college – – treading water. And now I’m going to bed after listening to 3 podcasts and writing 3 reviews. D.O.N.E.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with Michaela, I must be honest when I listen to Beth Moore I do disagree with some of what she says, but she is quite kind to people of diverse denominational viewpoints. It did trouble me concerning the mocking of her dress, I dont agree with what Beth Moore says but I really think, even in a tweet, one should be gracious. As for when JM or Mr. Phillips preach, I listen to them as well. Some of what the say is actually quite good, and I give them credit for that, of course when they go on about evolution or Young Earth Creationism, not so much. You know Beth Moore and a few others tv preachers were my only contact to the faith for a long time so I own that to her, I think she is a nice lady.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know Julie Anne I was going through an MBA program while taking care of a sister with Cancer and a mother who was also struggling. I relate. I did think I was off on the time line, thanks for the clarification. Yes please get some rest.
LikeLike
LOL the Mark Driscoll school of attribution in published work, there goes another irony meter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My point if he would have clarified that right up front it would have helped, still the point of this article JA wrote is right.
LikeLike
Right, Brian, Phil Johnson can clarify his tweet if he wants, and if that’s the case, then he certainly can’t say I was an apathetic sheep when I left the wolf and started my blog, can he?
Ok, now Bed. E. Bye 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Johnny Mac…take away Phil’s Twitter account, smart phone, Facebook and the like. After all, Beth is a Texan…and that means you’ve got the men AND the women to be worried about. Don’t mess with Texas!
.
I like to hear Beth Moore speak and I like that she claims women’s ministry. That is what she is about. In one of her talks she talked about her husband at their cabin, which she talks about her family frequently. She shoots rattle snakes right along side her husband on their land. Anyone that can’t find anything to say other than what she is wearing has got real issues. She does dress modestly and always in pants–so what. She preaches the Bible and Christ to women.
My concern with Beth Moore , Living Proof Ministries, is that they are a women’s ministry and do not take a stand for abused women in marriage. I have personally contacted them and was told that they do not take a stand on the topic of abuse, but think it should be a case by case basis. In her younger years in one of her videos she stated that abuse is not a part of marriage and seek counsel, later on she says if you have a problem in your marriage go home and take care of it. That did not give encouragement to an oppressed woman who could have been sitting under her teaching.
If you want to speak up about a preacher/teacher/church leader make it something more important than what they wear.
LikeLike
Who is the real Pastor?
Brian,
.If you want my vote, I vote for Julie Anne.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No surprise here. A woman friend and her Down syndrome daughter stayed with me after her husband, the pastor at Berean Bible Church in Arroyo Grande, California, (along with his two buddies, the elders) excommunicated her for failing to say thank you to her husband enough and show him proper respect. Did he pay a cent of spousal or child support before divorcing her? No. Do he and the elders attend the Shepherds Conference regularly? Of course. Coincidentally, my own pastor and his buddies, the elders, (of Cornerstone Community Church in Atascadero, California) then excommunicated me for “slandering” the elders in a private email to the EFCA. The term “slander” was used to refer to stating the truth when it was not respectful to the elders. Are they faithful attenders of the Shepherds Conference? Of course. Seriously, the Shepherds Conference is no more than a cult of personality, and one which exists to inflate the bloated yet hollow egos of men who actually believe they are being equipped to care for GOD’s sheep.
LikeLike
Gee, perhaps we should excommunicate for sneezing in church, or looking the wrong way at the pastor! Why stop there? Why not make everyone have a bar or rfid chip that they have to swipe when they put money in the offering so that they can be exommunicated for not donating enough? Ridiculous? I know, but these reasons given already are certainly silly!
LikeLiked by 3 people
jkpvarin,
I think that it is pathetic that church leadership will accuse a pew sitter of slander. I think that I would be bold enough to say, “So sue me”. Although, I know that isn’t the advice of Julie Anne, I’m sure, as she went thru that stressful muck.
Ex-communicating and shunning is a means to tell everyone that you do not belong to God, you are not a Christian, etc. So, when church’s do this, they are covering up their OWN sins that is not hidden to God.
I am reminded of this:
Matthew 5:10-12King James Version (KJV)
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
************Who persecuted the prophets, having blood on their hands for killing the prophets? The average Joe?
So, I say that when a person is ex-communicated from any church, rejoice. The judgment of slander will reverse upon them at judgment day.
All of the ex-communication in the world (local church building) does not ex-communicate anyone from Ecclesia (The Real Church), not made with hands (not a local church building).
Those leaders will answer to God one day.
Ed
LikeLike
“Some survivor-bloggers misconstrued my “sheepishness” Tweet. My point: Wolfish doctrines would get nowhere if not for ovine apathy.”
