Will Those in the Real Gospel-Centered Churches Please Stand?

Gospel-Centered Movement, TGC, YRR, Calvinists, Jared Wilson


***

Over at The Gospel Coalition website, Jared Wilson has published the Top 125 Influences of the Gospel-Centered Movement.

Now, I admit at first, I had assumed that he was talking about all influential Christians. As I read more of his intro, I saw that he was really referring to the YRR (Young, restless, and Reformed) folks, aka Calvinistas (as referred to by the Deebs at The Wartburg Watch. Other names include, New Calvinists, or Neo-Calvinists, and Hyper Calvinists (but Jared didn’t name those three).

Taking a look through the 125 names, please note the lack of women listed. Also, take note of the number of men who are listed who are known to have been caught up in sexual scandals, clergy sexual misconduct, covering up sexual abuse, heavy-handed church discipline, spiritual abuse, hiding pedophiles, permanence of marriage belief, harmful to wives of domestic violence, etc. It’s almost a Who’s-Who list of evil (it’s kind of weird these abusive wolves would even be in such a list, but I guess they were “influential” at one time or another).

top 125 gospel-centered tgc

I, along with others, had a Twitter conversation with Jared. I was curious to know how the survey was done, who he reached out to. I wanted to know if he went outside of his own circle to ask people. How many people did he ask? I guess I’m slow because when I think of influential leaders, in my mind, they are from different camps and for different reasons. I would ask people outside of my circle in order to have a wider spectrum of contributions.

It didn’t occur to me that this group is so insular. I know, I know, I should have known, but I keep giving them the benefit of the doubt thinking they would venture beyond their borders because it’s a big world out there and God can work in people across denominational and doctrinal boundaries. Or maybe it’s because I do not fit in a box. People would have a difficult time labeling me. I don’t like labels. But apparently, this group does.

So, here are some tweets from the conversation. I tried to give enough so you can sense the tone and tension (which I found to be over-the-top).

 

As I said, that is a portion of the conversation. But here’s the thing – I couldn’t figure out this “gospel-centered movement” phrase. Aren’t all healthy Christian churches gospel-centered? But then he implies that only the YRR group is gospel-centered?  Wait just a cotton-pickin’ minute!

It turns out I wasn’t the only one who noticed:

 

So, there you go. We knew this group liked to insert the gospel word wherever they can, but this seems to be going over the top.

So my questions for you are:

  • Would you have assumed that the Gospel-Centered Movement referred only to the YRR crowd? Or for any gospel-believing Christian?
  • I would be curious to know who you would name as most influential in your life. Feel free to name a few.

 

 

68 comments on “Will Those in the Real Gospel-Centered Churches Please Stand?

  1. Not sure I’d put all the ones I’m familiar with in the Neo-Calvinist camp. RC Sproul, for me, is borderline, and so is Tim Keller, although I’ve not read all that much of their stuff.

    Like

  2. “Would you have assumed that the Gospel-Centered Movement referred only to the YRR crowd? Or for any gospel-believing Christian?”

    For me, yes, I would assume this referred only to the YRR crowd. Simply because this is the main crowd that I see using the word “gospel” as an adjective.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Well, that explains why Jared responded the way he did – like I was a fool for asking him such questions. Good grief, if they own the gospel word, then why is there so much abuse going on with these leaders? That doesn’t sound too gospelly to me.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. LOL, well, my most influential are a handful of wonderful pastors that nobody would know. Absolute lifesavers who have always been kind and helpful. On that particlar list, I sometimes enjoy Francis Chan and Thabiti Anyabwile. Russell Moore should get an honorable mention for at least taking a stand against the notion of theocracy and also Alt-right racism.

    Myself, I tend to shy away from the “gospel centered” church. What that always says to me is that, “we think we’re the only ones who understand the bible” and if you don’t agree with our interpretations and our applications, then you are denying the “biblical Christ” and we can revoke your very salvation. Then they send the Calvanistas after you, but they aren’t even Calvanists, they are this strange group of internet minions who specialize in browbeating people and being generally obnoxious.

    IMO, it’s quite ridiculous because I’m rather conservative, reformed even. I totally believe in the bible and in Jesus Christ. I wouldn’t belong to a church that wasn’t centered around the gospel. So I’m glad you’re addressing this issue. It’s annoyed me for sometime now.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. My most influential are the no-names at most of the little churches I’ve attended for the past 25 years, where the pastors love the people and take care of them.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Virtually all Americans, my goodness!

