Rumpelstiltskin and the Gingerbread Man

Tuesday December 27, 2011 

by John Immel

“Run, run, as fast as you can!
You can’t catch me!
I’m the Gingerbread Man!”

 

Once upon a time, in a land far far away, there were two bloggers taking on abuses in twenty first century American Christianity. Rumpelstiltskin was clever, adorably blunt, and talked about Metaphysics and Epistemology. The Gingerbread Man was sweet and cuddly, serving milk and cookies to his readers while grumbling about blogging for the greater good.  Rumpelstiltskin talked about Ethical and Political theory.  The Gingerbread Man gave people a safe place to tell their stories of being under the thumb of giants up the SGM bean stalk chanting “Fee Fie Foe Fum, we smell the blood of an Arminian”. Rumpelstiltskin combated the roots of the Giants power and the absurdity of reform. The Gingerbread man railed against the “unbiblical” nature of Sovereign Grace Ministries polity. 

For many days Rumpelstiltskin’s blog was listed on the Gingerbread Man’s blog.  And then one day, it was not. The Gingerbread man did not say why and Rumpelstiltskin did not ask. Since he can spin his own straw into gold it did not matter. Many days passed and the blogs continued, until one day The Gingerbread Man was asked. 

Hi Gingerbread Man,
If  Rumpelstiltskin is your friend, then why did you take SpiritualTyranny.com out of your blogroll list?    

And the Gingerbread Man answered:  

Berlin,
There was a time that I think Rumpelstiltskin was taking a strong doctrinal stance that I disagree with. When I asked for a clarification and asked a simple question “who owns man?” he would not give me an answer. I don’t know if Rumpelstiltskin believes that man owns himself, or is owned by God. Simple question/simple answer.

It’s not Rumpelstiltskin’s fault that his IQ is at least 20 points higher than mine, nor it his fault that I’m uneducated. I was feeling that he was leading to a conclusion that man owns himself, which is an unbiblical belief. Again, this is not an accusation, because I don’t know what he believes. He can clear this up if he likes, or he can continue to talk over my head. 

Having said all of that, I have a lot of friends who I disagree with. I honestly like Rumpelstiltskin, a lot. 

I’m so glad you asked on this public forum  :-)  

Rumpelstiltskin having heard some variation of this underlying objection for many years sat on a tuffet with little Miss Muffit. He did not like curds and whey, so he talked while she ate. “Why are the clever the villains? Those brother’s really were Grimm when they made me the antagonist. They don’t even know me, and I have to justify myself when it was that stupid farmer who lied to the king?”

“Did I lie?” asked Rumpelstiltskin, as Miss Muffit took another bite.  “No. Did I put my daughter in a bad spot with the king?  No.  And that simpleton the King who had to threaten to get the girl to do what he wanted. Isn’t that just like all men in “authority” bullying and threatening? And as an authority, shouldn’t he have known the truth from a lie? Well, that just goes to show, that just because you have the zeal and concern to rule, doesn’t mean you’re worth goose dropping, golden or not.”

Miss Muffet nodded. 

“And that girl,” continued Rumpelstiltskin, “is the one who spread the tradition handed down from her father. She could have told the truth, but no, she perpetuated the lie to save her own skin. And she was the monster that was willing to sell her child for a cushy spot in the castle. What mother does tha—

Rumpelstiltskin paused, “Uh Miss Muffet, I don’t mean to frighten you, but uh.  You have a guest that has sat down beside your—.”

Miss Muffet’s eyes went round.

“I’m just saying,” Rumplestiltskin said, “It was only right that I should raise the kid.  I can provide endless gold to buy food. I work for a living. What was that ridiculous woman going to do?  Sell her second born to feed the first? But I am the antagonist because I am clever?  I am the bad guy because I can really do what I said? I am the villain because I wanted paid? I even wrote the contract with an escape clause. They guessed my name, and I am the one who honored the deal.”

Miss Muffet hid behind Rumplestiltskin.

“Rumpelstiltskin is smart, anyone who can spin straw into gold is a sharp cookie. Uh… err.”

Miss Muffet climbed on Rumplestiltskin’s shoulders.

“Miss, your Tuffit is most certainly in the way.  Listen Miss Muffit, here is what I want you to see. Listen to what the Gingerbread Man said again.  ‘It’s not his fault that his IQ is Twenty Pounds heavier or that I’m uneducated …’

“Miss Muffet, you need to be still so you can pay attention. The Gingerbread Man has framed the conversation so that it doesn’t matter if Rumpelstiltskin’s IQ is a thousand pounds or two pounds.  It doesn’t matter if his IQ only qualifies him to lick windows. Notice this:  

‘No one taught me this. I had no religious influence growing up. Approximately 3 weeks after I became a believer I found this. This is not a product of the reformation, but God’s Holy Word. Simple and Pure. […]

 

‘If you feel the need to make this concept very very complex, I’m all ears.’

 

That was when Miss Muffet ran away. But Little Jack Horner came out of his corner, eating a plumb on his thumb.

“This is what he’s really saying,” said Rumpelstiltskin, “Run, run, as fast as you can! You can’t catch me! I’m the Gingerbread Man! I’m not smart, but I see what is the truth of simplicity.”

“I’m a good boy,” said Jack.

“There are no good boys,” said Rumpelstiltskin, “Because there is no GOOD. So don’t worry about thinking and just eat, you wretched sinner.”

While Jack was busy eating Rumpelstiltskin thought to himself about how to respond to the Gingerbread logic. He didn’t know if it was a logical fallacy, but it should be.  

He diagramed it in his head:

Truth = X

 X = simple (pure)

 (therefore)

 Truth = Simple

 Which by default means: complex (cannot equal) truth.

“But complexity does not magically disappear because someone declares simplicity Truth,” said Rumpelstiltskin.

“I’m a good boy,” said Jack.

Rumpelstiltskin decided he needed to think hard so he stripped out of his Underoos to keep them from getting in the way. He sat on his tuffit pedestal, chin on fist.  Rumplestiltskin musing without Underoos But then he saw the three little pigs so got dressed.

Hay Pig started gathering hay for his house. “I’ll make us comfortable in a minute,” he said.

Stick Pig sat down on his tuffit to relax. “Give me a second. I’m winded.”

Brick Pig set up a work bench and pulled out his abacus and slide rule.  He started making notes on some plans.

 “Gingerbread logic gives people a powerful tool,” said Rumplestiltskin to whoever would listen. “It preemptively disqualifies all coefficients. Think of it this way: The logic applied to the equation (7x)2 = 4Y +3Z2 magically renders the equation:

(X) = whatever I think it means.

“They can erase the 7 and the 4 the other variable and the operating conditions that give X context and value. So any argument that points out complexity is disqualified.

“You’re talking over me,” said the Stick Pig.

“You just blew away my house,” said the Straw Pig

“But not by the hair on his chinny chin chin,” said Brick Pig, “He didn’t even huff and puff.  All he said was, if you can eliminate context, and audience, and author intent from bible interpretation, by disqualifying anything ‘complex’ a person can declare his ‘simple’ judgment biblical.”

“And by definition,” Rumpelstiltskin added, “what is complex and what is simple are subjective judgments.”

“Exactly,” said Brick Pig, “So you can’t catch the Gingerbread Man, because he can run away from any complexity in the name of biblical purity.”  

“But the bible clearly says—” said Stick Pig, jabbing a finger at his ESV. 

“Clearly?” asked Rumpelstiltskin. “Hold on to your ESV Bible thump for one second. Clear to whom? A 21st century English speaker?  Do you realize this is an appeal to English literalism: the literal understanding of English words, in a western culture, to a human mind living in the 21st century?

“This is getting complex,” said Hay Pig.

“The lie is that bible interpretation was ever simple.” Rumpelstiltskin shrugged, “The appeal to ‘simple and pure’ is merely an appeal to an interpretive method called Literalism.”

Brick Pig finished making a note in the margin of his King James, “This makes the foundation of all Bible understanding English 21st century understanding. This is like using the metric system to measure a feet and inches world. Some conversions can be made but they are cumbersome.”

“That was a metaphor,” said Hay Pig.

“The appeal to literalism is basically an appeal to modern subjectivity,” said Brick Pig.

“Which is why you can’t catch the Gingerbread Man,” said Rumpelstiltskin. 

“Which is why it is so easy to blow down Christian doctrinal houses,” said Brick Pig, “I keep telling my brothers to make their houses out of bricks and mortar, and they complain that I’m making it too hard.”  

“That wasn’t very nice,” said the Hay Pig.

Brick Pig rolled his eyes. “Nice?” he asked, “Just imagine what would happen if those wolves Jesus talked about showed up? They are in ‘nice’ sheep clothing, but they eat you. How nice is that?”

“Gingerbread logic tastes sweet, and sounds righteous,” observed Rumpelstiltskin, “but it is really designed to make intelligence a liability. It is an argument designed to level the intellectual playing field by declaring the full force of critical tools off limits.”

“What you said wasn’t very spiritual,” said Stick Pig, “As Christians we are not suppose to be critical. We shouldn’t even think too much. It was the Tree of Knowledge that got us in trouble. God didn’t want us to use our mind.  He wanted us to use our spirits. He wanted us to have a relationship with Him. He wanted us to have a revelation.”

Brick Pig sighed at the same time Rumpelstiltskin sighed. They’d both heard this before “A revelation, like for Allah?  A revelation for like Giaia?  How do you know which revelation is the better revelation?” asked Brick Pig.

“But it is God’s Word?”

“And that is what everyone else says about their ‘revelation,’” said Rumpelstiltskin.

“That is just not spiritual at all!” said Stick Pig.

“Spiritual!” exclaimed Rumpelstiltskin, “Eureka! Eureka! It tis the quest for true spiritually!” Rumpelstiltskin would have kissed Stick Pig but he didn’t have on any lipstick. “Brethren, we have found the problem.”

“Why are you speaking in King James?” asked Hay Pig.

“I was blind, but now I see,” Said Rumpelstiltskin, “Had I only been using the exact words written in the simple and pure Holy word of God I would have been truly spiritual. Now, thou canst not argue with me!  Behold! The Gingerbread Man doth spake thus:  

“‘No one taught me this. I had no religious influence growing up. Approximately 3 weeks after I became a believer I found this. This is not a product of the reformation, but God’s Holy Word. Simple and Pure. This is not a product of the reformation, but God’s Holy Word. Simple and Pure.’”

 “Approximately 3 weeks after I became a believer, I found this,” said Rumpelstiltskin to the Brick Pig, “But his own Ginger voice. Here do be the problemo.”

“That was Spanish,” said Hay Pig.

Rumpelstiltskin winked, “Thine Gingerbread Man’s interpretive methods, by his own ginger voice, were flawless from the first. Never to be marred with further thought, or tempered with more knowledge.”  

Brick Pig looked up from his Abacus, his eyes round with concern, “But if thine Gingerbread Man hath never improved his interpretive methods from three weeks from his New Birth, from the days that he was but a spiritual tyke, from the moments that he was as new as wobbly giraffe fresh from the Holy Spirits womb….”

“Oh the disaster!” cried Rumpelstiltskin, “Quick, fetch all the Kings horses and all the Kings men.  We must search the country side for homosexual lying dead.  For God’s Holy Word, simple and pure spake on this wise:  

“Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

 

“If thou read the holy book in like manner always,” said Brick Pig, “thou must always cast the first stone.”

“You are talking King James too?” said Hay Pig as he tried to rebuild his house, “is that the best translation?”

“I thought it was the ESV,” said Stick Pig.

“Straight away, send for the Seven Dwarves,” Rumpelstiltskin said, “Run fast. Fast as you can to the Gingerbread Man. Take the sharp knives out of his home. For if he is consistent with this interpretive standard of simple and pure bible reading, untainted by further instruction, but left to his own holy and pure understanding, he shalt be missing body parts.

“For the book says in Matthew 5. 

29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body  be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole  body go into hell.”

 

“But,” said Jack Horner, “Maybe his eye has never caused him to sin.  Maybe his right hand has been good.”

“Thou transgress,” said the Brick Pig, consecrating his words with the appropriate proof text language, “go back to thy corner, little Jack Horner. Everything from the heart of Man is damnable. Thus spake Calvin!”

“Off with their heads!” said the Queen of Hearts.

“Ney Bretheren, stay thine hand Sisteren, Jesus only said to take out eyes and cut off hands,” said Rumpelstiltskin. “We want to be purely, simply literally biblical.”

“But surely,” said the Brick Pig, “those Preaching Indwelling Sin, and Pervasive Depravity, can’t say his eye has never been evil, or that his hand has never offended.”

“Good point fair swine, before thou run off the cliff, I pray thee, Hurry to the beloved dwarves! Get the ice pick before the Gingerbread Man remembers His holy and simple and pure interpretive methods, and pokes out his eye!”

Rumpelstiltskin looked about the crowd that had gathered before his tuffit.  “Where are those three mice?” he demanded, “I cannot see them.”

The Cheshire Cat smiled.

“El Gato Diablo! I lose them from thee!” Rumplestiltskin declared in a loud voice, “Come Forth! Ok, now, you Three Blind Mice, scour the pages of the pure and holy word of God for the simple words, “Original Sin”. Use brail, use a concordance, use thine lexicon, and thou Inter-linier bible.  Tell Rumpelstiltskin true does thine ‘simple and pure’ untrained, interpretive standard show these words, exactly taught, anywhere in cannon? 

“Read thou well, the book of Genesis, for tis here that the traditions of Augustine say Original Sin took place.  Dost these words come from the consecrated mouth of God?  Doth he summarize Adam’s actions so? Doest He say thus be the whole of humanity tainted from sex?”

“Ney brethren, Tis not found,” said Brick Pig, flipping pages through his NASB, and then his Cotton Patch Translation.

“I’m going to a fair,” said Simon, “But before I see the Pie Man, could we change to a different translation. The “Thees” and “Thous” are confusing.”

“Yes Simple Simon, but the Pie Man will not let you taste his wares,” said Rumpelstiltskin, “What then of the simple and pure, ‘clearness’ of this ‘biblical’ teaching? If it is not so simply found, how then can it be called a biblical doctrine from the Holy word of God? What determines when we abandon context, and audience and occasion and author? Can we always use bible verses like Legos, weaving chapters together to build doctrines? But then demand simplicity when it serves our limited understanding?”

And for a long while the crowd was silent.

Finally Simple Simon raised his hand. “I may be simple, but why not just answer the question.” He turned the pages of the Holy book and said:  

“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price.  So glorify God in your body.” 

Simon finished reading. “The bible does say that. It seems pretty simple. So how can you say that “Man owns himself? Why not just answer the question?”

“First of all,” said Rumpelstiltskin, “I have answered the question of the specific metaphysical premise that man MUST own himself. If man does not own his own mind, fully able to integrate the world in which he lives, in service to his own volitional action, then the concept of personal accountability is foolishness. And if accountability is foolishness why is everyone fussing about Sovereign Grace Ministries conduct. If they are not specifically responsible for the sum of their actions why rail about their practice?  Whatever the grand theory of Divine ownership, no one really believes that God is ultimately responsible for the sum of their existence. Everyone DOES believe that those preachers own the content of the ideas that drive their actions which is why everyone rails against perpetrators of injustice. We all do this because we implicitly understand that man is the sole owner of his own volition. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

“Second, the vast percentage of the Spiritualtyranny.com is dedicated to addressing the folly of man owned by the state, verse man (all his faculties and life product) owned by himself. To drop this specific context is intellectually sloppy. And dropping context is what Gingerbread logic empowers Christians to do. They get to render the equation [(7x)2 = 4Y +3Z2 … (X) = whatever I think it means] and make a claim to higher spirituality while they do it. So the Gingerbread Man is free to ignore pretty much any variable that does not square with his own thinking.

I haven’t reconciled every Bible chapter and verse, but the notation that I have not addressed the question posed, ‘Does man own himself,’ is just not true. The only way someone can insist that I have not addressed that questions is to merely dismiss the content and context of the blog. Maybe I didn’t spoon feed the answer to conform to some very narrow, definition, but it has been answered.

“Third, this is not a one way conversation. I don’t dance to the John Piper music merely because he plays a flute. I was asked to explain this over a year ago. I, in turn probed for more information to address the very underlying interpretive presumption in the beginning of this post. But that request was ignored, so I didn’t pursue exposing this very issue. I was waiting for an object lesson, and now I have one.

“However little did I know that my lack of spoon fed response would become the final judgment of all things “biblical”. To engage the ideas on this blog requires the motivation to probe root assumptions. This cannot be done by those who believe themselves entitled to my time or my ideas without the responsibility to engage the conversation. This is a dialogue. It is presumptuous to demand that I deliver to an arbitrary satisfaction.

“Fourth, if people can define the nature of ‘biblical’ as synonymous with ‘simple and pure’, then it does not matter how much I explain the details of my thought. By definition simplicity is the measure truth, so anything that does not conform to their narrow subjective standard can be dismissed in the name of defending ‘God’s Holy word.’ They can ignore, pretty much every counter argument that they choose to not understand. No one can argue against intellectual calcification.