LOL it’s the sheepish sheep’s fault again!!! You know, reading comprehension.
He failed to make his tweet comprehensible in the first place. I vote for that instead of blaming “some” blogs’ failure to interpret correctly.
Is that the go to response when professing Christian pastors get pushback—YOU failed to understand ME? Oh…us darn sheepish sheep. lol. How exasperating we must be to them…what with all the money we send to them to pay their bills…
Oh and wow…ovine. Had to look that up. Very impressive, Phil.
Hey JA…does this mean Phil is reading your blog? How cool is that!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I left this tweet for Mr. Johnson. I don’t know if it will help, but I’m hoping he’ll see things from a different point of view:
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s interesting that he said “some” survivor bloggers. I asked him about that.
LikeLike
His tweet only affirms his contempt for pew sitters and followers. I saw this attitude all the time in mega churches behind stage. It is the same contempt anyone disposed toward power has for those who so blindly follow them. They see them as easy pickins and because they are easy to manipulate, they are not respected.
I think if more people understood this, they would stop supporting them. However, those who realize it and still follow them have serious issues of their own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
BTW: Phil would never recognize himself or his boss as “wolves”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ovine is defined:
of, relating to, or resembling sheep.
Apathy is defined as:
Lack of interest.
So, Phil clarified what he meant:
Phil is a wolf because that is what his congregation wants. Yep, that makes perfect sense now.
Ed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim, I just came over here ready to paste your tweet link – ha! Thank you. The nice thing about Twitter is that ordinary people can now mingle directly with those “big names.” There’s no rank on Twitter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“BTW: Phil would never recognize himself or his boss as “wolves”.”
lydia00…Phil is one of….THE FIFTEEN. 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, Diane, that’s a whole “nuther” subject, isn’t it?
LikeLike
I looked up the source of the quote…The Gospel Messenger and read the article. The quote Johnson used was not an intact quote but snippets. Here is the paragraph:
This movement, as William
Temple pointed out five years
ago, is “the great fact of our
time.” But the “sheepishness of
the sheep” in the church’s fold is
nowhere more in evidence than
when it comes to their failure to
see its relevance to the ver.y situ-
ations which fill the sheep with
vague foreboding. The “wolfish-
ness of the wolves” would be far
less of a menace to our modern
world if the sheep would listen
to the voice of their one shep-
herd who calls them to a new
and dynamic “togetherness” as
a kind of living soul for the dis-
tracted and divided world.
https://archive.org/stream/gospelmessenger199152mors/gospelmessenger199152mors_djvu.txt
What is this movement of which this article speaks? lol The Ecumenical movement.
Global Christianity. A one world soul. This is what the sheepishness of the sheep means in context. We are just not on board with the movement…ecumenism.
That is fascinating, coming from GCC. Or maybe not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From the article phil posted in his tweet-
“The chief instrumentality of
the modern church for the de-
velopment of a world soul is the
ecumenical movement, in it is
stressed the intention of God
that his children should feel
themselves to have a place in
the common household of the
world. (Incidentally, ecumeni-
cal which is a word no longer
than economical and which de-
rives from the same Greek word
meaning house, ought to be a
household word among Chris-
tians, particularly since it means
household!)”
LikeLike
More of the context-
“Lacomte du Noiiy reminds us
in his tremendously prophetic
book, Human Destiny, that only
a very small percentage of the
people — he says about one per
cent — really help to determine
the climate and dimension of
society. The growth in effective-
ness and outreach of the ecumen-
ical movement — the emphasis
upon familyhood in the Chris-
tian church throughout the
world — would be enormously ac-
celerated if many more persons
were to take it seriously and
make their own efforts to inter-
pret and propagate its ideas.”
LikeLike
The last bit of the article-
“The people of the churches
should not be regarded as the
servants of the movement but as
its friends. The movement is
their collective servant! But to
serve effectively it needs to be-
come a part of their religious
thinking, praying and acting. It
may sound like a bromide to say
it again: but there is profound
truth in the observation of the
Frenchman who said: “Nothing
is real until it is local.”
Christians have a unique op-
portunity now — du Noiiy says
the greatest in 2,000 years of
their history — “to give the world
guidance and comfort.” They
can do it through helping Ameri-
ca to develop a soul that is sensi-
tive and consciously oriented
towards the larger world neigh-
borhood of which America is so
important a part. They can do
it by persistently identifying
themselves with the concept of
world citizenship; learning to
say not only my town, my coun-
try, but my world; not only my
church, my denomination, but
my world-wide Christian fellow-
ship! Those who persist in say-
ing “the” world, and “the world-
wide” Christian fellowship are
identifying themselves with that
sheepishness of the sheep which
is bound to bring world conflict
and world catastrophe if it is not
corrected in time to thwart the
wolfishness of the wolves!”