    As for the rest of the English-speaking world, come over here and help us. 🙂

    I think a truly gospel-centered church should have only one name on its list, one Man.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “Gospel centered”.

    If your idea of the gospel is a works salvation false gospel then sure.

    These guys and their books/sermons promote constant self examining to make sure they’re truly one of the “elect”, instead of believing, trusting and resting in the righteousness of God alone in Jesus Christ.

    This entire ‘movement’ preaches a false gospel of works veiled as ‘Grace’.

    And the irony is… the works they expect others to do in order to prove they belong to Christ, they themselves fall desperately short in producing.

    Stay away from them all.

    Trust in Jesus.

    Btw… where is Jesus on the list haha?

    “I will build MY church”.

    Maybe we should all aim to be a part of the One he is building and skip the rest 😊

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Julie Anne, it would be very worthwhile if someone was to make a version of this list with any abusive behaviour noted next to each name . As you say, it is almost a telephone directory of evil. So let’s call them out on it!

    And, of course, the majority of their victims are female.

    Like

  9. The author of the article lists “John Piper” as number one? I would ask, “With whom is his brain out to lunch with?” Sure hope no woman gave him directions to the local YRR coffee shop, for that, aka. piper theology, would have been an abomination unto a lord, so to speak.

    So whose book deals is this “survey taker” promoting? Hmmmmmmm.

    Wise counsel: Avoid this list and read the Scriptures for yourself; best relationship ever…….Jesus!

    Like

  10. A list of extreme misogynist that are scared of women being able to tell them no and escaping them. A list of self-worshipping, self-serving, self-centered, self-promoting, selfish thugs.

    Here are other names that go well with these creeps. Tom Chantry, Bill Gothard, Jim Bob Duggar, Josh Duggar, J. D. Hall, Doug Phillips, Jack Schaap, Tony Perkins, Paige Patterson, Michael Pearl, James Dobson.

    I grew up in this toxic (lets sh*t on the raped child and baby the child rapist) ideology.
    These men’s selfish heartless male worshipping ideology is the reason why when I hear stories about men like Ariel Castro and Phillip Garrido they remind me of conservative Christian fathers and conservative Christian husbands.

    Like

  11. It makes sense that nearly all of these are Calvinists. (I’m Arminian.) A controlling God who forces people to become good–or worse, evil–against their wills would appeal to heavy-handed control freaks. God is three times holy. That means GOODNESS is more integral to who He is than even His omnipotence. An all-powerful being who was evil would not be the God of the Bible!

    Like

  12. Katy, I wonder if you or anyone else here would kindly provide me the link to the actual article where John Piper makes that statement about acting like a flirtatious moron when a man asks directions. (Why’s a good complementarian man asking anyone for directions? Not very manly. Ho ho ho!)

    Like

  13. Taking a look through the 125 names, please note the lack of women listed.

    Also, take note of the number of men who are listed who are known to have been caught up in sexual scandals, clergy sexual misconduct, covering up sexual abuse, heavy-handed church discipline, spiritual abuse, hiding pedophiles, permanence of marriage belief, harmful to wives of domestic violence, etc.

    These things are related.

    Like

  14. I agree @EMC_Maine, his information gathering technique sounds more like an echo chamber.

    How I picture this going down…

    “Hey Bob, who is super important to the ‘gospel’ ‘movement’?”
    “Joe”

    “Hey Joe, who is super important to the ‘gospel’ ‘movement’?”
    “Bob”

    Well, looks like Bob and Joe are both super important! Awesome!

    Like

  15. A list of extreme misogynist that are scared of women being able to tell them no and escaping them. A list of self-worshipping, self-serving, self-centered, self-promoting, selfish thugs.

    Tell me about it. People will see the moniker “gospel-centered movement”, and read the top names on this list, hoping to see what this “movement” is about. And then they’ll read what this gang of fools has done to their congregants, and other Christians, and what they’ve written and said about women and the suffering.

    I look at just the first 10 names on that list. If these goobers are the most influential men in this movement, you might as well call it the “Tax-Exempt Phallocentric Financial, Sexual, and Spiritual Abuse Movement”. Because it has nothing to do with good news of Jesus.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I think a truly gospel-centered church should have only one name on its list, one Man.