If there was ever a trait of the self declared heirs of the Reformation, this it. They emulate the attitude of Martin Luther with impunity.  

“This is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand Scripture; I know all of that very well already.” (On the Jews and their Lies)

 

They feel utterly qualified to demand answers but resent any counter argument. They feel free to dismiss any detail or knowledge that is not narrowly defined by their use of the Literalist interpretive method. They defend their intellectual passivity in the name of defending the pure traditions of Orthodox Christianity. But when confronted with the obvious conundrums that the traditions produce they pretend they are uniquely qualified to define all conversations while bearing no responsibility to the outcomes of their logical inconsistency. Read through pretty much any Calvinist debating his pet doctrine and you will see this illustrated in vivid colors. They are intractable when challenged on their authority to define the nature of “Biblical” doctrine.

This attitude pervades the whole of Sovereign Grace Ministries leadership structure. This attitude pervades the whole of the Neo-Calvinist movement.  This attitude is found undergirding most every Christian organization obsessed with its own doctrinal purity. The reason is simple: this is the lynch-pin of their interpretive monopoly. They work over time to vet their moral authority so they can demagogue the interpretive methodology.  They can be as simple or as complex as they choose. They can be simple people preaching simple truths in one breath and pound the pulpit for their flock to devour the rehashed tedium of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic theology in the next. They can reduce pretty much anything to the catch phrase “Gospel Centered” (Thanks Argo, forgot that one) and then demand everyone plow through Sin and Temptation and act as if the highly complex ideas contained within that intellectual labyrinth is a trivial reiteration of the Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

I don’t remember how many hours I spent with that dim bulb Robin Boisvert chasing my tale trying to get up underneath his lofty fraudulent pastoral presumption, or bowing to the theological vacancy of my care group leader, merely because the doctrine said I had to give deference because he was an “authority.” Well, I chased and bowed until I finally realized that Robin was never, ever going to concede his right to define the nature and scope of the conversation, and my care group leader was in way over his head. And that was when I stopped letting the weakest link in the room define the conversation. That was when I quit accepting the premise that intelligence was a liability and “uneducated” was a virtue. It is all fraud.

Everyone pays lip service to humility with the standard self deprecating comments about IQ but try this just once: agree with their personal assessment. Affirm that yes, they are right, they really are stupid and watch how fast the façade falls away. People are content to not be Steven Hawking, but truly challenge their intellectual faculties and they will shortly be listing their academic and rational vita like they are applying for a spot at MIT. The only people that accept the title “simple minded” are those who keep licking windows. If you challenge anyone else’s intellectual abilities, or the strength of their self appointed bible study and they are insulted that someone would dare utter the words.  Even though they can’t spell the words Hermeneutics and Exegetics, even though they don’t own a concordance, they are very, very sure they are original thinkers, fully informed of their own intellectual self-appointment. They will call it spiritual. They will call it revelation from God. But it all boils down to the reality that they fully believe their understanding is THE defining measure of Bible knowledge. Challenge their understanding as faulty and the simple good ol boy vanishes. Point out that ignorance is not a virtue, but a leadership liability and the wailing and gnashing of teeth never stops.

So make no mistake, the “simple and pure” designation cannot be applied to the Bible. Bible literature spans thousands of years written to cultures that have no modern parallel. Bible doctrines are profoundly complex, being shaped by cultural forces that the modern mind must work intensively to understand. And these considerations haven’t come within miles of how to apply this understanding to modern life. So there is no such thing as the “simple” and “pure” Holy word of God.  This smoke screen is applied to human understanding in an effort to consecrate intellectual passivity.

With this in mind, here are a few considerations that impact my thinking when addressing Paul’s specific discussion and the broader Religio-political issue I’ve been addressing on Spiritual Tyranny. 

 

1.   In context, Paul is addressing a rational for a moral standard.  Paul is responding to a doctrinal problem of his own making.  Paul was one of the first to dare answer the question: How can you have an eternal law, with eternal promises that are enforced by en eternal covenant, that are in fact superseded by the ratification of a new covenant?

His contemporaries, (Jewish) found the source of moral responsibility in the giving of Torah.  But Paul’s ‘logic’ said that Jesus, and the Anointing effectively superseded Torah. It was this ‘separation’ from Torah that gave Paul the intellectual justification to abandon circumcision plus a hodge podge of observances with which Paul disagreed. This led to the implicit conundrum: If one can abandon Circumcision (THE means to accessing the Covenants of Promise, which is the heart of the gospel preached to Abraham) what else can Christians abandon? So the question that most of the early first century Jewish Christians struggled with was which parts of Torah can Christian’s choose to ignore. The logical conclusion of Paul’s doctrine led many to assume that man no longer had ANY moral responsibility. The “Grace of God” absolved man of all ethical conduct.  

Paul tries to answer the utter disaster of that conclusion by transferring moral responsibility from commitment to Torah to a down payment against a divine ransom. 

 

2.   The broader context of ransom. Ransomed from what to what?  There is no evidence that God’s ransom is in exchange for collective slavery, which is pretty much what the SGM giants do to the people who climb their bean stalk.  

3.   Paul’s repeated use of the term Bond Slave. This is a deliberate allusion to volitional indenture rooted in Torah. A full understanding of this concept is essential in grasping the type and nature of God/Man Slave/servant concept within the Paul’s thought.  

4.   Slavery was an implicit part of human existence. Paul is necessarily speaking in realties familiar to his audience limited by man’s existing knowledge base and socio political expectations. But his realties are our distant metaphor. And slavery is only a metaphor to US because modern men realized that the historic literalistic reading of bible literature was error. It was this new understanding, this willingness to challenge what had been “simple and pure” bible reading for hundreds of years that finally overthrew slavery as a social institution. Slavery used to be a “Christian” institution until it was challenged at the root: its historical ‘biblical’ roots. In America that challenge was waged a mere hundred and fifty years ago.  

5.   Further, a socio political world organized around a politically free people is an evolution of thought that is less than 300 years old. In the 21st century there is no credible Christian movement advocating slavery precisely because we have come to understand the broader context of effective social order. (See the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence)  

6.   The broader context of the socio political understanding of “freedom.”  Both from its embryonic forms within first century literature to its modern forms. From the message of John the Immerser, to the many of Jesus teachings, to the political allegory of the Revelation of John.  Only someone utterly preoccupied with the narrow interpretive expectations of the Reformation can miss that the first century was fully and totally preoccupied with political/religious freedom and self determination for the common man in the street. This preoccupation was decidedly anti slave.  

And this is a short list (and hardly exhausted) of the exegetical considerations that impact the reading of three brief sentences in cannon. As I said, complexity does not magically disappear because someone decides that their “simple and pure” 21st century English speaking, literate understanding is the defining measure of all things biblical.    

“And that is what the Gingerbread Man measured you by… being ‘unbiblical’” said, Brick Pig.

“Yes,” said Rumplestiltskin.

“But he said he didn’t know what you actually believe,” said Hay Pig.

“Yes.”

“But he still decided that it was ‘unbiblical,’” said Stick Pig.

“Off with their heads,” said the Queen of Hearts.

“But yet the Gingerbread Man has Brent Detwiler’s blog listed.”

“That means that Brent is Biblical,” said Simple Simon.

Rumplestiltskin nodded. “By the Gingerbread Man’s own definition, being listed is related to being biblical.”

“But Brent Detwiller has been repeatedly challenged for his “unbiblical” polity” said Brick Pig, “Does that mean Brent has changed? Or that his doctrine is in fact biblical.”

“If Brent Detwillers doctrine is biblical, then how can people object to him?  And if they cannot object to him, how can anyone object to Sovereign Grace Ministries” asked Stick Pig.

“Stick Pig, now you are catching on,” said Rumpelstiltskin, “And this is the hypocrisy that has always infected Christianity. The quest for doctrinal precision has always led men to affirm those who have ‘biblical’ doctrine all the while those same men commit profound injustice. This was the Leaven of Jesus warning. This is what leads men to tithe Mint and Rue in the name of doctrinal purity and then consume widows houses by the same consecration.

“As long as someone can quote chapter and verse of “Orthodox” understanding, they are deemed authentic but the content of their actions is a side issue explained away by the great depravities of man. Because Brent Detwiler starts to openly say there is something wrong with SGM practice, he is consecrated as biblical yet his ‘biblical’ practice is lever of his despotism. This is how John Calvin can be extolled as the Great Reformer of Geneva in one breath and his murder Michael Servitus utterly ignored in the next breath. Because Good ol’ Johnny C’s doctrine is considered the purest form of God’s Holy word, his actions are doctrinally irrelevant, and people can conveniently ignore that his doctrine was the lever of his tyranny.

“So let us review,” said Brick Pig, “Brent Detwiler has stories of Spiritual Tyranny yet ‘Biblical.’ John Calvin has stories of Spiritual Tyranny yet ‘Biblical’

Rumpelstiltskin’s teaching judged unbiblical but no Spiritual Tyranny stories. His blog is erased.”

“Yes, that sums it up,” Rumpelstiltskin, “When Christians infected with the Leaven of the Pharisees encounter ideas they deem ‘unbiblical’, they do what has always been done. They erase it from consideration by whatever means available. This is the heart and soul of Gingerbread logic. Look at history and you will see it is true. And that is how Christians live happily ever after.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
Filed Under Doctrines, Teachable Moments

Comments

205 Responses to “Rumpelstiltskin and the Gingerbread Man”

  1. Sopwith on December 28th, 2011 4:21 pm

    John,

    Thank-you for documenting SGM’s maze of abuse and control and for showing how SGM’s uses the bible to do it and to give it much respectability and legitimacy. 

    Thank-you also for showing how other American religious leaders have encouraged this outragious behavior…

    May the word go forth…

    Let us free Dorthy (Jesus’ bride) from the Wicked One!

    There’s no plaze likez …

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy ;~)

  2. Sopwith on December 28th, 2011 6:56 pm

    Youz right John…

    Itz a long way To the bottom if you want to SGM…

    datz how it goes, right?

    Itz sure a long way To the bottom if you want to SGM…

    hum hum hum…

    “Whooo ownz man?”  SGM offcourse… (sure seems like it, don’t it!)

    whoa!

    (dat answers dat dar question, huh?)

    hahahahahahaha

    Sopy ;~)

    ___
    Muppets (adapted)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GF9_sNS9Nk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  3. Argo on December 28th, 2011 7:28 pm

    John,
    I love and respect the “Gingerbread Man” enormously; his providing a forum for the stories of rampant abuse and incompetency in SGM is a service that may have literally saved people’s lives.  I thank God for him.
    Having said that, I really enjoyed the post. What struck me most was the way you stated that there is a randomness as to what doctrines are deemed simple and what are deemed complex.  I find this to be true of my experience not just in SGM but with most Christian groups with which I’ve been involved.  It is rather arbitrary, isn’t it?  I also agree that “Does God own you?” absolutely begs for a premise…that is, what is the underlying intent of the question.  I think only a foolish man would attempt to answer that question without solid understanding of what the inquisitor was getting at. 
    I was thinking on the drive home today; I believe that the only way we can truly fulfill our roles as those wholly owned by God (I say that in the sense that God is entitled to the fruits of His labor…he created us, literally, therefore, we are his property), is to rigorously defend our utter and categorical stewardship of ourselves…our faculties, our bodies, our reason, etc., etc…unless directly commanded by God (as in the case of scriptural commands “don’t murder, don’t have sex with a parent” or divine revelation; think, er, one of the random prophets…I like Nehemiah).  Otherwise, we enslave ourselves to kings, tyrants, etc.,etc., whatever man-guy. Now, my question for you: what do you think of the term “stewardship”, as opposed to “ownership”?  Does that question make sense? 

  4. John Immel on December 28th, 2011 8:24 pm

    Argo…

    I could not agree more with your first paragraph. I have been privileged to have lengthy phone conversations with the “Gingerbread Man:” I have heard many details, and background stories.  (Though I don’t believe he has betrayed any confidence)  He is doing yeoman’s work, and I expect that you are exactly right. He has saved people’s lives. He has done what I never could. I do not have his skill set, and probably more important the inclination.  For this he has my endless admiration. 

    I had two reasons for writing this as I did.  I wanted to give deference to the work being done and the respect that that work deserves.  Plus I wanted to press this specific conversation towards the more theoretical. As far as I am concerned this can remain theoretical.

    I have quite a few NON SGM people who read my blog, and they tend to shrug at the names.  They don’t know the players and that tends to distract when I discuss specific people. 

    I submit that people need to see the potent force that the Leaven of the Pharisees represents. Unfortunately other than what I have dug out about Jesus warning, I’ve never heard anyone teach on this subject. The “unbiblical” judgment being offered is a rather steep considering the obvious inconsistency, particularly (as you have notice), because it ends up being based on such arbitrary interpretive standards.

    I have more to say about your second paragraph I think you have come very close to an important distinction.  I’ll trot my take of it past you here in a bit. 

  5. Jim on December 29th, 2011 7:26 pm

    Very entertaining, as always. Not a very flattering (or accurate) depiction of how the gingerbread man thinks, but I’ll get over it….
    …there it went, I’m over it.
    Thanks for answering the question, John.

  6. Debbie on December 29th, 2011 9:26 pm

    John,
    That was incredibly profound and filled with much insight. God has given you a great gift. I think it was very accurate – no offense to the Gingerbread man. Instead of getting over it, my prayer is that he gets it. My prayer is that I get it.
    There are words of wisdom and words of knowledge. Your article is filled with both. I can only digest small amounts at one time because it is so rich. I pray for the understanding also, just like we need when we hear the gift of tongues. Your tongue is foreign to me or am I slow to hear. At any rate, I need the gift of interpretation when reading your masterpiece. 
    Thanks for stretching me John. I am not smarter than a 5th grader so your doctoral thesis is a great and welcomed challenge.

  7. Debbie on December 30th, 2011 10:32 am

    I would love to see some further dialogue about who owns man, why Brent Detwiler’s blog is listed on The Gingerbread Man’s blog roll, and admitting being stupid vs being called stupid. Sounds like the makings for some new denominations.
    What are we so afraid of? Each other? “False” doctrine? Disagreements in general? Where is the Gingerbread’s man response? Rumpelstiltskin writes a 13 page masterpiece and gets 3 sentence non reply from the Gingerbread man? Why is it not accurate? Why has Spiritual Tyranny been removed? What about who owns man? What about Brent Detwiler and his doctrines, yet he is still on the blog roll?
    Is the Gingerbread man unwilling to address these issues? Too tired? Doesn’t care? Knows he will be fighting a losing battle? Does not like admitting he is wrong? (Who does!)
    I personally think that Rumpelstiltskin deserves some answers. I thing the bloggers who have been watching and listening deserve some answers. Do we need to employ AoR to get this resolved and reconciled? Or do we sweep it under the rug and then move down the street to find another church where things are more “peaceful”?
    Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites, a brood of vipers, and white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones. He told Peter “Get thee behind me Satan”, and also told Peter he would deny Him. So did they part company after all this? Did Jesus remove Peter from the 12? He did not even remove Judas from the 12!
    But the Gingerbread man removes Rumpelstiltskin from his blog roll over a doctrinal question? Is that how weak our faith is? Is that how weak our relationships are? Is that being bonded and united together in the spirit of love? Is that commitment and loyalty? Is that being for one another? Is that a Christian family known by it’s love for one another? What did happen to all those “one another” verses? Did they all get lost in the search for “sound doctrine”?

  8. John Immel on December 30th, 2011 12:13 pm

    Debbie… thank you so much for you very kind words in your first post. Not sure why everyone feels threatened by fifth graders, give them four years and they turn into high school freshman. And everyone is smarter than a freshman. They all go brain dead.

    I am glad to stretch people. One of the highest compliments I can get is “you made me think.” That absolutely makes my day.
    I submit most of what I talk about is not really that far over everyone’s head.  The issue is really familiarity.  Most people hold highly complex doctrines near and dear, but the complexity is hidden because they have heard them so often, for so long, that we tend to overlook the depth of those doctrines. But all of these doctrines have been hashed out from the metaphysical level from ages long past. They are all highly complex. I am merely pointing out how deep this rabbit hole goes. We will eventually get to the bottom of the hole. But more importantly, it is my hope to deomonstrate the tools I use to climb back out.

    This is what most Christians are unfamiliar with: the tools of Higher Critical Methodology, and the profound advances in historical and bible knowledge that has come from the last 250 years of research.    

    So keep reading… and re reading … and thinking and then add prayer that I prayed for 30 years. 
     
     
    Ephesians 1: 17-20
    17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right
    hand in the heavenly places,. . . (KJV)
     
     
    Note this: “The eyes of my UNDERSTANDING being enlightened…” Understanding is the product of thinking.