LikeLike
“Wolfish doctrines would get nowhere if not for ovine apathy.”
Blame the victim.
LikeLiked by 3 people
We may be mere sheep….but we know what to do with a mouse…and a computer…..
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have not been following the 15 but you can’t swing a dead cat without hearing about them in certain blogosphere circles. I wonder if Dustin is one of the 15? Or involved in the P&P heresy hunt?
LikeLike
That’s right, ruth james!
LikeLike
“For example, ECT II included this statement, carefully crafted to sound as if it were full of evangelical conviction: “In justification, God, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so.” But, of course, the statement simultaneously solicited signatures from Catholic priests and others who formally disavow the principle of sola fide. So notice: that sentence (the best in the whole statement) purposely omitted any mention of imputed righteousness and gave just enough wiggle-room to permit, say, a Jesuit theologian to put his own spin on the words and sign. It was a subtle approach to undermining the central evangelical distinctive.”
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/07/documentiasis.html
Oops, looks like Phil might not be an ecumenist, since he appears to be caught up in that imputed righteousness doctrine that might prevent a one world Christian soul.
But I guess he can quote from one (context left aside) if it makes the sheep look bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Regarding Julie Anne’s post with reproductions of Johnson’s tweets, where he says he is not the first to bring these issues up. That’s okay, my views are still the same, regardless of who originated the sentiment.
I find it frustrating that so many who profess Christ keep supporting and attending churches that are headed by what are, IMO, obvious frauds and/or bullies, such as Mark Driscoll.
However… I find Johnson’s post still a little too victim-blaming for my tastes, and I view him and his type to be part of this problem.
Over the last few years, I have seen (especially from the Neo Calvinist / Reformed guys) a reluctance to allow the average pew sitter to voice dissent.
The Neo Calvinist and other authoritarian blogs headed by these guys shame and criticize Average Joe and Average Jane Christians for questing their preachers or church culture.
They regularly publish articles on their blogs tut-tutting average, everyday Christians for publicly complaining about their church or preacher. They also regularly publish blog pages shaming Christians for ever being sarcastic or snarky about church.
The Christians who do question the status quo of the culture or of the doctrine being taught or how child or spouse abuse cases are handled (like the elders at Mars Hill) get fired or ostracized.
Johnson said,
But what of the Christians who are not apathetic, who speak up when they see church elders or preachers doing wrong things? The ones who are whistle blowers get demonized and kicked out of the church.
The ones who are not apathetic blog about it, Johnson… like Julie Anne here on this blog. And what do you do but criticize HER and Christian bloggers like her.
Some of these bloggers have tried going to their preachers and other church members in person to resolve differences, but that gets nowhere, they get booted from their churches and accused of “being divisive.” Leaving them only with the option of blogging about their experience to get their side of the story out.
LikeLike
lydia00 said.
Yes, and this holds true for any and every other area in life.
I learned from reading books about domestic abuse, workplace abuse, codependency, etc, that if you remain passive and un-assertive with rude, mean, abusive, or controlling people (could be anyone, a spouse, boss, friend, co-worker), they generally view that as your permission to keep abusing and using you.
I learned from these books that some abusive people or bullies only respect people who stand up for themselves.
Unfortunately, a lot of Christians teach other Christians (especially women) that God wants women (or Christians in general) to be ever-loving, passive, compliant doormats who never practice self-defense or assertiveness – which only enables abuse or rudeness to continue.
LikeLike
Phil Johnson might want to think hard about what he says. He seems to presume that if the bovine lose their apathy they will probably be in agreement with his theology. Me thinks the loss of apathy in the bovine will send the bovine out the door of most institutional ‘c’hurches and far away from the likes of Phil and his gang.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Diane quoting some book or web page where Johnson got his quotes from:
“The “wolfish- ness of the wolves” would be far less of a menace to our modern
world if the sheep would listen to the voice of their one shep-herd who calls them to a new and dynamic “togetherness” as a kind of living soul for the dis- tracted and divided world.”
The wolves and bullies train the sheep to be apathetic and compliant.
When or if the Average Joes and Janes question the preacher or elders or the church culture, they get browbeat, told they are divisive, sometimes kicked out of the church.
The sheep are being indoctrinated by guys like Phil Johnson, Mark Driscoll, Perry Noble, and all these other preachers, to be compliant, unquestioning doormats. They they have the audacity to refer to those “sheep” as being compliant, unquestioning doormats.
(It’s the same dynamic with how most churches deal with and counsel women in abusive marriages, too, I’ve noticed.)
These types of church leaders, preachers, and pundits create and promote the very conditions (apathy, unquestioning obedience, etc) that they want the church members to have, but then they fault the church members for having those qualities.
LikeLike