    I would have included four more, Matthew Mark Luke and John 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Rachel, “A controlling God who forces people to become good–or worse, evil–against their wills would appeal to heavy-handed control freaks.”

    That’s a pretty bad caricature of Calvinist thought. Even within Calvinism, there are two views on the matter, that get tied up in single vs. double predestination. Single predestination is that God chooses the Elect and works through the Holy Spirit to bring them to salvation. The non-Elect are not chosen, per-se, but are left to their natural post-fall inclination, which is to reject God and choose evil. Double predestination is the idea that God both chooses who he will save, and who he will pour out his wrath on.

    But, even the most crusty authoritarian Calvinist would never say that anything is done “against our will”. I think that there is a problem with Calvinists who think of God as being ready with the whip behind his back for us to fail, or even one who sets up situations where we are likely to fail and then punishes us for failing.

    The more and more I think of it, the more I find the parable of the wheat and the tares to speak to this. What we see is that in the course of history, there are wheat and tares that grow alongside each other. God knows all the consequences of his actions, and he knows that there is potentially no way to remove the tares without uprooting some of the wheat alongside. We can see the broad sweep of unrestrained evil, but we do not necessarily see the life that fills in the cracks. Even that begs the question of why God couldn’t somehow supernaturally save the wheat while removing the tares, but I’m not sure that’s my call to make.

    I think the core difference between Arminians and Calvinists is the question of man’s natural state. In Arminianism, it seems that man is born with a naturally blank slate – able to walk towards evil or walk towards good of his own accord and then able to accept salvation. God has essentially tied his hands and waits for us to choose him. Calvinists tend to think of man as naturally in rebellion to God. God then has to reach down and begin a process of restoration, where at some point along that process the person realizes that he needs salvation. I think that both systems have some very difficult questions. For example, why would an Arminian pray for God to bring someone to salvation because God has tied his hands. On the other hand, why would a Calvinist, since the prayer would seem to not have any effect – God will do what he will do.

    I think Calvinism is correct at its core, but I find that it leads towards a practice of inaction and potentially abuse. On the flip side, I think Arminianism gets the natural state wrong, but it leads towards action and care…

    The best way I can sum it up is what a Catholic friend wisely said. “Pray as if it all depends on God. Act as if it all depends on you.”

    Like

  18. I think Calvinism is correct at its core, but I find that it leads towards a practice of inaction and potentially abuse.

    Mark, I think when people get all their knowledge of Calvinists from people who are just like those listed above, they are naturally going to think it leads to abuse. And yet, there are other Calvinists denominations who are so different in character as people that I cannot accept this ‘it’s calvinisms fault’ business as an excuse for abuse and inaction. I do think reformed thinking leads to less emphasis on missions, though.

    Like

  19. Lea, I think Calvin was abusive. He and Luther were significantly better than the authoritarian and abusive Catholic church they grew up around, but I think they made great strides towards the freedom we see today.

    Unfortunately, there are still too many people that consider Calvin and that general Reformation era theology to be the “last word on doctrine(TM)” and as such don’t recognize the need to temper and correct his views on authority and abuse.

    I think guys like Kuyper were much better at understanding that there were boundaries to authority that Calvin really didn’t acknowledge. Calvin, though, did recognize one limit of authority that the church at that point did not – that an authority could not command you to sin. In fact, that it was sinful for someone to do something they knew to be sinful whether or not it was dictated from above.

    That’s why I think the Westminster churches tend to be more abusive than the three forms churches – there is much more authoritarianism written into Westminster, and, in a sense, much less written into the three forms.

    Like

  20. Mark, I’m not talking about Calvin himself, merely reformed churches. (all of whom get labeled Calvinists) I mislike this lumping together of all problems into Calvinism. I have seen too many other types of fundamentalists, patriarchal folks, and even catholics with huge abuse issues to think that Calvinism is the root problem here. My Presbyterian church has a significant percentage of ex (arminian) Baptists who left because of various issues.

    Ultimately, I think if you pick a church with kind people that doesn’t try to control you and does good? You will be fine.

    Like

  21. That’s why I think the Westminster churches tend to be more abusive than the three forms churches – there is much more authoritarianism written into Westminster, and, in a sense, much less written into the three forms.