  9. Jim on December 30th, 2011 12:14 pm

    Debbie,
    I’m the gingerbread man, so you might as well address me by name. I’ll do my best to address your questions, but you are correct. At the end of the day, I’m too tired and I don’t care. I hope that you understand why I might be a little numb to criticism after running refuge for 2 1/2 years. The last thing on my mind is protecting my reputation. I have no problem admitting I’m wrong. I have zero interest in a blog war, “win or lose”. I have bigger fish to fry, and again, I’m tired.
    I link to Brent’s blog because it’s SGM news. When I removed John’s link, ST was not specifically sgm news, but rather big thoughts for deep thinkers. It appeared to me that he was saying than man owns himself, but would  not answer my question in a plain and clear way (in my opinion). He has done so above, and I commend him. I think God owns everything, including and primarily man. We disagree. So what? Who really cares?
    Where John is incorrect is when he definitively states what my logic is designed to do. He’s wrong. My statements are not strategic, and are usually off the cuff. Thrown out there in a hasty manner in the middle of a busy day, trying to state what I’m thinking at the time. I’ve already stated that I regret addressing the issue online. i was wrong, and should have started the dialog again with John offline. If i really sat down and thought about it, i probably would have just put the link back up, as i think John serves the Body by causing us to think. I’ve heard that’s a good thing :-)
    John and I don’t need AoR to help us work anything out. I made a mistake by making the issue public, and John responded with his Gettysburg address above. i started it, and I’m sorry. John can do a 10 part series about my flaws, and i won’t hold it against him. i don’t need AoR’s help because I’m not offended. I might respond with my typical sentence or two, and people are just going to have to live with that. If John’s offended, he can accept my apology or not. AoR won’t change his mind.
    Does that about cover it?

  10. Jim on December 30th, 2011 12:17 pm

    Correction-been doing refuge for 3 1/2 years.

  11. John Immel on December 30th, 2011 1:07 pm

    Hey Jim,

     
    “Unbiblical’ as an off the cuff comment?  Hummm… How then do we measure Heretic?

    See here is the problem posed now. At which point are you merely off the cuff, verses when is your judgment an effective evaluation of truth. When you are not tired, or when you are?  Your stated reason for blog roll exclusion, in public, was that my ideas were “unbiblical.” Now it is merely because the focus of this blog is not SGM centric? As if I don’t directly address SGM shenanigans? When Berlin asked the question, you were glad for it to be in a public forum. But now … not so much?  

    I don’t really care what blog I’m listed on.  I can spin my own gold, and my voice rings true to those who care to listen. But I do care that the charge of ‘unbiblical’ (and a subsequent consequence executed) can be so casually ascribed to what I put forth with no apparent responsibility to the conversation or corresponding consistency. As the inclusion/exclusion criteria were defined, the contrast between Brent Detwiler and myself could not be more painfully obvious.  

    Certainly in the SGM world there is no higher charge that one’s doctrine is “unbiblical.” That is a pretty steep measure of judgment, and in the mad pursuit for ‘sound doctrine’ there is no higher disqualification. For many people it carries the same weight as immoral and is a hop skip and a step from heretic. Soo … if I had too chose, I’d probably take unflattering.

    This is actually the heart of my post. Having these kinds of conversations are not really ever possible when people can be deliberate intellectual moving targets. You can’t catch the gingerbread man when he can change the scope and shape of his own argument, all the while insisting that the same judgment is the defining one.

    This is the heart and soul of SGM doctrinal monopoly.  This is why no one can get up underneath their labyrinth of practice, because at any moment the criteria for engaging them is based on variables that they control. This is why everyone argues for better bible interpretations in vain when addressing SGM insanity. Being too tired, was one of Robin Boiverts favorites.  And if it wasn’t that, it was he just didn’t have the time because he had more important things to do.  And if it wasn’t that it was a broader appeal to Christian harmony. “Can’t we just all get along?”  But all of these objections were designed to defend his assertion about me: That the content of my doctrine was ‘deleterious.’ That I had had a bad influence on people, that I should be marginalized and ostracized for daring to challenge his lofty pastoral judgment.

    And this is why I started this post with
     
    “Run, run, as fast as you can!
    You can’t catch me!
    I’m the Gingerbread Man!”

  12. Jim on December 30th, 2011 1:33 pm

    John,
    I stated that I regretted my response publicly long before your post above. It’s not, “now, not so much”. I stated my regret 9 hours after my comment. Get over yourself, bro.
    i’ve forgotten when we had the original conversation, but I think it took you a year or so to answer my question in a straightforward manner? I don’t think I’m the moving target here.

  13. John Immel on December 30th, 2011 6:19 pm

    Hummm…

    Not sure where the 9 hour time-frame comes from or why that is relevant.  Just yesterday, the question was re-asked without any notable caveat, or appeal to private communication. At least none that I saw.

    However, now I am responding and it is apparent I’ve hit a nerve.

    The irony here is, that it turns out it doesn’t matter what shape my part in this takes.  

    If I don’t respond to what is defined as a “simple” question, that is apparently a problem.

    If—after having been asked to defend my ideas—I offer a defense … I’m defensive.

    When I offer a rebuttal to an erroneous judgment, MY ego is the culprit. I’m told to “get over it.”

    Dare I point out this is exactly the SGM SOP?

    The standard deflection from the substantive objection to SGM practice; the “counter argument” offered from most every SGM defender has been “Get over it,” which is merely another version of “get over yourself.”  The IT is merely your hurt, your pain, your objection, because there is something wrong with there being a YOU in the conversation. So, just move on.

    You responded to this very attitude in no uncertain terms, yet, here we are curiosly engaged in the same path.

    I don’t accept the premise undergirding the “get over yourself” charge: that premise being that there is something wrong with myself, or more specifically that the defense of myself is suspect, merely because it is my SELF. 

    I am a propionate of ethical egoism and I fully reject the corrupt ethical base of Altruism. So, I reject the notion that I am disqualified merely because I have an interest in an outcome. The fact that my defense is in fact MY defense is fully irrelevant. The only issue is the objection to the substantive judgment of “unbiblical” and the specific inconsistency of your specific defined standards, and actions taking in service to those standards.  

    And this is exactly what this post, in the broadest sense was about. Men and women so convinced of their own doctrinal correctness that they believe they bear no responsibility for the cause and effect of their own doctrinal purity, and the actions carried out in the name of said purity. This is exactly the SGM attitude played out in a microcosm. They feel utterly qualified to define all judgments, all arguments, and all conduct, and in a blink change or ignore those definitions when it suits them.

    Brent Detwiler is a glaring anecdote. He lent his voice to the SGM braod denounciation of the blogs as manifestations of doctrinal, moral, and spiritual error … until those same blogs were his voice to the world.  Alakazam Poof!  He does blogging more righteously than anyone.    

    And when called to account for the glaring inconsistencies, when challenged on the roots of the injustice, they make the objector’s failed biblical doctrine or failed spiritual attitudes the source of the conflict. 

    shrug… it is what it is … 

  14. Sopwith on December 30th, 2011 6:24 pm

    HowDee YaAll,

    “Down the rabbit hole”, Huh?

    Wherzzz Alice? (She’s in Wonderland…)

    dut ta doo…

    hum hum

    Whoooooo  izzzzzz  mannnnn  sayz da big Cada’pill’r

    “Man = SGM slave” 

    Ching! Ching!

    Huh?

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy ;~)

    ___
    The SGM : A Proverbial Prison For Your Soul - 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4zICmyuNvs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

  15. Jim on December 30th, 2011 7:16 pm

    John,
    The 9 hour time frame is in reference to this-”When Berlin asked the question, you were glad for it to be in a public forum. But now … not so much? ”
    It’s not “now”. It’s not in response to your post, hence the “get over yourself”. I apply the same response to “I’ve hit a nerve.”
    I regretted my public response 9 hours after I made it, and I stated so publicly.
    I posted my first response because I thought that it would be appropriate. Subsequent comments were made to respond to questions asked.
    I think I’m done, which leaves the door wide open for a “you can’t catch me” joke. Have fun, kids….
     

  16. Argo on December 30th, 2011 8:59 pm

    Hi John,
    I’ve been thinking a little more about the ownership question, and now I’m not convinced that my “stewardship” example is really appropriate.  Stewardship seems to imply that the real owner will at some point return and take control over what is rightfully his.  Since I don’t see (or read a biblical account of) God coming down to demand his body (my body) back, or his mind (my mind) or his reason (my reason) back in a sense that he will once again actually POSSESS me, then I don’t see how the stewardship thing works.  So we are back to does God own you?  Stewardship is out of the equation.
    Whatever the answer to that question, I think it needs to be compatible with the idea that men (and women) are utterly free…freedom is what Christ came to grant us.  Freedom from the tyranny of the Roman state, freedom from the tyranny of the flaming Torah brandishing Pharisees, freedom from the tyranny of death and Satan.  In all of those examples the emphasis was on a state of intellectual, physical, and spiritual freedom.  Freedom categorically.  Freedom to chose Christ, freedom to be accepted by Christ apart from the unreachable pinnacle of the law; freedom from having to speak through a heavy curtain to talk to God.  So, again, however we want to couch the term “ownership” it needs to be compatible with this freedom.  A freedom of a man TO himself.  I agree with your assessment of the scriptures in question.  Paul was heading off at the pass the wicked doctrine of license: if Christ paid it all in full, we can pretty much become the Jedi masters of debauchery.  No, I think Paul was saying that we are obligated to live in such a way that honors Christ, and that meant that we bear responsibility for adhering to his commands of godly conduct.  But what he wasn’t saying is that in being “slaves” to Christ, we abandon all reason, rationality, ambition, and common sense.  It’s not a slave/owner relationship like we see in the antebellum south.  It’s an understanding that since Christ shed his blood for you, you are morally obligated to be obedient to his standard of righteousness…sounds heavy, until you remember that the yoke is easy and the burden light.  That is, our freedom in Christ allows us a great many ways to live, all acceptable, all very different, and our obligations are not toilsome nor require us to sweat blood and tremble in constant fear for our very souls.  SGM leaders and members in good standing want to say that this standard is not really light at all, but requires slavish groveling at all manner of authority, and that one must hold his nose at every thought that may enter his mind (and lash himself into a bloody, depraved, jack-assy pulp, if those thoughts are critical of their SGM Dear Leader). 
    Therefore, the question “who owns you” is not one to be taken lightly…in this I utterly agree with you.  It is yet another very convenient way for spiritual tyrants to convince you that you are a slave with no rights to your own property, body and mind (NOTE:  I do NOT, believe Jim thinks this, by the way).  It is an issue that needs to be understood properly…otherwise, let the bodies continue to line the roads of the SGM wastelands and beyond.  
     
    Your comment about the leaven was a good one.  I agree…a little leaven taints the batch.  It is sobering to see how pervasive this leaven is.  We truly must be on our guard…for a little folding of the hands…and GULP!  
     
    SGMers who’ve decided against all reason and biblical moral standard (in my opinion) to stay in that group look a their ongoing membership as a testimony to their temperance and forbearance.  “Let’s see what AoR says and the Board decides before we make any rash decisions” they say…while they pass the salt and ketchup over the bodies and trip over sprawled limbs as they make their way to their purple seats in front of the plexiglass.  But I do not see it as forbearance.  I see it as the power of spiritual mind control and tyranny over those who are otherwise rational, normal, healthy Americans.  Scary. 

  17. Debbie on December 30th, 2011 9:40 pm

    Romans 8:21 says the creation itself will be set free from it’s bondage to corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.
    2 Cor 5:19 states that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not counting men’s sins against them. 
    There will be a new Heaven and a new Earth where righteousness dwells. There will be no more sin. God will restore the entire creation back to a sinless perfection. The Last Adam replaces the first Adam and reverses the curse of sin over humanity. We were bought with a price. 
    There is the present question of ownership vs the future promise of ownership. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I that live, but Christ who lives in me. Is that ownership or possession? Is possession 9/10ths of the law in the Kingdom also? :-)
    Romans 12:1-2 says “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”
    1 Cor 7: 4 “For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.”
    So maybe ownership is the wrong question? Is this about ownership or relationship? Is it about authority and giving authority to another over myself? Just asking. I do not claim to know exactly what these verses mean, nor that I have any answers. Just wanted to enter into the discussion if that is ok and present some possible pertinent Scriptures.

  18. Argo on December 30th, 2011 9:48 pm

    Debbie,
    I really like those scriptures you included.  I think they are very telling and helpful.  Thank you!

  19. Debbie on December 30th, 2011 10:12 pm

    Thanks Argo, I appreciate that encouragement very much.

  20. John Immel on December 31st, 2011 11:01 am

     Debbie … you are surely welcome to engage the conversation.   Glad you are involved. 
     
     
    BTW… Argo and Debbie… have you both read To Reform or Not to Reform?
     
    My critique of who owns man is centered on that specific dividing line.  It is a big post, but note the specific section where I am evaluating Dave Harvey’s justification for SGM polity.
     
    It is crucial to understand how the idea of God’s ownership extends to mean collective slavery.
     
    I have more in a bit … there are a couple of comments in some older posts where I address some of these details and I have to go find them and organized for here. 
     
    Thanks both for being engaged in the ideas.
     
    John  

  21. Debbie on December 31st, 2011 2:29 pm

    John, does the verse that talks about us being the clay and God being the potter, play into this conversation? What exactly is meant by ownership and what is the extent of that? Our minds and thoughts? Our wills? Our personalities? Predestination and election? 
    I did skim “To reform or not reform”. I need to read it more thoroughly when I get some time.
     

  22. Debbie on December 31st, 2011 2:42 pm

    John, does the verse that talks about us being the clay and God being the potter, play into this conversation? What exactly is meant by ownership and what is the extent of that? Our minds and thoughts? Our wills? Our personalities? Predestination and election?
    I had no say over when or where I was born, my sex, my race, my parents, my looks, my height, eye color etc. Do those things play at all into this ownership question?
    I did skim “To reform or not reform”. I need to read it more thoroughly when I get some time.
    I appreciate your letting me in this discussion and thank you for being patient with me. I have discussed some doctrine before, but not this specific question. 

  23. John Immel on December 31st, 2011 4:53 pm

     OK… I’m going to repost three comments I made addressing elements of this specific conversation. Before I dive too far into the hermenutical application of discrete verses in scripture, I want to define the specific scope of what I am trying to address. They are not purely on point, but some of the details are at the core of my efforts here.
     
    Argo, Debbie … I think you see how complex this conversation gets with your list of questions, and the energy you are using to egange these ideas. That is fabulous. 
     
    So… give me a few minutes to post and then you all can read through those comments.  I will give some further thoughts to you both shortly.  If I don’t’ get to it before tonight. Happy New Year.

  24. John Immel on December 31st, 2011 4:55 pm

    REPOST ONE

    From Lin:“I do not see them as any different than the Isrealites who begged for a king. Of course, God was their King, but the Jews wanted one like the pagans had.”

    This is a great analogy.  For all of Christianities preoccupation over authority and government structure, it is a striking contrast that the first “government” the Children of Israel had was in fact very, very limited  government structure. Or more directly said, there was no monopoly of force vested in the hands of a select few in the original conception of the twelve tribes of Israel.  
     
    Once the land was pacified, God did not let the Mosaic military structure persists. The Children of Israel were among the first people to live in a confederation of tribal states organized around a world view (read philosophy) that facilitated self governance and free trade. This was in direct contrast to most every other contemporary culture: a statist warrior clan culture founded on heredity, morally enforced by religious authority (the religions of Dagon, Ashtaroth, Moloch, et al.) that granted the local tribal king boons for sacrifice.  

    Yahweh’s objection to a king was that he (the king) would ultimately expand his use of force to encompass the subjugation of his own people, and use that tyranny to wage wars of conquest. (Which is—among other things—what got Israel in trouble and ended with them in exile.)

     
    Anyway, the Children of Israel were willing to forgo freedom; they were willing to abandon self government, to obtain what they considered as “security”. They didn’t want the responsibility of the rigor of their own lives and looked to another man to take up that rigor. 
     
    Historically this preoccupation has never changed. People would rather have someone tell them what to do, so they can maintain deniability in the failures of their own lives. But the price for that deniability is the sum of all individuality. This is why Thomas Jefferson said: “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.” 
     
    In modern Christianity this obsession to abandon personal responsibility is taking shape in two primary movements (that I can think of off the top of my head): the Marxist Social Gospel advocates and the Neo Reformed Movement. (And in many instances they are one in the same.)
     
    What we are seeing within SGM is the logical outcomes of doctrines that declare Man without moral justification for self governance, combined with man’s indolence. The disaster we are witnessing unfold in the blogosphere is the inevitable outcome. This is what Tyranny looks like. Well, maybe I should say this is what tyranny in its infancy looks like. When it has come of age, (a full monopoly of civil force, organized to defend and advance the “glory of God”) we will think that a few molested little girls, and some parents who let themselves be indelicately treated by some twerp in a pastor’s office, will have had it easy.

  25. John Immel on December 31st, 2011 4:58 pm

    REPOST TWO

    From Lin: “It has taken me a while to connect these dots with Calvinism. The New brand of Calvinism is even worse as they are combining justification and sanctification. It means we cannot really live out the Christian life as in being Born Again.  We can never do anything righteous when we are Born Again.”

    I wanted to expand on this comment, because you are voicing a common modern theological distinction that often confuses people’s understanding and what makes it so dang hard to argue the specific doctrines ascribed to “orthodoxy.”  The Venn Diagram of All things Calvin and All things Bible and All things Orthodox get dumped into the same pot and pretty much considered identical. They are not. Christian thought has notremained static since the Reformation. This distinction is in fact an evolution of thought that came many years after Calvin. That was why I wrote this sentence in the post above: 
     
    “People will thump their ESV’s in pious outrage for biblical purity and then by small logical steps deviate from Dordrecht and Westminster; endlessly smuggle Wesleyan assumptions into bible interpretation; or flat out hijack Charles Finney’s rebuttal’s to the Puritan construct when the strictures become too oppressive.”
     
    Many of our modern day assumptions about sanctification, and justification come from the historic micro steps away from Calvin “orthodoxy” in service to successful counter arguments to their presumed authority.  One microstep led to another and another until, the past doctrine has little relationship to the present understanding.
    Since people do not get their doctrine from the source, accepting pretty much whatever comes out of the pulpit. They read 20th generation shills, (who have sanitized the original ideas and made every effort to hijack whatever intellectual traditions suits their doctrinal ends) with little or no grasp of the root ideas. So people have no real understanding how far the theological plum line has moved. And to dare challenge the shills is to dare to challenge the bible… and woe to all heretics.

    Anyway, I’m about ready to digress…. 

    I won’t dissect the evolution in this comment because I have a book that is headed to press shortly that will address this in much greater detail, but I will say this now:  Augustine, Luther and Calvin did not make this distinction.  For background on to what I refer, read (among other things) Augustine’s Letters to Simplicianus, Luther’s Bondage of the Will, and Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, specifically chapter 3.

    The “orthodox” position, that is to say the kings of the theological hill, (the sacrosanct names of Augustine, Luther and Calvin) did not make these distinctions. To be sure they condemned these distinctions directly.  Calvin called those who tried to make the distinction between human action before and after the New Birth—Justification vs
    Sanctification—Neo Palagians. He was condemning the advocates when he said it. (Like I said, read chapter three)
    So, SGM and the broader Neo Reformed movement are not the aberrations. They are acting with increasing consistency with the “true” plumb line. The way these people act and preach IS consistent with Calvin, and Luther and most directly with Platonist Augustinian thought. This is the progression towards Christian religious despotism. This is what it looks like.  And these are the ideas that drive people down the path.

    Don’t doubt me here… this is all geared towards one end: Protestant governmental (civil and religious) autocracy.

  26. John Immel on December 31st, 2011 5:06 pm

    From Gracie:
    From Gracie: Hi John.  Another thought-provoking post.  The parallel with this SGM stuff and the current discussion/battle in the secular, public arena is striking.  Clearly this is a battle that is not limited to the church pew.  I am concerned about the sheep mentality among citizens as a whole who seem completely content to let the government run their thinking and their lives.  Tell me what the difference is between being content with the government running us or the church running us?  Either way, we’ve lost our liberty.

    A question I have regarding SGM.  Our negative experience with them where we encountered all of the authoritarian elitism in full bloom was BEFORE their behind-the-scenes turn to Calvinism.  That’s why, in my own mind, I have been somewhat dismissive of Calvinism being the crux of the problem.  Could it be that SGM, in an effort to be counter-cultural, had those authoritative tendencies even before they discovered the ”right doctrines” they love now?    Wasn’t Brent one of those who came in early on with a seminary degree?  Was he influential in bringing these ideas in?  Or others?  Is it possible that some of the early “apostles” had these elitist, man-dominating, authoritarian leanings farther back?

    ***
     

    Hey Gracie, 
     
    I just got of a golf course and I’m sitting my favorite pizza joint mulling over an answer to your question.  It is a very good one.  However the answer is … uh… long and I’m trying to decide how to condense this into something short and manageable. 
     
    Not that I shy away from long … obviously right? 
     
    The problem with trying to dissect the specific theological evolutions of PDI to SGM is they have never been all that internally consistent. For all their bluff and bluster over theological precision they have been all over the doctrinal map. They like to call these evolutions of though “seasons of teaching” or some such euphemism. They have often preached mutually exclusive ideas and pretty much reconciled the inconsistency with a wave of the “I’m a pastor and old enough to be your father,” wand. This combined with the fact that they are very, very good at rewriting their own history, it is impossible to hold the SGM leadership to a doctrinal plumb line. There have been some prevailing themes, but for the most part, if CJ decided he didn’t like the implications of a given set of ideas, he has been masterful in nudging the intellectual ship in the desired direction.
     
    (CJ’s gift, beyond being a world class communicator, is his immeasurable ability to make those who associate with him feel important. His affirmation, for many people is the defining measure of their Christianity so they toe whatever mark he is drawing in the sand at the moment.)
     
    Anyway, I am digressing.
     
    Let us take this out of the specific event of SGM for a minute and I think you will start to see the mechanics. 
    You said this:  “The parallel with this SGM stuff and the current discussion/battle in the secular, public arena is striking.  Clearly this is a battle that is not limited to the church pew.” 

    And you are exactly right.  These are parallel’s: almost perfect parallels.

    If I had said, oh, 20 years ago that a committed Marxist would be the President of the United States, what would you have said?  Some would wonder “what the heck was a Marxist?” Some would have scoffed at the absurdity dismissing my comment as the ranting of the delusional hatemonger calling people names. And in the next breath they would make the case that the government should tax the “rich people” so that the poor can have food.
     
    But if you pressed those scoffing people to justify why should the “rich” be compelled to give to the poor, they would offer a moral argument:  Somthing along the lines of the moral inferiority of the “rich.”  they are “greedy.”  They are “selfish.” They “stole” the money.

    These are moral judgments.  (remember this point please)  
     
    20 years ago, was it any less Marxist to advocate the plunder of the Haves, for the express purpose of giving it to the “Have Nots”?  Of course not. The distinction was merely one of degree, but the moral assumption remained exactly the same: the “rich” are morally inferior because they have money; therefore they need the force of government to compel them to moral action.
     
    I am going to write this equation a couple times. Bear with me please.
     
    Principle:
    Metaphysical premise (determine) Epistemological qualification (defines) ethical standard (proscribes) government force.

    Plato:
    This world is a mere reflection of other world FORMS (determine) Man cannot know TRUTH, because he experiences the imperfect shadow world (defines) only select men of the highest character and longstanding study achieve enlightenment (proscribes) Philosopher kings should govern the barbarian masses.

    Marx:
    History is a fight over resources (determines) The community establishes TRUTH (defines) all members of the community must work for the common good (proscribes) each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
     
    Augustine:
    Original Sin means the Fall of Man (determines) Man is corrupt in his very nature and can know no GOOD (defines) Man has no ethical standard because he has no GOOD (proscribes) The Holy Mother Church as God’s bearer of correction to a wayward humanity.
     
    Here is how I described this progression in past posts:  Universal Guilt = Mass Incompetence = Dictated GOOD. 
     
    ·      Universal Guilt is the Metaphysical presumption
    ·      Mass Incompetence = the epistemological determination
    ·      Dictated Good = the proscribed function of Government.    
     
    Now let us roll this back to the SGM phenomena and I will pull Lin’s comment in now. The PDI/SGM leadership has always presumed everyone else was incompetent, but how much incompetence people have has been proportional to the various “seasons of teaching.” 

    When Larry was in ascendancy they presumed a lot of spiritual equality because Larry is really a motivational speaker in sheep’s clothing.  Unfortunately equality does not translate into governmental control, so the pendulum inevitably swung towards ideas that disqualified people from authority. Who knows how many times they danced back and forth across that line.
     
    The underlying question of the SGM doctrine has universally revolved around why they are specifically authorized to preach and run the show. For those of you wondering where I get the source for this assertion, read Larry Tomczak’s Clap Your Hands. I recommend you read both, versions, the 1977(?) version and the 1986(?) version. Both books are an effort to justify why a Catholic boy and a pot smoking jokester are morally justified to start a “New Testament” church out of the loose confederation of believers who were coming out the Jesus Movement and the emerging Charismatic renewal. When you are a non Denominational Church, what is the validation for your existence?  God called me?  Yea…. Says who? 
     
    The answer to this question drives most of our modern Chrsitian fuss.  This is why Lin has had the same experience from a different organizations. The underlying equation above is the constant that justifies why some select group of men are empowered to compel intellectual or social outcomes. All you have to do is plug the specific values into the algebraic variables. In her instance the group used “Relationships and Evangelism.” I was briefly part of Ed Duphrene’s church back in the late 80’s and they did it with “Walking in the Power of God” and “paying the price for authority” which meant submitting to the apostle or prophet preaching behind the podium. And in the long since defunct Living Word Church in Middletown Ohio, the elements of the equation were “the authority of the Believer” and “spiritual warfare” which required a submission to “apostolic authority” In the Word of Faith movement it was the “Authority of the Word,” coupled with the assertion that “you shall not touch God’s anointed” and failure to abide by the preachers teaching meant you would not get what you were claiming by faith. The power of the Shepherding Movement was that Bob Mumford et. al. successfully created a mini authoritarian philosophy that turned discipleship into a morally justified force.     
     
    And the list goes on.
     
    The bottom line of all these dynamics is the moral justification to compel outcome. This is why SGM works so hard to establish their moral superiority. This is why they work so hard to advocate doctrines that presume mass moral inferiority. This gives them an absolute monopoly on governing force. Notice, they only tangle with people who accept this presumption. They don’t even acknowledge the existence of those who challenge this foundation.
     
    Calvinism’s roll in this dynamic is its full philosophical power to offer a complete justification for Protestant church autocracy. Or said another way, it offers a turnkey solution for some men to justify their right to use (religious) force.  It is an entire, complete system of thought on par with Marx and Kant and Islam. And this completeness is what makes it so dang hard to argue against. The bulk of human intellectual energy has been used in its defense. But its central weakness is in fact the weakness of Marx, Kant and Islam: the Aristotelian metaphysic.
           
    All right, this will probably read like rubbing sand paper on your arm… a bit rough… but I think you can get the point.
     

  27. Debbie on December 31st, 2011 11:59 pm

    I would like to know more about our responsibility?  Are we responsible for being born in Adam vs being born in Christ? Isn’t that why we need to be born again because sin in the flesh and we are born of flesh? Now we need to be born of the Spirit. How come no one us can go very long without sinning, even us Christians? If we are responsible, and we desire to be 100% obedient, then why don’t we? Why can’t we? Even though we are born again of the Spirit, we still sin.
    So who is to blame for our sin? Adam? Satan? Us? God? Who is responsible for 99% of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, being Muslim? Did they choose to be raised and brainwashed into Islam? Are they responsible for where they were born and how they were raised? Did you know they believe in the virgin birth of Christ, yet they do not know Him?
    Does God hold them accountable even though they were mind controlled from birth on and everyone around them believes and practices this one religion?  This question has tormented me for a very long time. 
    Jesus came to set the captives free. So prior to conversion, are we free or are we slaves to sin? “He whom the Son has set free, has been set free indeed.” But yet we still sin? We don’t really want to, but we do. (The wretched man of Romans 7).
    Those are my thoughts and questions. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

  28. Debbie on January 1st, 2012 12:55 am

    FYI about me – I do not believe in any form of church authority whatsoever. No apostolic authority, no pastoral authority, and no elder authority. Our only spiritual authority is God Himself. Jesus Christ is the Head of the body – not any man. I do not believe in any denominations, non denominations, irterdenominations, or any independent churches. There is ONE body of Christ – period. No divisions – NONE! The Bible is our statement of faith – not some man made list of beliefs. I am accountable to God only for how I internet the Bible – not to any man or any organization. No man or group of men are going to tell what what I need to believe or how I need to act or behave.

  29. Debbie on January 1st, 2012 9:59 am

    correction – I am accountable to God for how I INTERPRET the Bible.

  30. John Immel on January 1st, 2012 2:10 pm

    Hey Debbie… that is a lot of questions.  Tell you what.  Let’s do this. Let’s back up a few steps. What do you think it means for God to own man?  Define in your mind the nature and scope of “ownership”?

     

    Then let us ask this question:  Let us assume that God does not own man?  What would that mean? 

    And then one last question: Why is this specific question important?

  31. John Immel on January 1st, 2012 3:08 pm

    Argo…

    I really like how you are reasoning through this, whole equation. You have arrived at similar conclusions as I have, but from a touch different angle. My starting point is the metaphysical premise of our creation.


    What was God’s declaration, his charge and expectation for Adam from the beginning?  The answer to this question is the Metaphysical starting place of human existence.


    Notice: The earth was given, in its totality to Adam with the specific job description to “rule and subdue.” Adam’s consecrated purpose was to WORK the earth … however he saw fit.


    Notice: that God, after the 6 days of creation, (a session of WORK and a subsequent day of leisure to enjoy that work) …. there is a curios reference to God “planting” a garden east of Eden. With the exception of God working with his hands to create Adam, this is the only other reference to God’s specific hands on work product. But even this work product, God gave it all to Adam, sort of like his food stake in the world.


    Our traditions handed down for so many generations has painted this into some utopian paradise of leisure and “innocence” that was lost by Adam’s  “Fall from Grace,” which I contend has led us to miss the very obvious. The prevailing charge to Adam was to TEND the garden.  In other words Adam was given yet another job, and through the execution of that work he could feed himself. (God was not hanging around feeding him grapes while he reclined.) There was only one caveat to God’s giving. God does not relinquish private property rights to the Tree of Knowledge. The fruit of that tree God said was still his.


    Notice: God still outlined yet one more job for Adam to do; tend the tree. Since most people don’t own an orchard they have no real sense of the work involved to make a tree fruitful. This tree was not to be neglected. But if   Eve’s answer is any indication, this is exactly what happened. (Innocents wasn’t the blessing. Innocents was the problem.)


    Now here is what I want to point out. The nature of personal identity is defined by WORK. God revealed who he was by the nature of His work product. He then celebrated that work product with leisure/pleasure. He creates a son and the first thing he does is give him jobs. One of those jobs was to name the animals. But that naming was not vain busywork. The goal of the exercise was to find a mate.  In other words Adam’s work was an object lesson in identity. He comes to the conclusion that nothing else in creation is his equal. And he was right. His reaction when he sees Eve is the exactly correct reaction of a man who finally sees his equal reflected in the face of someone else. What was the outcome? Adam now had a firm sense of his own identity and leisure to enjoy pleasure.


    People should now see a pattern emerging.


    Each job was ultimately designed to give God’s son an identity—a SEPARATE identity. (Yahweh has never been after a hive mind) I submit that the eating of the fruit was in fact a violation of private property, which is ultimately a personal assault against the identity of another. It was this violation that God defined as death.


    The death that Adam suffered was in fact his loss of identity.  Notice the curse on his life. The ground was cursed, now he toiled, now he sweat to get the barest pittance from a hostile world. The curse was the toil. Any man will tell you that his greatest satisfaction comes from his ability to “rule and subdue” his little corner of the world. Notice the woman’s curse. Pain in child birth… this is a direct allusion to something implicit to female identity.


    Anyway, it would take me days to give a full exegesis of my thesis so I’m going to draw this part of my comments to a close. But at the roots of all life, the roots of all effective identity are boundaries and the ultimate metaphysical right to individual identity.  
     

    And that is why I think we are ultimately saying similar things … as you said with this comment:


    From ARGO: That is, our freedom in Christ allows us a great many ways to live, all acceptable, all very different, and our obligations are not toilsome nor require us to sweat blood and tremble in constant fear for our very souls. 

     

    And that is why this comment is fundamentally true:

    From ARGO: “But what he wasn’t saying is that in being “slaves” to Christ, we abandon all reason, rationality, ambition, and common sense.  It’s not a slave/owner relationship like we see in the antebellum south.”

     

    And you are correct… the Leaven of the Pharisees is a very, very scary infection.  It is the substance that turns, very average, very well meaning men and women into inquisitors and mystic despots. 

  32. Debbie on January 2nd, 2012 12:51 am

    Hi John,
     
    I do not think it has anything to do with ownership. It is all about relationship.
     
     

  33. Argo on January 2nd, 2012 8:02 pm

    John,
    Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions and responses.  I have found your replies to be very helpful.  Thanks so much for providing words and clarity to my nebulous thoughts and musings…ones I’ve had for so long about SGM and the entire neo-reformed movement. 
     