    But…here comes your written/unwritten rule thing. it doesn’t matter what the rules are if they aren’t followed. Figure out the unwritten ones.

    I’m trying to remember, but there was something in my church about being ‘guided’ by confessions, not bound to them.

    Like

  22. Rachel – I’m assuming Katy is talking about this post: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-women-be-police-officers

    Piper states:

    “There is a continuum from very personal influence, very eye-to-eye, close personal influence, to non-personal influence. And the other continuum is very directive — commands and forcefulness — directive influence to very non-directive influence. And here is my conviction. To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership, and thus controvert God’s created order. To an extent, a woman’s leadership or influence may be personal and non-directive or directive and non-personal, but I don’t think we should push the limits. I don’t think those would necessarily push the limits of what is appropriate. That is my general paradigm of guidance. And you can see how flexible it is and how imprecise it is. So let me give some examples.

    “A woman who is a civil engineer may design a traffic pattern in a city so that she is deciding which streets are one-way and, therefore, she is influencing, indeed controlling, in one sense, all the male drivers all day long. But this influence is so non-personal that it seems to me the feminine masculine dynamic is utterly negligible in this kind of relationship. On the other hand, the husband-and-wife relationship is very personal and, hence, the clear teaching of the New Testament that the man should give leadership in the home and that she give a glad partnership in supporting and helping that leadership come into its own.”

    So, a female civil engineer indirectly influences a man’s decisions by determining which way roads are paved, therefore affecting direction. But, this influence is non-personal because there is no relationship between the woman and the man driving. (Unless they’re married — I don’t know why he didn’t factor that in.) However, if a wife attempts to give her husband directions, that is personal and directive and therefore goes against the God ordained leadership of the husband.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Influential to me are my professors at Northern Seminary, Dr. Scot McKnight and Dr. Cherith Fee Nordling. They are both unabashedly gospel-centered; they are both unabashedly Jesus-centered.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Piper states:” To the degree that a woman’s influence over a man, guidance of a man, leadership of a man, is personal and a directive, it will generally offend a man’s good, God-given sense of responsibility and leadership and thus controvert God’s created order”

    Everything about this sentence is whiney unbiblical nonsense.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. @Lea:

    How I picture this going down…
    “Hey Bob, who is super important to the ‘gospel’ ‘movement’?”
    “Joe”
    “Hey Joe, who is super important to the ‘gospel’ ‘movement’?”
    “Bob”
    Well, looks like Bob and Joe are both super important! Awesome!

    It’s called “The Larry/Moe/Curly School of References”:

    REVEREND Larry praises Reverend Moe as “super-important”.
    REVEREND Moe praises Reverend Curly as “super-important”.
    REVEREND Curly praises Reverend Larry as “super-important”.
    Only nobody’s going “NYUK! NYUK! NYUK!”

    (Jerome “Babe” Horowitz, I’m getting a lot of mileage out of your signature line…)

    Liked by 1 person

  26. @Mark:

    Lea, I think Calvin was abusive. He and Luther were significantly better than the authoritarian and abusive Catholic church they grew up around, but I think they made great strides towards the freedom we see today.

    And in the past 500 years (especially the last 50) the Catholic and Reformed churches have almost completely switched attitudes.

    Unfortunately, there are still too many people that consider Calvin and that general Reformation era theology to be the “last word on doctrine(TM)” and as such don’t recognize the need to temper and correct his views on authority and abuse.

    Calvin as Last and Greatest Prophet (superseding all previous Revelations) similar to Mohammed?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Kathi, yes, that’s the post where Piper references pseudo biblical manhood verses womanhood. “A woman must never say or do anything to offend, or insult a man’s manhood?” And this weeny man is named as number one on Wilson’s gospel(?) list?

    Pray tell, what kind of weeds are these men smoking?

    Thank-you Kathi for taking the time to locate that article for reference. I still have a difficult time trying to understand Piper’s theology, “man is everything; woman is nothing.”