    On an aside, I’ve always been a pragmatist.  I’m always interested mostly in the effective outcome of any giving philosophy, idea, protocol, etc…even at work, where I’m good at pissing people off by explaining to them why it looks good on paper but will really work not at all. 
    Anyway, that’s how I arrive at most of my conclusions…by seeing the effects and working backwards.  For example:  I look at Total Depravity and see carnage in its outcome, almost categorically.  And then I say, well…there’s something wrong here, but what??  So in a feeble way I try to go back and see how, if this is such a good, universally accepted doctrine, so many lives have been subjugated or ruined by its practical application as handed down from the plexiglass.  Then some well-meaning but kind of obtuse people come along and say, “no, see, it really works, it’s just that men don’t apply it right…they have bad character, and they are just sinners, like all of us…so go back to your genuflecting” (I say obtuse because, really, this is the first place ALL of us go…its like the front door during a fire…they all get crowded, but the smart ones look for a window or a back door).  I say, okay,  well, show me where it’s working where the leader has good character. But “they are poor sinners like us all” is usually where their train of thought/interest-in-other-opinions makes its last stop.   So I try to answer it myself…and you know what?  I can’t see it.  Maybe for a short while (the proverbial Benevolent Dictator…like King David), but it always goes pear shaped in the end.  The reason?  The doctrine is FLAWED because it depends on men not being swayed by er….money, power, godlike status…hmmm, wonder why the Founding Fathers figured out that really what we need is a government by, of and for the people, and not for the kings and the popes?  Hmm.  So if the doctrine is flawed because it relies on men NOT acting the way history has shown they ALWAYS act, then I’m thinking that maybe the doctrine is off so I ask around some more and…that’s usually when I quit the church or get thrown out…whoever gets to the punch first (“your fired!’, “I already quit!”).  Anyway, but my attempts to figure out just why these doctrines get SO MUCH traction in the minds of men and women who are honestly way smarter than me, usually stalls at “okay, I can show you guys history’s homicidal megalomaniacs (which FAR outnumber the benevolent dictators) and the dead bodies as an example of why I think this isn’t working, so why are you still buying this?”, but that’s about where my brain hits its intellectual ceiling.  Then, by God’s grace, I find a blog like this one and go “Oh, yeah!!”.
    John, thanks again.  All of this is really eye-opening for me.

  34. Sopwith on January 3rd, 2012 12:10 pm

    John Immel: “Today do I debate half-baked ideas, 

    To-morrow do I home-brew my blog,

    Looking to the day that King Jesus comes in;

    And oh! I am glad that everybody knew

    That the name I am called is Rumpelstiltskin!”

  35. John Immel on January 3rd, 2012 1:45 pm

    Sopy… LOL… that was creative.  Put some guitar music to that and see how it goes.

  36. Debbie on January 3rd, 2012 2:36 pm

    Hi John,
    Any thoughts on relationship vs ownership? We are the bride of Christ. That is intimacy and covenant. Does the Bible even discuss ownership? What does that mean to you? I really want to hear your further thoughts on this matter.

  37. John Immel on January 3rd, 2012 2:47 pm


    Hey Debbie … I haven’t forgotten about you.  I’m still thinking about an answer.  I hadn’t really considered this issue from your perspective.  I have been focused on the Ethical/Governmental part if this equation.  So, your input is actually a new thought … which is awesome btw. 


    I’ve got a few concurrent conversations but I will give you more feedback shortly.

  38. Debbie on January 3rd, 2012 3:40 pm

    Ok, that will be wonderful. I am very much looking forward to hearing your wisdom on this subject. No hurry, write when you get freed up.

  39. DB on January 5th, 2012 9:34 am

    If you think about it, the only things we actually *own* are our thoughts.  Our creativity and original thoughts are us functioning in the most precious thing God gave us namely being created in His image and likeness.

    We *get* to interperate scripture, we get to choose between right and wrong, we get to create and discover. These are the things we own, to quote from Dumbledore (sp) just because it is all happening in your head doesn’t mean it isn’t real.  

  40. Debbie on January 5th, 2012 10:31 am

    DB,
    I have plenty of thoughts I have that I do not want. I will gladly get rid of them. I do not want to own them any longer. In fact, I wish that I never did own them. I never asked for them, and I do not want them ever again. 
    Paul said in Romans 7 the good he wants to do eludes him, but the evil he does not want to do is what he does. He called himself a wretched man because of that. So it seems to be quite more than just a simple choice. If I could, I would choose never to sin again in my entire life. Many others would like to make that same choice, but find that they fail time and time again.
    Do the Muslims choose to be thinking about Mohammed, Allah, and the Koran? Or were they brainwashed from birth to think about those things? Who owns a brainwashed mind? Who would want to own such a mind?
    “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” (Eph 6:12 – ESV)

  41. John Immel on January 5th, 2012 12:51 pm

    Hey Debbie…
     
    Without going too far into an evaluation of Pauline theology, this is a very common take on Roman’s 7 that Christians have tended to apply to themselves in what they see as a lack of control over their very faculties.  This has led people to accept the metaphysical premise that Man is actually a segregated creature at odds with himself. This then leads to the presumption that I was pointing out in my comments starting with Plato, and Marx and Augustine above. That because man is at his substantive root unable to execute moral conduct he needs the force of government to compel him to moral ends. 
     
    So the progression goes: incompetence = moral guilt = government force = government ownership. 
     
    Because our historic interpretive methodology has been Systematic Theology Christians have tended to read Roman’s as a disjointed collection of sayings. With the exception of maybe parts of John, and some sections of Hebrews, Roman’s is the most comprehensive effort at a Theological statement in the New Testament. This means that Paul intended his audience to follow the full progression of his ideas.  And this theological statement takes place in the broader philosophical discussion (Jewish Midrash and Mishna, Stoic, Cynic, Platonist—among many others—influence) that his audience would have been familiar.   

    Roman’s 7 is in fact a sub argument addressing the “inferiority” of the law and why Jesus—his ratified new covenant—was in fact superior. Paul opens this discussion with “For those of you who know the Law.”  His argument is that that the Law subdivides man by giving him ethical knowledge without the empowerment to moral action. The result is death. The heart of Paul’s concern is over death. Sin is only relevant in as much as it brings corruption, bondage and subsequently death.

    Unfortunately Christians have read this section as if it applies to themselves failing to understand it is in fact written to those committed to Torah. The result is they often overlook how Paul reconciles man’s moral action/ethical knowledge “conundrum.”
    It was the integrative power of the Anointed Jesus that “saves” Paul from “This body of death.” As Paul understood the issue, it was the Anointed Jesus that reintegrated man back to a whole creature, fully in control of his faculties and most importantly his ethical knowledge with his moral action.

    There is miles more to say about this, but this should give you some food for thought. 
     
    Still thinking through how to respond to your other comments. un momento por favor.

  42. Debbie on January 5th, 2012 1:56 pm

    Hi John,
    But the fact remains that no one is able to go sin free. So even if Romans 7 is interpreted as you say, no one is able go even one month without some type of sin. So my question remains, why are we unable to be 100% sin free if that is our choice?

    Let me give you an example. I get very angry when I lose at chess. No matter how much I determine not to get angry, I fail. Sometimes I have to leave the house I am so upset. I have prayed, confessed, quit playing for a long time, asked for forgiveness, read books on anger, etc etc. That sin is still there. FYI – I am a Holy Spirit filled Christian who loves Jesus with all my heart. So why I have been (so far) unable to conquer my battle with anger over losing at chess? Is it pride? I do not want that either. So whatever the root cause is, I do not want that sin in my life whatsoever.

    So what exactly is going on with this so called “free choice” or “free will” or “free moral agent”, or whatever other term people use. I wish I was free! That would be wonderful!

  43. Debbie on January 5th, 2012 2:07 pm

    And John,
     
    I would also like you input on being raised and brainwashed into Islam. Is that their fault? Are they suppose to just “freely” reject the Muslim religion? How come 99% (from what I understand) do not? What part do parents and society play in forming our thoughts and beliefs? Does God grade on a scale?

  44. Argo on January 5th, 2012 9:25 pm

    Hi John,
    My question (when you get time) is: these neo Reformed leaders of the Marching Hammers, do they teach Romans 7 as a further proof of man’s inability to make a moral decision because they don’t know any better; because they are intentionally deceptive; or because they are just lazy and are spouting off whatever it is they’ve been taught in the Pastor’s College (of the Marching Hammers)?

  45. Argo on January 5th, 2012 9:43 pm

    Hi Debbie,
    You raise excellent questions, I must say.  I thought I’d try my hand at answering them, if that’s okay with John.  If I’m mistaken, John or anyone else for that matter is free to correct me.  These are just my thoughts.
    Your premise is that no one can go one month without sin.  I would say you’re likely right; however, how do we know for sure?  I would say that it is possible that in time’s past someone, somewhere, has gone a month with no sin.  Improbable, maybe, but I’m not sure impossible.  With that, I cannot accept your premise.  The Bible says that “if we say we have no sin we deceiver ourselves”, but the Bible doesn’t specify a time frame.  Also, the Bible teaches that sin is seductive and pleasurable (Moses refused to engage in the “pleasures” of sin in exchange for his soul).  Being that sin is so seductive, we humans, as addicts to this pleasure struggle with our addiction.  We are free to chose not to sin, but we don’t because in that moment, we prefer the pleasure of the sin.  Sure, we regret it later, but at that moment, we’ve chosen one over the other.  Not against our will…but precisely by it.  “The devil made me do it” is an old argument that no one buys it any more.  Like any addict struggling with the allure of a certain indulgence, it takes time to overcome.  You will overcome your anger by choosing to make a different choice next time, or maybe the time after that, but again, it doesn’t happen overnight.  The gospel is you not being condemned for the fact that you still chose to sin.  It seems to me that you are saying that since you don’t want to sin, you are not choosing to do it, but it is some other force…your “Sinful Nature”.  But your sinful nature is you choosing to sin…you are responsible for that. But remember, the grace of God is that you are save despite this.  Just because we struggle with sin and bad choices doesn’t mean we live in fear of condemnation. 

  46. John Immel on January 5th, 2012 9:44 pm

    Well, the short answer is…

    If what I said was true… then … Christian sin because they want to.

  47. John Immel on January 5th, 2012 10:08 pm

    Argo…
     
    Yea… I’ve spent my life pissing people off too. Mostly ‘cause I’m not shy about messing with those things near and dear to the heart.
     
    >snicker<
     
    “I look at Total Depravity and see carnage in its outcome, almost categorically.”
     
    I have met almost no one that has arrived at this conclusion.  Of course on this blog, that total depravity is really the flip side of the antinomian coin and the heart of moral relativism.  Human depravity makes virtues vice, and vice irrelevant because by definition no matter the evil committed it is all the same big fat sin before God.  This destroys any value system by destroying man’s ability to emulate true virtue. This is utterly destructive.   
     
    I’m always curios when I hear people absolve a doctrine/tradition by saying that the men executing the doctrine were flawed, but the doctrine is correct. “Well, they just took a good idea too far.” Typically, about three arguments later, these same people will insist that the reason “other” people do bad things is because their doctrine is in error.  I tackle this specific argument head on in my book Blight in the Vineyard: Exposing the Roots, Myths, and Emotional Torment of Spiritual Tyranny.
     
    (Yes… it really is coming. I know I’ve been saying that for a long time … but it really is.  The manuscript is being set up for printing as of today. Proof copy to me… then when I’m sure it is right… Alakazam poof… it goes on sale. [fingers crossed] And I think I have the Amazon Kindle contract thingy sorted out.)
     
    Anyway…
     
    I contend that if one can “can take a good idea too far…” then you must check the premise of the idea.

  48. Argo on January 5th, 2012 10:14 pm

    With regard to your Muslim question.  I don’t have a full answer, but again, it seems like you are laying down a premise that has not been proven and are proceeding from that premise.  Your premise, as I see it, is that Muslims are brainwashed into believing what they believe.  What makes you think they are brainwashed as opposed to choosing Islam to the exclusion of all other religions…from even considering any of the merits of any other religion whatsoever?  Why are we assuming they are brainwashed?
    But really I think your question is really an offshoot of the bigger question of:  What about those who really, truly don’t know any better?  What about those poor tribesmen in the jungles of Endor that have never heard the gospel?  What about the deaf child with parents who only speak Klingon but can’t sign it who dies at the age of two in the midst of a Buddhist household that thinks the word Bible means “popcorn”? (I’m being facetious to be funny, not to belittle…I’m just having fun.) 
    That’s a big question.  The Calvinists point to the doctrine of Election and presto-chango, there’s your answer.  The fact that you struggle with this means that you’re not ready to let them off that easy, and I think that’s a good thing.  It’s a good question; but I would say whatever the answer, we cannot allow ourselves to go down the path of: man has no say in the matter…it’s a cosmic game of picking teams for Butts Up or Dodge Ball on the school playground, and God’s the only one choosing”.  If we go down the path of the easy answer;  the answer that says “You have no say in the matter; you are a sinful, evil worm, with more in common with Hitler than with Jesus (that was CJ Mahaney…actually he said Mother Theresa had more common with Hitler than Jesus…so where does that leave the rest of us in his mind?  You think he thinks we can make any kind of moral decision with an attitude like that? But I digress…), therefore, bow down to your God proxies while they sip water from the plexiglass or the wood podium that a totally immoral and depraved member built for free and don’t ask questions. 
    No, the premise that we are free people with free minds, capable of making choices for which we are responsible, is the premise with which I believe we should start.

  49. Argo on January 5th, 2012 10:27 pm

    John,
    You said “I have met almost no one that has arrived at this conclusion.” Well…dang, I hate to be the odd man out, especially in the ether of Doctrinal Certainty.  I mean…I might be full of it, but really, I just think I’m taking the whole thing to the final stop on the paper route.  If man’s totally depraved–before, during, after salvation–then what is man to think or do?  If that doctrine is true, then we should by all means surrender ourselves and all we have and think to the whims of those standing in God’s stead…without question or protest, for even a mere raising of your hand is itself proof and justification of your satanic pride!  And if they command us to burn the whippersnappers of Salem at the stake, who are we to question?  I say to my SGM friends (those who haven’t shunned me) am I wrong here?  Have you, er, read the blogs? A blog?  Any blog?!

  50. John Immel on January 5th, 2012 10:32 pm

     
    Argo,

    “The marching hammers?”  Not familiar with that term… what does it mean?
     

    As for the motive of the members of the Neo Reformed movement and their reason for preaching a given doctrine. Uhhh…. I don’t think I know the answer to this question. Or maybe I should say, I’m not sure if the three options given are the only options. Some people are lazy, but most of the Neo Reformed people I’ve met [those passionate about the theology] are super zealous… so, it isn’t lazy as much as an unwillingness to challenge core assumptions. Some people are merely well intentioned and they look to others to tell them truth, and since they trust those people, they tend to emulate what they are told. And some of it is courage. It is very, very hard to challenge the historic traditions unscathed.  Most people don’t know where to start. Most seminaries do not teach Higher Critical Methods. And if they do teach that interpretive tool set, the faculty tends to assume that the tools really don’t offer a challenge Reformation Theology.
     
    My degree is in Church History and Systematic Theology, with a minor in Old Testament. And i was very fortunate to have a Systematic Professor who was not a Reformed ideologue.  But I can say this, there is a huge divide between Systematic Theologians and the Biblical scholars, and as a rule never do the two sides meet, because they approach bible interpretation from very different perspectives. 
     
    The Neo Reformed movement is in fact driven by men who were educated in seminaries and PHD programs that presumed the truth of Reformation doctrine, unchallenged and unquestioned from Luther, to Calvin, to Beza, to Knox to the Synod of Dort, to Westminster, because they are “Upholding Orthodoxy.” As a result they presume that the tradition is right merely because it is the tradition of the church. So, the 20th generation kids going through the pastor’s college at the SGM local 204, don’t really ever have a chance to see a different presentation of Christianity. Indeed they assume that a different presentation of Christianity is heresy. The result is they assume the interpretive conclusions with the same presumption: They too are “Upholding Orthodoxy.”

     
    Defending the “Great doctrines of the Church” is a heady tonic.  I suspect that this desire to be truly diligent with what they have been told is all righteous and pure doctrine is the real motivating factor.

  51. John Immel on January 5th, 2012 10:39 pm

    ”The next stop on the paper rout…” LOLOL I am going to have to plagiarize that one.

    And you are correct… that is the progression. That is exactly how it goes… maybe we don’t build bonfires tomorrow… but if you keep putting papers in the mail box eventually, that very logic caries right to the bone fires.

  52. Argo on January 5th, 2012 10:46 pm

    The Marching Hammers is imagery taken from Pink Floyd’s The Wall, if you ever saw that movie.  Bob Geldof sinks into madness where he fantasizes about leading a Neo Nazi movement, and his vision of his storm troopers are these giant red and black hammers that are goose stepping side-by-side (rows and rows of hammers together, two by two like legs).  It’s the most stunning and startling imagery in the movie, in my opinion.  I’m really not a big Pink Floyd fan, it’s just a reference to the song “The Wall” that I sometimes use in my posts…mystic despots as agents of “thought control”.
     
    “We don’t need no education…we don’t need no thought control.”

  53. Argo on January 5th, 2012 10:49 pm

    P.S.
    The Wall.  Yes, I am old.  It sucks. 

  54. Debbie on January 5th, 2012 11:23 pm

    Hi Argo,
    You asked why did I assume the Muslims were brainwashed. I was speaking specifically about those in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. Those entire nations are Muslim. The government is Muslim, the schools are Muslim, the TV stations are Muslim, the radio stations are Muslim, the children are Muslim, the parents are Muslim, the grandparents are Muslim,  EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE IS MUSLIM! They are all raised Muslim! They are not given any choices. There is no First Baptist Church of Baghdad.