    Like

  28. Piper wrote a little ‘what’s the difference’ book that he refers to in that article.

    “But unmistakably my father was a man and my mother was a woman. They knew it and I knew it. And it was not mainly a biological fact. It was mainly a matter of personhood and relational dynamics”

    Or maybe it was mainly a biological fact? Yeesh. Piper is just…

    https://cdn.desiringgod.org/website_uploads/documents/books/whats-the-difference.pdf?1414777989

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Lea, John Piper isn’t whining. His motives are good. But his desire to eschew homosexuality/radical feminism has led him to ridiculous extremes. He’s so obsessed with NOT being unmanly he has no idea what he’s supposed to BE.

    You call him a whiner. I call him a bean-counting, gnat-straining, nit-picking legalist. A cross between Barney Fife and Captain Queeg.

    Legalist: I don’t drink. I don’t smoke. I don’t go to movies. I don’t gamble. I don’t dance. I don’t run errands on Sunday. I don’t swear.

    Christian: But what do you actually do?

    Like

  30. @HUG, not quite like that… There is a belief that the Western church pinnacled somewhere around the writing of the Westminster Confession, so there is somewhat a progression from Luther to Calvin to various Reformation-era authors, ultimately culminating in the Westminster Divines writing the Confession of Faith.

    However, the less sophisticated churches are going to think that there was essentially one thought process – that whatever Calvin wrote down ended up in summary form in the Confession.

    Like

  31. At the heart of mature womanhood is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive, and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman’s differing relationships.

    Translation: women only exist to glorify men.

    AT THE HEART OF mAT URE mascul iNITY IS a sense of benevololent respoponsibility to LEADEADEAD, provide for and protect WOMEN IN WAYS APPROPRIATE TO a Man’s DIFFERING RELATIONSHIPS.

    Translation: Men only exist to boss around, give stuff to, and protect women?

    Neither of these are true and full visions of a whole person. Where does this leave single people, as immature persons only?

    Like

  32. More from Piper:

    Mature masculinity does not have to initiate every action, but feels the responsibility to provide a general pattern of initiative.

    eyeroll

    Liked by 1 person

  33. “Mature masculinity expresses its leadership in romantic sexual relations by communicating an aura of strong and tender pursuit.”

    lol.

    “he wife may initiate an interest in romance and may keep on initiating different steps along the way. But there is a difference. A feminine initiation is in effect an invitation for the man to do his kind of initiating.”

    She’s just inviting him to initiate by…initiating. TOTALLY DIFFERENT YALL.

    Like

  34. A significant aspect of femininity is a way of responding to the pattern of initiatives established by mature masculinity.

    I’m going to stop here (probably) just to say that this is such a MALE perspective. All that matters of being feminine is how one responds to men. So wrong. Utterly, blindly wrong.

    Like

  35. I think the military analogy is very applicable here. Legalists tend to think of the church in military terms. My understanding is that there are manuals for how a soldier should act based on every sort of situation. If there’s a situation that a soldier gets into for which there isn’t a manual, then it’s somewhat best practices, but there is sure to be an investigation and a manual will be written.

    This is also how soldiers are disciplined. If they were supposed to do X according to the manual and they did Y, then they can be punished. So, if something bad happens, there is typically a root cause analysis as to whether the process itself is flawed and needs more details, or whether a soldier acted inappropriately.

    I think that is very appealing to many people. They want to do the right thing, so they listen for the pastor to say “don’t go to movies” or “don’t dance” or whatever and use that as a litmus test for whether they are Christian or not. On the flip side, there is a to-do list – “tithe” “attend weekly worship and prayer meetings” “vote Republican”… So, in most churches, Christians are judged by the things that they do and don’t do that are on the list.

    It can become an abusive system when pastors drift from things clearly in scripture (e.g. no adultery) to things that are derived from derivations of derivations of scripture (e.g. don’t watch movies), or when they set bars for things (e.g. pray at least three times a day for 10 minutes each). Those sorts of things seem to set unattainable goals so that we then judge ourselves “poor” Christians, which then means that someone who can maintain the external appearances of being a “good” Christian has that power over us.

    Like

  36. I’m sorry, spoke too soon. I think the thing about directions is in this ‘what’s the difference’ thing I’ve been quoting. Piper:

    “For example, a housewife in her backyard may be asked by a man how to get to the freeway. At that point she is giving a kind of leadership. She has superior knowledge that the man needs and he submits himself to her guidance. But we all know that there is a way for that housewife to direct the man that neither of them feels their mature femininity or masculinity compromised.”