    If that does not ensure brainwashing, then maybe I do not understand what brainwashing is. Islam is just as natural to them as speaking Arabic. It is their way of life and their culture. They know nothing else. Allah is their God, Mohammed is their prophet, and the Koran is their holy book. No questions asked. That’s just the way it is. They have no other options. Defection from Islam means death. They are not free to choose anything else. Islam was already chosen for them.

  55. Debbie on January 5th, 2012 11:28 pm

    Ok, thought control or mind control or just plain CONTROL!  Maybe that is a better way to express it. Conform or die.

  56. Debbie on January 6th, 2012 12:11 am

    I also believe that Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan are ruled by a spiritual religious stronghold. It is a kingdom of darkness, deception and captivity. It is filled with oppression, depression, and spiritual blindness. They live in fear and terror. There are principalities, powers, cosmic powers over this present darkness, and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places as Ephesians so well describes. This is pure spiritual domination and witchcraft. It is evil at work through this entire region.

    These Muslims need to be delivered from evil. It is a very dangerous evil cult. Islam for them is no simple matter of choice. It is submission or death.

  57. DB on January 6th, 2012 9:20 am

    I’ve been pondering the Muslim question and I cannot come to the same conclusions as Debbie although I have not landed with both feet upon my own conclusions.

    The complicating issue for me is I have a dear friend, she is close like a sister, who is a devout Muslim from Iraq. We discuss everything including the hard questions. We respect one another not to try to convert one another but we do present our theology to the other (so I have not denied her the gospel message.)

    There is her faith, there is tradition, there is culture and there are many many similarities between the two religions.

    I am still working on this one but I am a mere humble biologist working on an advanced degree, I am almost illiterate with respect to formal theology.        

  58. Debbie on January 6th, 2012 1:24 pm

    If you all want to know the truth about Islam, please scroll to the top of this page, right under the “Blogroll”, you will see the link John put up entitled “Islam – The Religion of Peace”. Click on that and read some of the very disturbing facts on this demented and twisted, evil cult.

  59. The Gingerbread Man « on January 9th, 2012 9:45 am

    [...] Go see if you can catch the Gingerbread Man (warning: requires thought, and some background familiarity with the the Train Wreck in Slow Motion over at Sovereign Grace.) Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]

  60. Debbie on January 9th, 2012 7:18 pm

    Where did everyone go?

  61. John Immel on January 9th, 2012 9:04 pm

    Hey Debbie,
     
    LOL… I of course am still here.  But for my part, since this blog takes on some pretty heavy duty philosophical and theological ideas… I’m often challenged to develop a response. So… my pace is a bit slow sometimes.
     
    You’ve asked some good questions, but there are some layers of assumptions that I’m trying to decide how to handle.
     
    I’m gonna work on one or two while I eat dinner.  Should have something more shorty.

  62. Debbie on January 9th, 2012 9:40 pm

    Ok, great! Thanks John.

  63. John Immel on January 9th, 2012 10:05 pm

    Islam does pose a problem for many in the west.  I’ve written about the implications Islam’s rise in three for four posts.  My thoughts are less theological and more fundamentally observational.  The history of Islam is available for anyone who cares to look.  It is a militant religion that sanctions the use of force in its expansion. The stated objective of Islam is its global dominion in the name of Allah. It can call itself a “religion of peace” because it attests that peace will be the outcome of its successful militant conquest. The assumption is that once the world is under Sharia law peace will be the outcome.

    Sharia is probably one of the most brutal legal codes ever enforced on man—certainly true in the modern age—because its focus is not justice as much as a validation for retribution and coercion.  It does not recognize individual liberty as we in the west—as heirs of the enlightenment—understand individual liberty. It turns women into chattel and is not shy about erasing or mutilating them from existence in the name of religious purity.

    he problem comes in the West from our utter lack of familiarity with the actual practices of Islam. This divide is created because at its root, it is an Arabic religion, and historically there were prohibitions from reading the Quran in any other language than Arabic. I don’t really know how much that prohibition has been relaxed, but now the Quran is available to most English speakers.  Curiously many westerners have never read the book. And this includes many that call themselves Muslim.  (that isn’t much different that Christianity … so there is nothing specifically scandalous in that.)

    But what is scandalous about the Aribic-centric nature of Islam is the ability to parse language in the name of Religious purity. Typically a discussion with a Muslim about say … various specific Quran mandates to kill the infidel, or point out that Mohamed had a nine year old wife, or had a long standing conversation with Satan (“the satanic verses”)it goes something like this:
     
    “But in Sura … bla bla bla it says bla bla bla.”
    “Well, if you read it in the original text … it doesn’t really say that.”
     
    This gives western Muslims enormous latitude with their very own religion. They can pretend that it is the few extremists causing all the problems but they are the unique majority who have got the right interpretation of the holy text. So they can be broad minded western thinkers taking full advantage of western freedoms and maintain their religious commitment. But they could never live so successfully in two worlds if they lived in the middle east. They would be subject without mercy to the very brutality they denounce if they lived in Jordan, or Syrian or Afghanistan, or they would become just as militant as the average Iranian Mullah.  

    Of course there are all sorts of shades of commitment and zealotry in Islam … just like Christianity. So, there is no real one size fits all.   
     
    Unfortunately, (mostly because Christians do not know their own history or why the ideas undergirding Christianity are far superior) a kind of moral equivalency has been established between Islam and Christianity.

    There really isn’t one. Beyond the utter ridiculousness of equating Timothy McVey with “militant” Christianity, any rational evaluation of the military expansion of Islam speaks for itself. If one is inclined a brief review of the last 100 years shows Islam at the center of  90 percent of all military uprisings throughout the globe.  This is just not true of Christianity as an ideology.

    But the moral equivalency has become an almost immutable conventional wisdom that it is very hard to weed out.  The result is that most Christians are left to debate the ‘biblical’ nature of Jesus verses Mohamed. Or try to make a theological statement by burning the Quran.   
     
    *   *   *  
     
    Having said all of this, it doesn’t really matter how great the penalty for choosing Jesus might be. It doesn’t matter that the choice to follow TRUTH is in fact death. It doesn’t matter of the enemies of truth choose to dismember a man an inch at a time. It doesn’t matter how great the obstacle that is put into place might be to turn someone from light and life. That is no excuse. It is no absolution. Man is responsible for the accurate evaluation of the world. Man is morally culpable for successfully judging the truth and offering the correct action for the understanding of truth.
     
    The reason that hardship is irrelevant to this ultimate judgment is because choosing to believe a lie still ends in death. The death might be slower.  The death might not be as painful. The death might even be pleasurable, but in the end it is still death. 
    Never loose sight of this. Jesus is TRUTH and the TRUTH is Jesus.  In as much as Man chooses to embrace Truth he is embracing Jesus. That will through a monkey wrench into some folks Christian Theology…. But hey… I’m good at stirring the pudding.

  64. Debbie on January 9th, 2012 11:25 pm

    Hi John,
    My main concern was the raising and brainwashing into Islam from birth, not the threat of death. Is that their fault where they were born and how they were raised? Islam is all they know. The entire nation is Muslim. 
    Children who are sexually abused from infancy, do they grow up to be normal in most cases with no counseling? What about religious abuse like Islam? People in cults often need deprogramming to return to a normal life. Islam is a very dangerous mind controlling cult. 
    I am not looking for excuses, I am looking at psychological realities. They are severely spiritually retarded. Does God hold the severely retarded accountable?

  65. John Immel on January 9th, 2012 11:41 pm

    Well… hum… this presumes a concept that may or may not exist.  Spiritual retardation… However I understand what you are driving at… does God penalize for various forms of handicap.  If man is faced with overwhelming barriers to effective development does God make exceptions in his ultimate judgment?
     

    And the answer to that is of course. I’ve often been curious about the Christian preoccupation to paint all divine judgment/consequence as absolute when the concept of proportional justice is a God idea.  We are inclined to read the Law, the mandates of an eye for an eye as a terrible standard of legalism, when in fact what that legal code did was place a limitation on justice and take into account circumstance for said justice.

     
    In the bloody tribal world of millennia past, if I insulted you, you gouged out my eye, and then my family cut off your hand, and then your clan, killed my family, and then my tribe wiped out your tribe and so on and so on. Lex Talionis was designed to bring that cycle of destruction to an end by creating the concept of proportion in human understanding. It was designed to give man a measure and a limitation to his tendency towards war and destruction. The law is filled with what Christens would call “grace” for violations of Torah.  A woman caught in adultery in the city was stoned with the man. A woman caught in adultery in the country was absolved of judgment because it was presumed that she cried out for help, and no one heard her.

    This is but one example of God specifically placing limitation and considerations for the cause and effect of actions and the subsequent consequence. So, it fully follows that whatever eternal judgments God makes he will take into consideration all of the limitations and hardships Man endured.

  66. Debbie on January 10th, 2012 12:59 am

    Thanks John,
    Here is my hope – Romans 11:32
    “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” (ESV)
    God’s mercy extends to all and His mercy endures forever. I believe many have gotten it wrong on the eternity issues. The Bible tells us not to repay evil with evil, but to overcome evil with good. Will God not do the same? The Bible tells us that God is Love. The Bible also tells us that Love does not take into account a wrong suffered.
    Jesus said from the cross “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Those people did not believe and totally rejected Christ. Yet Jesus told the Father to forgive them. Jesus was God in the flesh and came to reveal the Father. He was a friend of sinners.
    Romans 5:18 “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (ESV)

  67. DB on January 13th, 2012 8:41 am

    With respect to the Quran being in Arabic, this is true for my friend who is  an Iraqi Sunni Muslim woman.

    As I noted, we talk about a lot of these issues and she has shared many many times, that the Quran is not to be translated into other languages. She said the Bible got mistranslated (and that much is true) with consequences.

    When she quotes from the Quran is Arabic and then tells me what that means in English.

    I don’t know if this is an Arab thing or if Muslims from non-Arabic cultures do the same thing. She is a direct descendent of the Prophet, so that may play into the practice as well.        

  68. Blues0080 on January 13th, 2012 1:28 pm

    hi john..any updates on your book?

  69. Argo on January 14th, 2012 7:53 pm

    Hi John,
    Whenever you get to it: question.  In the last article I read you mentioned that you didn’t believe that the Bible could not be read (or applied…or both?) by anyone without interpretation; that as soon as revelation is given to the mind of a human receiver and put into language, interpretation is present.  I found this fascinating as I and we are always taught by whatever church we attended (in my case SGM) that there is, in fact really some objective truth-some single, pinnacle point that God is utterly conveying, to the exclusion of all others-and if we just listen and try hard enough (e.g. agree with the pastors) we can grasp it.  Can you elaborate more on this perspective concerning the matter of interpretation; and is this why we should focus more on universal (meaning present and past) consensus among Christians regarding the fundamentals…because it is in these “fundamentals” where we find the greatest agreement among the interpretation of a given doctrine/verse/passage? 

  70. John Immel on January 14th, 2012 10:56 pm

    Argo… I assume you are referring to the article Engage.
     
    In that article I was taking on two presumptions that tend to pervade Christian thought.
     
    One, that understanding based on “human” faculties are necessarily “subjective” and therefore flawed.
     
    Two, if TRUTH is the product of “revelation” that truth is an immutable irrefutable whatzit from another dimension, no matter the purity of that “revelation” is still remains subject to the very “human” faculties it purports to bypass in the name of absolute-ish-ness.
     
    That is a (very condensed) summation of the article.
     
    Argo said:  “ ….. you mentioned that you didn’t believe that the Bible could not be read (or applied…or both?) by anyone without interpretation; that as soon as revelation is given to the mind of a human receiver and put into language, interpretation is present.” 
     
    It isn’t so much that I don’t believe it, in the sense that I don’t believe in Santa Clause. I am merely pointing out the underlying reality of human existence. We are all interpreting all the time.  What I mean by that is we are processing knowledge, with various degrees of success, every minute of every day. So that idea that such processing is suspended merely because we crack open the 66 books of the Protestant Anthology is to deliberately evade the obvious. Maybe I should say it more emphatically … this evasion is a critical failure of human existence.
     
    And here is why this specific evasion is at the core of Spiritual Tyranny. When one starts with “revelation” as the starting place of human understanding we are left with the obvious question “Whose Revelation?”  I address this in detail, in the article Namaste Nemesis. But this question devolves into an endless debate over authority, because the real goal is the acquisition of force.

    Notice the world of hurt in which man is placed by the power of these presumptions.   Man is insane, therefore he cannot know truth. “God,” gives “revelation” to help man get the truth.  Who then among men can successfully define this truth?  Well, someone somewhere eventually says that they are exempt from the very corrupting power of human frailty. But this inevitably leads to a fight over who is MORE exempt. And the greater the moral justification, the more violence is sanctified in service to Revelation purity.
     
    This is the Leaven of the Pharisees. This is the evolution of thought behind the Trinitarian fights of the late 3rd and 4th century. This is Pope Innocent the III.  This is the justification for Charlemagne’s evangelism by the sword to the Anglo Saxons. This is the Puritans of England waging civil war.  This is the Puritans in Massachusetts. This is the Lutheran Church’s confederacy with the Rise of National Socialism within the Weimar Republic.
     
    And the list goes on and on. It is this glaring historical phenomenon that led Ayn Rand to call Faith and Force the destroyers of the modern world.
     
    Now think through your participation with SGM juggernaut. You can speak from experience that their leading preoccupation is the vetting of their authority. The reason they major in the doctrines of “submission and authority” is because they need force to maintain interpretive compliance. They need a moral justification to demand intellectual conformity to sustain their grip on the interpretive conclusions. So their interpretive “focus” is on interpretive methods that arrive at their universal assumption. They are in charge of bible meaning.  
     
    Argo said: “… and is this why we should focus more on universal (meaning present and past) consensus among Christians regarding the fundamentals…because it is in these “fundamentals” where we find the greatest agreement among the interpretation of a given doctrine/verse/passage?” 
     
    I think I know what you are asking here… If I answer the wrong question you can re-ask. The reason I am working to challenge “Christian Fundamentals” is precisely because historically the church has used these fundamentals for the express purpose of justifying the use of force in service to a Religous Political Correctness. But to challenge those fundamentals I am left with the unenviable task of challenging HOW we arrived at those conclusions. This post is a prime example. At the root this article is the challenge to the literalist interpretive methodology in service to some simplistic proof texting. And that proof texting is held up as the measure of “biblical.” This methodology is at the heart of a large segment of our modern assumptions about what is “biblical” doctrine.
     
    If you are interested in an introduction to a different method to reading and understanding biblical literature (And subsequently) biblical doctrine, might I recommend:
    http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310384915
     
    This is just the barest overview to Higher Critical Methodology… but it is a great start.

  71. Argo on January 16th, 2012 9:08 pm

    Hi John,
    Thank you very much for your response to my question.  I apologize that it wasn’t a bit more lucid…I think I was, er tired…had a glass of wine when I wrote it?  Kind of you to parse through it and formulate your response.
     
    Yes, that does help.  I don’t even pretend to understand everything about what is wrong with the modern American church’s understanding of how to appropriately handle God’s word.  I feel like they are like a kid with a blindfold and a plastic bat swinging at the pinata…a little candy drops here and there, and some of the other kids get lucky and pick it up and enjoy it, but most of them just get whacked upside the brains.  I’m not implying a vile heart motive in all cases, just, perhaps, too many “leaders” thinking that they know a lot more than they actually do.  And spiritual revelation (i.e. the Bible) can be extremely dangerous in the hands of perpetual novices (think me out in public with a light saber…and a blindfold…and a pinata). 
     
    So, at least what I DO grasp is that it’s time to move beyond proof texting and into something that seems to not make handling God’s word so haphazard and, er, simplistic (I know the systematic theologians aren’t happy with that).

  72. John Immel on January 17th, 2012 11:11 pm

    Argo,
     
    Yea… it really isn’t malicious. Most men who go into the ministry are very well meaning, very interested in doing good for people. They emulate what has come before them.  It is very hard to reinvent the wheel, particularly when that wheel is defended by the assumption that it doesn’t need to be reinvented. Indeed, the wheel is defended by the presumption that to question the historic conclusion is that they are cursed for the review. 
     
    The reality is … most preachers don’t really care about doctrine in the broader sense. As long as they get the high points right (at least in their minds) and do “good”, and have the people who listen to him do “good”, the fine points that make Christianity murky get filed in the abyss of Pan Theology:  “These are questions to wonderful for me, it will all Pan out in the end.”

    So for the most part, everyone does their day of “divine service” on Sunday, and they do a few car washes to demonstrate how much they serve, go to a few social functions to show how much the “fellowship” ….  alakazam poof … Authentic Christianity. It is a bonus that Church attendance gives comfort and provides a sterile environment to raise the kids.

    (That might be a touch cynical, but not too far from reality)

    So… for most people, bible doctrine is kinda like play dough. It comes in many colors and can be molded into anything depending on who they are playing with at the moment. Doctrine remains a subjective abstract puzzle with no application.  So beyond the grand theory that “People need Jesus” Church doesn’t rise much on the social So-What meter. The result is that most churches are a benign social club.
     