    And just for a bonus, he quotes this person, saying this:

    J. I. Packer suggested that “a situation in which a female boss has a male secretary” puts strain on the humanity of both (see note 16).

    A strain on the HUMANITY. That is wild.

    Like

  37. “Mature masculinity does not have to initiate every action, but feels the responsibility to provide a general pattern of initiative.”

    That’s straight from Elisabeth Elliott. To her, the definition of masculinity is initiation and the definition of femininity is response, down to the shapes of certain parts of the anatomy.

    It’s an extra-Biblical conclusion that they then force on the Bible to judge various women as being sinful so as not to have to deal with the clear fact that these women were LEADERS.

    Like

  38. I’ve heard of and read about several of the men on the list. I agree that a lot of them are patriarchal and misogynistic and probably neocalvinist. But please tell me David Platt is not one of them! I’ve read 3 of his books and attended 2 of his secret church mtgs, also heard him preach a few times at the church he use to pastor. I never saw, read or heard him say anything that resembled Calvinism. In fact he seemed almost the opposite of Calvinism.

    Like

  39. Not necessarily a male perspective. More like an idiot’s perspective. I can hear the ball bearings rattling in his pocket as he harangues his subordinates. Aye, aye Captain Queeg!

    Much of what Piper says doesn’t make sense. I can’t help laughing at his desperate attempt to impose legalistic rules (not found in the Bible, but devised by Piper and other like-minded Pharisees) and turn men and women into caricatures.

    I wrote a blogpost about my problem with complementarian extremism. http://lookingupliving.wordpress.com/are-virtues-gender-specific/

    Like

  40. @Katy:

    Thank-you Kathi for taking the time to locate that article for reference. I still have a difficult time trying to understand Piper’s theology, “man is everything; woman is nothing.”

    You seem to understand it perfectly, Katy.

    And the entire rest of the theology must bend (or break to fit that absolute base premise. “Man is Everything, Woman is Nothing, All Else is Relative.”

    Like

  41. Man is everything. Woman is nothing. And John Piper ‘s bizarre ideas equal sacred Scripture.

    Ralph: I’m the king of the castle! Ya got that Alice? I’m the king; you’re nothing!
    Alice: I got it. That makes you the king of nothing.
    Ralph: Har de har har!

    A lot of his theology seems to be derived from The Honeymooners. 😀

    Like

  42. It is amazing to me that they actually put out a list of their hero “celebrity pastors/authors” that they worship. I gather that the goal of any up and coming pastor/author is to get HIS name on the list? It reminds me of the disciples arguing about who would be the greatest in the kingdom of God. “My name is higher on the list so I’m greater than you are… I’m sure I’ll get a seat on God’s right hand.” If I remember correctly, Jesus wasn’t too impressed with this kind of thinking.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. You’re right, Mary27.

    I sure liked this response on Twitter.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Just got finished reading the Rachel Denhollander interview in Christianity Today. Probably one of the best interviews I’ve read in CT in a good while. The article explained why she was turned out by her church because of who she was confronting – SGM.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Yep, Donna, it’s all about SGM. When she found out her church was inviting CJ Mahaney to speak, she spoke out against it. That didn’t go over really well the CJ defenders.

    Like

  46. @RachelNichols:

    Ralph: I’m the king of the castle! Ya got that Alice? I’m the king; you’re nothing!
    Alice: I got it. That makes you the king of nothing.
    Ralph: Har de har har!

    “TO THE MOON, ALICE!”

    Like

  47. @JulieAnne:

    Yep, Donna, it’s all about SGM. When she found out her church was inviting CJ Mahaney to speak, she spoke out against it. That didn’t go over really well the CJ defenders.

    A mere WOMAN blaspheming the Head Apostle (chuckle chuckle).

    Like

  48. @Mary27:

    It is amazing to me that they actually put out a list of their hero “celebrity pastors/authors” that they worship. I gather that the goal of any up and coming pastor/author is to get HIS name on the list?

    Thus becoming a God whose Throne is exalted above that of the Most High.

    Like

  49. Sorry Cindy but Platt is as hyper- Calvinist as they come, he is just a bit deceptive about it. He wrote the forward to Marky Marks book , The 9 marks of a healthy church which is used to promote Mark Deavers heavy handed control techniques over church members.