    It is the rejection of Church as a social club, (The aspiration to make the church a societal force in the modern age) that gives energy to the current movement back to the “Great Doctrines of the Church” … it was those doctrines that justified the forceful Religious/political organization of the theocratic state throughout Europe since roughly 381 AD.  

    The reason full philosophical systems are so potent is because they are exactly the opposite of the benign social club mentality. They impact social thought because they start from the root of human understanding and work their way out to the most mundane expressions of life. The “danger” is getting caught up in defending what people have been told is THE expression of TRUTH. Merge this preoccupation with a philosophical system that tells them they are morally correct to bring force against those people who do not believe what they believe… and you have the recipe for every social, political and religious purging this world has ever seen.

  73. Argo on January 20th, 2012 7:52 pm

    John, I postulate that the only one who can assume a superior moral, ethical, spiritual, and rational position and still love people is God.  I feel that any man who assumes this position as a part of some hocus pocus divine knighting will as a matter of course begin to despise his fellow humans   Here’s my rationale: In their minds, Christ was the sacrifice for the sins of the sheep, but they do not have a perfect Son to sacrifice, so where does that leave them?  The purpose of Christ was to justify them; the pastors are to sanctify (with lips service paid to the Holy Spirit)…but again, no perfect sacrifice for this, so my opinion is that in order for them to carry out their orders, that is to make sure the sheep adhere to the dictated good, they must treat them as functionally unsaved.  Which leads to hatred of their “depraved” nature and their insanity, in the same way the see God hating those things too.  I’m not saying the hate is conscious, but I do feel that you can see it in all the abuse; all of the umbrage taken with people who disagree.  Example church group?  SGM.
    Does this seem way out there to you?  I’m trying to see how an autocracy in a church as a accepted polity will work without oppression, but I struggle.  They say it’s biblical, but how does one get past the damage.  My opinion is that the only true polity must be one where members are treated as equals…a democracy if you will…because otherwise you get pastors who begin to deify themselves.  And deities with no perfect sacrifice but only a commitment to rule means very unpleasant things.  What do you think?  Am I nuts?

  74. John Immel on January 20th, 2012 8:51 pm

    “I feel that any man who assumes this position as a part of some hocus pocus divine knighting will as a matter of course begin to despise his fellow humans.”

     
    Yea…. Divine knighting is a pretty good way to put this. That is pretty much how preachers tend to look at their calling.  Something about them sets them apart and that set apart-ness qualifies them to do what others cannot do.  It doesn’t matter how one arrives at the set apart-ness, the presumption begs the conclusion. They are superior doing—something—on behalf of the inferior. So I think you are exactly right… at some point they must despise their fellow humans.  Or maybe dispise isn’t the right word. I know plenty of men who genuinely love people but even with that love they treat people as inferiors. They Patronize?  Kind of a romanticized fatherhood??  (I’m thinking out loud).     Because it is romanticized the viscous presumption of inferiority is masked.   
    Looking for a good metaphor to illustrate my point…

    mmm… ok like

    … the concept of Chivalry. Knight’s in shining armor, damsels in distress, court flattery, women protected in their delicate state, women granting the favor of their presences to a suitable suitor. When in actual fact Chivalry is merely benevolent chauvinism. Strip away all of the Arthurian court Mythology and the underlying presumption is male superiority infantilizing the woman, making her a commodity to be won?   

    Preacher’s do this with the people in the church quite a bit. And … if you tell people long enough that they are dependent on you … eventually they believe you. Preacher’s create the monster and then hate the fact that the monster exists. 
     
     
    “I’m trying to see how an autocracy in a church as a accepted polity will work without oppression, but I struggle.”

     
    Mmmmm… not sure the issue is autocracy vs democracy or even  oligarchy.  As I said in the article Reform or not to Reform, government model is secondary to government philosophy.  The reason for government shapes the form of government.

    I think the real question is … what are we polity-ing?  What are we forcing?  By definition, government is force. So, when the “Church” starts trying to use force, the question is what is it forcing?  Ideas?  Doctrines? Behaviors? Control of the common resources?

    And then the next question is … why is that the “church’s” job?
    These are very different questions than, should there be government, and what shape should that government take.
     
    And no … I don’t think you are nuts at all. I think you are asking some important questions.
     

  75. Debbie on January 23rd, 2012 12:46 am

    Hi Argo,
     
    I am glad to see that you said goodbye to Refuge and Survivors.  Like you said – enough is enough. Nothing but a lot of negativity lately. I was initially glad that people got to see the truth about SGM (as I also did), but sometimes they turn on one another, biting and devouring one another. They get very opinionated at times and on their high horse. 
     
    And why The Gingerbread Man has to remove this blog from his roll call, I will never understand. So what if John and him disagree on some doctrinal issue? My husband and I do not agree on some issues. So should we divorce? NEVER! 
     
    I love discussing doctrine. Why some people have to get so bent out of shape when they disagree on an issue, is what troubles me. There is like 30,000 Christian denominations and sects worldwide. All division over doctrine! What happened to love being patient and not demanding it’s own way? It is very troubling to see how some Christians treat each other.

  76. Gingerbread Man Flashing Blinking Light Body on January 23rd, 2012 6:08 pm

    [...] Blinkys Christmas Angel Flashing Pins Mistletoe Smiley Flashing Pins Officially Licensed . Rumpelstiltskin and the Gingerbread Man | spiritualtyranny.com by John Immel Run, run, as fast as you can! You can't catch me! I'm the Gingerbread Man! Once upon [...]

  77. FWIW on January 23rd, 2012 6:43 pm

    Hi John,

    For admitting my real identity, I was kicked off of SGM Refuge (again)! I did not have to admit who I was mind you. And what do I get for my being honest about who I am – that I am a deceiver. An honest deceiver – but still a deceiver. Of course everyone else on there reveals their true identity, right? And no Christian who was ever booted off of a blog and then came back under a different name, have they? I guess I am the only one.

    The Bible says let he who is without sin cast the first stone and to forgive 70 X 7. But I guess they forgot those verses. It is a mortal sin to try and get back on a blog you have been booted from.

    Brent had already pretty much figured out who I was, but Ellie wanted to put the nail in the coffin. Then she tells me that Jesus loves me and she is praying for me! What a joke! Kinda like Judas kissing Jesus.

    So I want to know if I am welcome over here.Can I come over here and blog about Christian current events, SGM or otherwise?

  78. FWIW on January 23rd, 2012 7:09 pm

    John,

    Just to warn you, if you do let me on here, you will get much grief from Kris and Guy at Survivors, and from some of the bloggers there and at SGM Refuge. I have been a major pain in their backside for a long time. They hate my theological views and got pretty nasty with me about it. So I got nasty right back. Was I right to retaliate – no I was not. So they will come over here to unearth all of my sins for you and tell you I am a heretic and a terrible person to boot. Brent Detwiler will confirm.

    So you will no doubt get some serious grief with me blogging over here. So let me know what you decide.

    Thanks,

    FWIW – the deceiver

  79. John Immel on January 23rd, 2012 10:03 pm

    FWIW…. 
     
    Wow… with that preamble… what is a guy to do with THAT? LOL. 
    I suppose had you just started commenting I’d have never been the wiser.
     
    I have mixed thoughts about these two comments.

    I don’t have enough background to weigh in the justice or injustice of being banded from a given web site.  Neither, do I want that background. That is not what this blog is about.

    Having said that, as for Brent’s opinion … not sure I care one direction or another: I figure he has demonstrated some profound failures so his “pure doctrine” is not proof against anything. That means the charge of heresy from his mouth doesn’t really pass the so what test in my mind.  

    Kris and Guy… not sure why anyone would want to be a pain in their backside. They are good people doing a thankless job.  Their focus is pretty narrow, so as long as you were talking about that focus… not sure what the fuss could be about.  If you were offering conversations outside that focus… shrug… it is their blog. They can shape it how they see fit.

    As for the Refuge … my comments are the same.  Jim can shape the conversation or limit it how he sees fit.  His concerns are SGM and reconciliation and … a “refuge” for those who have been affected by that whole dealeo.  He is only marginally interested in doctrinal issues in the broader senses, at least on the blog.  And that is his prerogative.

     
    We are all guests on each other’s blogs.  It is the way of things. Every time I post, I accept that it could be removed for whatever reason. That is the way of things. What I write and the way I write is polarizing. That is the way of things. So, right, wrong or indifferent, when someone decides they don’t want my thoughts, … shrug …that is how human conversations go. And when that happens (And it has) I’ve let it be. Rejection is never fun, but it is a fact of life. On occasion, I will learn why the comments were banned. And on select occasions, I chose to respond to what I thought was wrong with the logic.

    But here is the important part.  I created an outlet to discuss the things I find important. That is the beauty of living in America. I do have the right to free speech.  I do not have the right to be heard. And I do not have the right to demand others build me a platform to be heard.

    It is my job to build my own platform and to attract those I wish to persuade. And I am proud to say, I am succeeding at that very goal.
     
    So maybe, (I’m just spit balling here) if one has an interest to discuss things of their own passion, in their own way, then maybe they should create a blog that lets then talk till their fingers are tired.
     
    And last … the comment about Ellie.  Uhmmm … my blog is not a place to air this kind of thing.  But since you put me in the middle I need to say this. I consider Ellie a friend. I’ve had the privilege of talking to her a few times and she is good people.  Whatever is between you needs to stay between you.  I don’t know enough about the issue to take sides. And neither do I want the head ache. So…. enough about that. 
     
    Now, as for my willingness to entertain someone talking about ideas on this blog, uhhh … if you have followed my articles, and the doctrines that I am taking on, then you already know the answer to that.

    As a rule, my blog is the wild, wild west of ideas, so I tend to expect the reader to beware, and enter at their own risk. So I tend to have a lot of latitude about what people can say, and don’t really care about someone’s reputation as such. If people conduct themselves thoughtfully, and reasonably I tend to let them say what they want.  I only get fussed when they are presumptuous.  Read my articles addressing Paul Balluf if you haven’t. That will give you an overview of what I consider verboten.
     
    I don’t believe in Heresy by association any more than I believe in “Sound Doctrine” by proof text. Being mentioned or listed or commenting on my blog is not an endorsement. To be sure my blog roll, as limited as it is, lists those that I tend to critique. That is my effort at due diligence. So if one is inclined to say something way out there… It might just be ignored… or someone else can comment and correct. Or maybe I’ll write an article about how whacked it is.  >snicker<

    So anyway… not sure what other answer to give… but we’ll start with this.

  80. FWIW on January 23rd, 2012 10:30 pm

    Thanks John,

    What you just shared is wisdom I need to hear. I think I have matured a little bit, but I still tend to retaliate when accused, belittled, judged, etc. My bad.

    This time when I was booted, I did not retaliate except for my above comments to you. I wanted to vent a little. I have one pet doctrine that has got me into a lot of hot water on the blogs. But posting as FWIW I never brought up that subject. But they (Refuge)remembered me from the past once Ellie figured out who I was. Up until then, all was well posting under my new name (FWIW).

    So I got a little ticked because I was being a very good boy this time around and not making a fuss with anyone about anything. What I wrote about Brent, most agreed with me, so there was no problem there. It was not until Ellie figured out who I was that I got the boot. People seemed to be enjoying my posts as FWIW up until that time.

    That is why I was a little ticked. I had not brought up my “heresy” or caused any trouble whatsoever under my new name. I though they might forgive the past when they saw I had turned over a new leaf. But it was not to happen.

    After I admitted who I was, I just wanted to be forgiven and reconciled. But I guess that feeling was not mutual. Too much past baggage to release. I said a lot of things in the past, in anger, that I regret. But I cannot make people forgive me nor accept me. I guess I broke their trust too many times.

    So I am here as a friend and not to cause any trouble. If my one pet doctrinal heresy comes up, I hope I will either keep quiet or handle it gently and patiently.

    I desire to be a blessing and not a curse.

    Thanks for listening.

  81. John Immel on January 24th, 2012 11:16 am

    Yea… well, venting I get.

    And Ellie is almost magical with her research abilities.  I think she is secretly an NSA analyst, so she can pull all those recorded conversations out of the air. 

    Friends are good.  Thinking is better.  Resisting Tyranny with the superior  ideas is the best.  

  82. FWIW on January 24th, 2012 12:17 pm

    I always think my ideas are superior. :-) Problem is, my ideas keep getting me in trouble. Jesus has some superior ideas and it got Him crucified.

    I read a good book one time called “Crucified by Christians.” I am sure you have experienced that yourself. I believe in freedom of speech, but rarely is it practiced among Christians. I have been kicked out of churches, and blocked from blogs, YouTube comments, Facebook friends, etc. All over my ONE pet doctrine. If I denied the divinity of Jesus, or the Trinity, then I would understand.

    You seem to be very open to honest dialogue, and I appreciate that. Many Christians are not. They think unity in the body of Christ means we need to agree about how we water baptize or whether it’s grape juice or wine. And now it’s contemporary or traditional worship. We divide over just about anything.

    As you can tell, it causes me frustration. I let people come on my FB page and rip me to shreds. I do not block them, I engage them. “Come, let us reason together.”

  83. John Immel on January 24th, 2012 2:28 pm

    Lol…. Not sure if superior ideas are by default messianic but hey… we can all dream big. 
     
    In the mean time, if one is inclined to play around in the arena of ideas, they have to accept what that means. And yea… with some regularity those who challenge conventional wisdom, find themselves facing pain.  For heaven sake the first kid who breaks it to his first grade buddies that Santa Clause is a myth catches play ground hell. But eventually he is proved right. Then he gets to call everyone else a dork. LOLOLOL.

    Crucified by Christians is a bit melodramatic… Most Christians couldn’t give me a paper cut let alone stigmata, but I get the sentiment. Here is how I choose to deal with that. I expect people disagree and I don’t expect conversational equality. This frees me to focus on advancing my argument. And after 30 some odd years, I can’t count the times that my greatest critics have come back to me, and said “I owe you an apology…. You were exactly right.”

    To which I smile, nod and say….. “I told you so…”

  84. FWIW on January 24th, 2012 3:21 pm

    I am very surprised that you site does not get much more traffic. This is exactly what we Christians need – to be challenged, stretched, educated, edified, and encouraged. Keep up the good work and thank you very much for allowing me here. I greatly appreciate that.

  85. FWIW on January 24th, 2012 8:54 pm

    Well I just wanted to thank you again for allowing me on here. Looking forward to some profitable discussions.

  86. FWIW on January 24th, 2012 8:57 pm

    Well John,
     
    Thanks again for allowing me on here. I look forward to some great dialogue and fellowship.

  87. FWIW on January 25th, 2012 10:15 pm

    Great news! The SGM review panel has just posted it’s report and found that C J Mahaney is not bald.

  88. John Immel on January 26th, 2012 12:43 pm

    I hear the irony in your comment… but I don’t suppose you have a source for it do you?  I’m guessing that SGM has decided that CJ is the most humble man ever? 

  89. DB on January 26th, 2012 3:14 pm

    CJ has beautiful chestnut brown hair that flows in a breeze.

    He is dressed in the finest suites and has a doctorate in theology as well.

    He is fit for leadership.

    Imagine that and we thought he was a liar, blackmailer, and a legalistic narcissist who has neither hair nor spiritual clothes.

            

  90. Argo on January 27th, 2012 2:02 am

    I’m with you John.  This whole SGM thing no longer moves the needle much on the “so what” scale.  [yawn] 
     
    So, a panel comprised of outspoken and devoted CJ sycophants, who are accountable to exactly zero people, who appoint themselves, answer to themselves, have everything to gain by deeming CJ fit because that means they are also awesome,and who have already last summer deemed him fit, deem him fit again.  Wow…what a shocker.  
     
    I would summarize it this way:  The unaccountability/self-appointment of the Board is the Original Sin which is responsible for the Total Depravity of the report. 

  91. John Immel on January 27th, 2012 11:45 am

    DB… you’re a stitch. 
     
    Argo… you have the dynamic exactly right. Everyone has a vested interest in finding Vicar Charles Joseph innocent.  Not that self interest is the problem…. the ideas that drive the dynamic are the problem….  The underlying logic is by necessity self affirming.
     
    Certainly no one reading this blog is shocked. I’m pretty sure there was an article about this very outcome some months ago.
     
    >snicker<

  92. Ellie on January 27th, 2012 1:00 pm

    <blockquote>I would summarize it this way:  The unaccountability/self-appointment of the Board is the Original Sin which is responsible for the Total Depravity of the report. </blockquote>

    Argo, that’s a GREAT way of putting it! :)  

  93. Jacob on January 27th, 2012 3:46 pm

    Hi John, 
    This blog is so interesting. I’m starting to see some of the metaphysical and theological implications of some of the ideas you are developing/ talking about. I really liked your comment above about Romans. Something that stood out to me a lot was where you were talking about how Paul saw Ha’ Mashiach/ Christ as being the only one with the integrative power to reconcile the ethical knowledge we possess with the moral empowerment understanding back to a fully integrated and whole creature. 
    That definitely changed how I’m going to read Romans this time around.