    Platt is also the new teaching pastor at McLean bible church, a mega church of 20,000 with multiple campuses located here in Fairfax County, Va When he was at the church you were at did he constantly do the whiney cry like thing at every service or is that new ?
    Sadly another large church of around 3,000 people here has also recently got a 9 marks pastor. Immanuel Bible has a couple of Masters university flunkies on staff including the lead teaching pastor.

    John McAurthur is targeting large cities including the metro Dc area for church take overs by his calvinisteea shock troopes. Marky Mark is also based down town at capital hill baptist. The three of these abusive thugs hang out together.

    The take over of churches by these guys is actually quite easy as most mega church folks don’t even know what Calvinism is. I know probably 100 people at mclean bible and nearly that number at Immanuel bible, none of them have a problem with the new teaching pastors as they are theologically challenged after years and years of cheerleading style, pep rally for Jesus type church services. The ones I have asked literally don’t know what Calvinism is. Thus these churches are vulnerable to having their over 100 million in combined assets swiped by the Calvinist opportunist.

    That’s why some of these clowns like Platt lie about being Calvinist while preaching Calvinism straight down the tulip. They are just taking the Trojan horse approach to conquering their prey and looting the city. It’s working.

    Like

  50. HUG, you make some valid points concerning the worship of mere men and women, using the Name of our LORD for their own glory……banks accounts and other perks!

    So would those of us who choose not to listen, read, nor attend any of these individuals’ religious journalistic or media resources, be considered “saved by Jesus,” since we don’t submit to their religious authority? And would they be offended if we did not know who or how important they are to the religious industrial complex.

    Important, lofty religious people are offended when you don’t recognize their divine authority or their vast religious knowledge, as personally insulting, generally speaking.

    Matthew 28:18-20. This authority I can count on!

    Like

  51. Lea:

    “Hey Bob, who is super important to the ‘gospel’ ‘movement’?”
    “Joe”

    “Hey Joe, who is super important to the ‘gospel’ ‘movement’?”
    “Bob”

    “Hey CJ Mahaney, who is super important to the ‘gospel’ ‘movement’?”
    “Well, start with me…”

    Like

  52. @scott, “When he was at the church you were at did he constantly do the whiney cry like thing at every service or is that new ?”

    I think it’s being “earnest”. I recently heard a sermon from the president of a conservative seminary. It struck me that the sermon was authoritarian and legalistic, but it was delivered in the whiny cry-like voice in a way that made it sound like he really cared. Afterwards, I heard a number of people comment about how wonderful a preacher he was. I figured if I could just perfect my whiny voice, I could be a “gifted leader” (groan!)

    Like

  53. Tried to post my comment under the article, but — no go.

    So, here goes.

    ahem. (kof, kof) “speaking the truth in love . . ”

    Sensible, discerning believers already know to steer clear of Mark D.
    (and to take all measures to steer loved ones clear as well, especially the young’uns).

    Actually, not much discernment, knowledge, training, or maturity is required.

    Simple.
    Even kids know that God does not lie, cheat, steal, or speak in pornographic images;
    and that God expects the same from His followers.

    What’s that admonition from the Bible?
    ‘Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”’

    If you think Mark D. has ANYTHING to do with Jesus’ Gospel, you’ve clearly got the WRONG gospel.

    Ditto for Tullian T.

    (Avoiding the wrong gospel is “Biblical.” See Galatians 1, 2 Corinthians 11 for starters.)

    Names on the same list with those two now get red flags by association.
    ~~~

    “Gospel recovery?” What is “Biblical” about “gospel recovery?”

    Like

  54. It’s a shame that “Calvinists” and “the reformed” have created such an unpleasant perception of themselves. Myself, I love to go tripping through the TULIPS, I love the Westminster confession, and Martin Luther actually called his wife, “My Lord Katy.”

    In my mind these are all good things, but then I see them on the internet used in such an ugly way and it’s enough to make me wail in despair.

    Liked by 1 person

  55. IMO – guilt by association in this abitrary list is wrong – imo !!

    Elizabeth Elliott is included, and I cannot imagine anyone wanting to dismiss her influence as being on a par with some of the characters in this list. Some of whom, it has to be said, were no loss to the diplomatic corps. Others are pure-bred wolves, such as Tullian.

    I liked the comment about the old ladies who pray. The pastor of the baptist church I used to go to used to get such a group in the church to pray about real problems and needs in the church, given in strictest confidence. I suspect they were the power-house of the church.

    I significant influence on my life and thinking was Dick Lucas of St Helen’s Bishopsgate in London. A bit of another Stott, and imo a gift of God to the Anglican church to call it back to its thinking evangelical senses (it desperately needs this). A man of considerable influence, yet never became famous and I don’t doubt never wanted to. Faithfully worked in the background.

    Like

  56. The way John Piper is always going on about is pseudo manhood and masculinity makes me think he doesn’t have any. The man is a creepy little misogynistic pervert that dreams stuff up and pretends it is God’s ideas.

    Real men don’t hate women; scared men do. My father and the man who sexually abused me as a child are these scared men who hate women. Every man on this gross list has many of the same insecurities and selfish tendencies as my father and the vomit who sexually abused little girls. Having sex with a grown empowered woman who is educated, has a job, and can tell them no was scary scary.

    The Bible says do not add to it. John Piper adds his self-serving insecure man slop to it consistently.

    This group of men has to degrade and demean women to give themselves a boost. If they were really real men, the way they go on and on trying to get everybody to believe they are; they would not have to demean, minimize, and subjugate women to feel better about themselves.

    Their rhetoric proves they are sadistic and scared. If it wasn’t for the brainwashing and self-hatred my father and my grandfather heaped on my trapped mother my father would not have had a trapped slave. My mother would have been in her right mind and had the self-respect to divorce my scum bag father.

    C.J. Mahaney is pure vile evil and deserves to be in prison with most of his (child rape is not a prison-worthy crime) underlings. No one who hates child rape could like or be friends with him. The man is so sick he isn’t even ashamed of the rampant child rape that went on in “HIS” organizations. In these men’s brains not being submissive to your father and husband is the worst thing that happens in the world, but raping children is nothing to get worked up about. ISIS is also obsessed with female submission to fathers and husbands, and ISIS can also get over rape quickly.

    Like

  57. Scott, thank you for the info about David Platt. I first heard him preach about 12 yrs
    ago at a church in B’ham, AL. At that time his preaching style was more like teaching and I wasn’t very impressed with his sermons. What I was impressed with was that a woman
    had the privilege of baptizing a teenage girl. That is very unusual for a southern Bapt church in the south. I liked his book Radical –
    Taking back your faith from the American Dream because it focused on how we are to
    help the poor and serve others in Jesus’ name. The 1st secret church event I attended was great because it focused on who Jesus is and why we need him plus we spent time in prayer for people around the world. The 2nd event was not as good because David included teaching on why girls and women should dress modestly. I’m fairly certain that’s not what true secret churches discuss.
    Since you mentioned about take overs of churches by calvinists I now understand what
    you mean about Platt. I believe he started out
    as evangelical or seemed to. Why is he the president of the IMB if he’s Calvinist? Does the board not realize it or do they have an agenda? My husband and I served with the IMB several years ago in Central Asia and later in East Africa. We still keep in touch with many who still serve with the IMB. I believe they truly don’t know Platt’s true beliefs.

    Like

  58. Nowadays I would assume anything with a title like that is a patriarchal movement I want nothing to do with. But 10 years ago I would have been all over this. I would have thought it was a wonderful bastion again liberal heretics, and that it was such a great thing to have such men standing for gospel truth. I wouldn’t have cared that it was a narrow group of people, because after all, the Way that leads to life is narrow, and in these dark times many will have itching ears and will fall away. I would not have questioned this list because I would have seen the narrowness as inevitable. I wouldn’t even have listened to any other point of view, because of course anyone who doesn’t prioritise THE GOSPEL is wasting time. I mean they wear skinny jeans and their wives GO OUT TO WORK.

    Thank God He opened my eyes to the truth about this movement. Unfortunately my eyes were mainly opened because my own marriage became abusive, and I saw the principles and rules of this movement from the other side. But I am happy to be awake and free despite the pain it has caused me.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. Liz,

    Thank-you for sharing. Your honesty touched my heart and I would have to say “Amen” to everything you said………..for that WAS me too. I once believed that conservatism and piety assured my salvation in heaven, in place of Jesus, and am ashamed to admit that I was brain washed into believing movements such as these are not the Way to His Eternity.

    I too, see the Light. Bless you Liz.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s