    I have a question: could you address a little more about how total depravity is at the heart of Moral Relativism and how altruism impacts those? I follow the progression of a lot of your articles, but I am still trying to understand this. Also, what is your actual view of sin nature? I definitely am re considering the Platonist/Augustinian conceptions of Original Sin but I’m still looking for clarity on a deeper understanding. Do you have any good books/ articles to recommend? I am definitely challenged a lot by your blog… Respect and Shalom
     

  94. John Immel on January 27th, 2012 8:46 pm

    Jacob,
     
    Thank you very much. And welcome. You keyed in on a crucial part of Paul’s sub argument. And when people awake to the fact that Christ/Messiah/Anointing are in fact adjectives describing something very specific, and not proper nouns, the true power behind Paul’s argument begins to blaze through. 

    The next time you take a whack at Roman’s notice that Paul starts with the premise of human moral culpability, (Roman’s 1) and the deciding factor of Man’s decent into ‘depravity’ is Man’s formal rejection of what he can clearly see. Then notice that Paul identifies man’s real enemy as death. When you read, keep these two premise in mind and notice how this challenges the traditional reading of Roman’s.

    As for total depravity and moral relativism… well, a couple of things.  I wrote at length about this in Moral Seduction. It has been a while since I read through that article, but if you haven’t take a look at that.

    I am toying with the idea of expanding your questions into an article. But until I do, I’ll offer this. The problem with total depravity is its metaphysical absolute. It presupposes man’s moral wickedness and thereby ascribes moral vacancy to all human action. So whatever the grand theory of “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” Grace and Redemption bla bla bla, the outworking is very simple. There is no moral distinction between Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Vicar Charles Joseph, and the little kid who covets a pack of gum.  And when Man is robbed of his ability to morally distinguish between the public enemies butchering humanity and the ethical lapses implicit to human growth he is forced to live in a morally relative universe. No one can judge because no one is morally pure enough to judge. There is no wrong because everyone is metaphysically wrong.

    What I said still probably rings a bit academic to people. (I spend a lot of time out and about, in bars, practicing my own brand of bar room theology. So this experiment works best in this context.)
    Here is the experiment: Just listen to HOW people absolve themselves if their moral misdeeds. Rarely do you hear the antinomian assertion “there is no morality, so anything is fair game.” 

    What you will hear most often: they will pay lip service to “God’s grace” but if you press them on their ethical lapses they will be annoyed that someone would dare demand such a thing. But they will be furious if you claim to live a moral standard, and expect them to do the same based on the ability to live the standard. That is when you will hear, “We are all just sinners, don’t you know?” This is a brazen appeal to moral relativism for the express purpose of robbing those of moral ability their foundation of judgment.

    Ok… I’ll start with that. The questions about altruism and “sin nature” might need a fuller treatment.   Let me think about how I want to address these.

  95. Argo on January 27th, 2012 9:47 pm

    John, you said:  “The underlying logic is by necessity self affirming.” Yes…and it’s disturbing.  But, as always, thank you for lifting the veil.
    Ellie…thanks!
     
    Jacob…I also loved that perspective on Romans.  Very cool.

  96. Argo on January 27th, 2012 10:02 pm

    John,
    I once heard CJ in a sermon say that Mother Theresa had more in common with Adolf Hitler than with Jesus Christ.  That would certainly seem to prove that they do not view any moral distinction between anyone, like you said.  So, how does “all have sinned and fallen short…” become: a loving, caring, self-sacrificing servant of the poor is as fundamentally wicked as a mass murdering maniac?  How is that verse taken out of context, is what I mean to ask, because, as an SGM man from way back on the mean E streets, I can tell you that’s the go-to verse for their theology on this matter.  That and “all their good deeds are as filthy rags”.  So, what are those verses saying?

  97. John Immel on January 27th, 2012 11:41 pm

    Well… deconstructing the whole doctrine of pervasive depravity in a blog comment is a bit ambitious. LOL.  

    I will give CJ this credit: he is utterly consistent with his doctrinal assertions. The Hitler = Mommy Teresa is the logical conclusion of the doctrines.

    But here is what I observe: your question concedes the premise that the Neo Reformed world reads into those texts, i.e that they support the broad doctrinal statement that is Pervasive Depravity of the John Calvin/Theodore Beza kind.

    I submit that Man can “fall short” of God’s glory and not specifically be pervasively depraved. The nature of human righteousness can fall under the proportional scrutiny of God’s ability and not measure a value, a merit, for the “purchase” of Grace. 
     
    Never lose sight of this dynamic. Paul is trying to answer this primary question: How can an eternal law, with an eternal covenant, with an eternal promise be superseded by a New Covenant and we still have moral responsibility to the content of the supersede covenant … uh… sort of?   Then Paul argues a secondary issue: How can there be “eternal” promises when man in fact dies, that is, how is death be more powerful than God’s very Covenants of Promise? (These are the broad strokes of his theological musings.) So Paul is trying to solve a serious theological puzzle—among other things—not lay out a philosophical statement for a doctrine that doesn’t find formal expression until well into the 4th century. 
     
    It has been a while since I read it, but it is worth a read for those of you are into such things.  The Heart of Paul, by Ben Campbell Johnson. It touches on some of the stuff I’m commenting on now … (I think) like is said… it has been a while and I might be thinking of a different book. 

  98. elsie on January 28th, 2012 11:27 am

    Hi John,

    This is my first visit here, and I’ve enjoyed reading and being challenged by your posts. Just a quick offering for you, since you had mentioned that you were unaware of any teaching on The Leaven of the Pharisees. A man named Beresford Job did a thorough teaching on this as part of a series that continues into the church. You can find his audios here: http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/church-practice/beresford/beresford.php

    Hope you enjoy it.   

  99. Jacob on January 29th, 2012 2:54 am

    Thanks for answering my questions John. That definitely helped a good bit. I follow your response. I see the two points you make in regards to Romans. I’m going to do a proper reading with those in mind. And yeah- I think a lot of people (maybe) think that Paul is explaining why the law is not needed, which is a simplification, when in reality as you put it, he is saying:
    “How can an eternal law, with an eternal covenant, with an eternal promise be superseded by a New Covenant and we still have moral responsibility to the content of the superseded covenant … uh… sort of?”
    Which is a different sort of query.
    As for your Bar Room theology scenario- I am going to try to unpack it/ chew it over a little tomorrow. I am still getting a feel for the ideas you are presenting. Extremely interesting man…
    Also, I read your article on Moral Seduction (I think it was that one) last week and it was very helpful. I realized that a looot of people in my life were trying to get a claim to personal intimacy they had no right to. 
    I’m going to chew over that stuff and respond tomorrow, Shalom.

  100. John Immel on January 29th, 2012 12:44 pm

    It isn’t so much that people don’t think the law applies. Steal from them and commit adultery with their wives and see if they think the law is irrelevant. >snicker< 

    Most people have been taught that Paul is showing a false religious legalism verses a true “Christian” spirituality. This is unfortunately deep in Christian traditions: the fundamental assumption that to be Jewish, to appeal to the law is false religion.

    The fight of the first century revolved around entrance and participation into the Covenants of Promise.  In other words, the fight was over what defines an authentic Christian.  Since the early church was centered in Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism, they did not make an immediate break with Jewish tradition. To be sure they conceptualized Christianity as merely an extension of the Jewish faith. They were intimate with the Jewish foundations of Jesus teaching, and had no reason to challenge the premise … until the “gospel” started entering Greco/Roman culture. Suddenly, circumcision, and the myriad of observances that centered on the Temple, were the very oppression that the people objected too and flocked to John the Immerser  some thirty years prior. The personification of this fight was between Peter and Paul, but it never resolved. By the writing of the Gospel of John roughly 80 AD the break with Judaism was absolute and the “Jews” had become false, deceivers, and the home of Satan’s anti Christ. So Christianity made a hard break with its Jewish roots somewhere through the early first century and justified that break by pretty much the same method it has used forever: it makes its intellectual opponents satanic villains and summarily dismisses their arguments.  

    From our place in history we tend to read Peter’s visions of “Take and eat…” and go … “Well, Duh… you’re just being legalistic, eat them pork chops, and don’t forget the BBQ sauce.” But from Peter’s side of the issue, he was being asked to violate his very participation in the covenants of Abraham, Moses, and David.  When they heard Paul came out against circumcision, it would be like US hearing that Jesus did not come in the flesh. Circumcision was THE CENTRAL sign of the Blessing of Abraham, and the source of the Common Wealth of Israel. So they were fully scandalized, and the fight grew very contentious.  

    With this brief backdrop you can understand the bulk of Paul’s letters and fights. He was desperate to find a rational that at once authorized Christianity, illustrated its superiority, let Christians maintain a right to hearken to the Torah as proof of their existence, AND maintained the moral foundation of Torah, all the while abandoning central mandates of Torah. It is a fascinating tap dance to watch.

    Unfortunately for us … Paul’s writings are the very few writings that survived the intellectual purging that church performed through the 3rd and 4th century, so we have a very small window to see how those who came before us, tired to solve these questions. The only method that has survived is of the “Sword, Rack and Flame” variety against heretics.

  101. John Immel on January 29th, 2012 1:09 pm

    FWIW….

    Just saw your comment in moderation.  I don’t always watch those messages… so if anything posted gets caught in moderation… just flash me an email. John@spiritualtyranny.com.


    As for my site traffic. I don’t get  a lot of comments because the nature of the conversation doesn’t lend itself to the standard fare. But as for my readership/traffic, I don’t do too bad. Trust me, more people read my stuff in a month than the average CLC preacher talks to in the same time period. But don’t tell them that.  We’ll just let them think I’m irrelevant for a while longer.
      

    >snicker<


    Considering I typically don’t post more than one article a month… and I’ve done virtually no internet marketing, my actual site numbers are pretty good.  I get a lot of page views… meaning people dig through my site.


    This site is an investment.  (Which is fine.  It what I want to write) but it is still in its infancy. People have been waiting to see, if I’ll suddenly drop a bomb that they just can’t swallow. They have struggled to understand where I’m coming from. They have tended to define this site pretty narrow, and therefore not relevant. But as I develop the ideas, and illustrate the cause and effect more people see how it applies. I am particularly gratified by my over seas traffic.  It has been a while since I last checked, but I get almost 15 percent of my traffic from Asian and Eastern European countries. I get enough traffic from foreign countries that I have considered having this site translated.

    So anyway… thank you for being out there reading… advancing superior ideas in the arena of ideas.

  102. FWIW on January 29th, 2012 3:33 pm

    Hi John,
    I realize that things get stuck in moderation at times. Not to worry.
    I would love to discuss church authority and polity. Is that a subject you are interested in? Have you read “Pagan Christianity”? Very interesting, especially what he has to say about the modern day pastoral position in today’s churches. Where did we come up with SENIOR pastor, ASSOCIATE pastor, YOUTH pastor, pastor IN TRAINING, Pastor’s COLLEGE (last 2 from SGM land).
    And today we also have “presidents” as in C J Mahaney. Where did that come from? Isn’t there a warning about adding to God’s word? 
    And where are the prophets? SGM believes that prophets exist today, but where are they? Where is the SENIOR prophet or the ASSOCIATE prophet? Everyone knows who the pastor is, but try asking them who there prophet is. They will look at you cross eyed. 
    Who has more authority, the pastor or the prophet? Prophet is mentioned before pastor in Eph 4:11. (But he in not mentioned at all in most churches today!)
    Well it seems I was wrong. I do have more than one pet doctrine. This one is #2. Any thoughts on this issue, or have you already beaten this subject to death in previous posts somewhere?

  103. FWIW on January 29th, 2012 6:05 pm

    Here is an interesting article someone just posted on Facebook. Not sure what to say about this one.
     
    https://www.facebook.com/notes/allen-d-brooks/the-end-of-the-apostles-prophets-evangelist-teachers-and-pastors/197645793613986

  104. John Immel on January 29th, 2012 6:49 pm

    FWIW

    Actually I think I am discussing the issue of authority and polity. I’m just addressing this issue from the root… what are the metaphysical antecedents that affect our political organization. Since I reject the premise that someone can force a man to any specific doctrinal understanding the endless quest for title or office doesn’t really matter to me very much. Or maybe I should say that it is only relevant to me in as much as someone presumes “authority” by virtue of their “apostolic” claim, and that authority necessarily translate into collective rational subordination.
     
    I’ve come out rather harsh on the whole apostolic authority myth… and the SGM phenomena is a wonderful object lesson for the fraudulent nature of that doctrinal trend in American Christianity.
     
    As an aside, I’ve wondered why we have presumed that Apostles and prophets passed away, why that didn’t extend to Bishops.  Historically Bishops have exercised more actual force in the name of God than Apostles.
     
    >snicker<
     
    As for your comment about adding to the “Bible” … I always find it a bit ironic when Protestants (I’m assuming you are not catholic) Start thumping their ESV in the name of canonical purity. If memory serves, we are the ones that whacked out the 22(?) books of the apocrypha for the sake of printing convenience.
     
    The Revelation of John only lands at the “END” of the Bible because of the historic tradition of placing the books in historical order…. sort of.  
     
    And John wrote on a scroll, so there was no “BOOK” as we understand it.
     
    And dare I point out there was no “bible” for the Revelation of John to be attached to in 100 AD. Christianity only started compiling Christian writings around the time of Marcion. So that is what… uh… 160-ish AD?  And that wasn’t even the full “bible” … if memory serves it took until Irenaeus in roughly 250 before we got all the scrolls together.  

    Soooo…. projecting John’s prohibition from changing his specific vision to extend to the whole 66 books of the Protestant anthology …  mmmmm  … is a touch on the ambitious side.
     
    And I’m guessing you have a lot of pet doctrines. Only a couple have come to light in this forum.  LOLOL

  105. John Immel on January 29th, 2012 6:54 pm

    Elsie…
    Your comment snuck in their on me.  Welcome to the party. Being challenged in thinking is totally addicting. Glad you are out their reading. I went to that link below and read his overviews. Haven’t listened to the audio just yet. I’ll give it a listen and see what I think. 
     
    John

  106. FWIW on January 29th, 2012 7:30 pm

    John,
     
    You are spot on about the canon. I should have just called these additional man made offices. I agree there is no authority save God for the body of Christ. But many Christians are still screaming “Give us a king.” Go look at all the adulation on the SGM’s site about C J being back. Makes me want to vomit. And they teach against idol worship! Why doesn’t C J just go get a real job? All of these pastor types need to go get a real job. 
     
    And why do Christians need to listen to a sermon on Sunday morning? We can listen to teachings 24/7 on the Internet if we want to. Who invented “church”? Which Sunday morning club has the best coffee and doughnuts, that is the real question. 10% of my income should buy me at least that. And when I give money to the building fund, should I not legally be part owner? Then I can sell my share when I leave, right?

  107. John Immel on January 29th, 2012 7:50 pm

    LOLOLOL….  And you actually wonder why you get kicked off of blogs?  I’m guessing you haven’t done too much better with churches either.

    ROTFLMBO

  108. FWIW on January 29th, 2012 8:07 pm

    Ya think?
     
    My favorite church is Ringling Bros. It does not have as many clowns as the others. 

  109. FWIW on January 30th, 2012 11:40 am

    Ok, that was a very sorry attempt at humor on my part. Sorry about that.
     
    If I were in a church, it would be great to have someone like you John doing the teaching. Someone who encourages discussion, new ideas, challenges, and even dissenting views. I think churches should have freedom of speech without fear of rejection. No one needs to be “in charge”.
     
    Some Christians are so afraid of false teaching, chaos, and confusion, that they mute everyone except the chosen few (or maybe just ONE) that get to teach. When Paul spoke in Acts into the wee hours of the morning – the Greek word was dialegomai (Strong’s 1256 -dialogue). None of this one way sermon stuff. It was a discussion, not a monologue.
     
    Thank you John for allowing open and honest dialogue here. It is greatly needed, and greatly appreciated.

  110. FWIW on January 30th, 2012 11:42 am

    1256 DIALEGOMAI (13): dia = through + lego = to say, speak; to “think something through; to dialogue, discuss, argue or debate. This “talking through” is a mental comparison of views, possibilities or opinions in an attempt to reach a correct conclusion. “Dialegomai” can mean an internal dialogue within ones own mind, or a discussion between two or more people.
     
    http://ntwords.com/preach7.htm

  111. John Immel on January 30th, 2012 12:20 pm

    Lol… I thought your circus comment was hilarious. 

    I didn’t know the etymology of dialogue… pretty good, and in much better keeping with Jewish intellectual traditions. The reason Jesus went to the Temple and the Synagogue to teach, is because that is what people did.  It was an intellectual free for all.  Jesus would have been one of many speakers on any given day offering their ideas into the public forum for conversation and the hashed and rehashed Midrash, and the endless labyrinth of Talmudic thought. It was a rough and tumble environment, but the reason the Jewish religion was so dang resilient through millennia of war, socio political upheaval, and religious conquest is because their thinkers were free to tackle the hard questions of the world in which they lived.

    Christianity has never really demonstrated this kind of resiliency because it has kept its “thinkers” shackled to a religious political correctness. From the 4th century onward it has assumed that “other” ideas are a threat to its existence. And this is why Christianity has largely been a vehicle of Tyranny throughout the ages.

  112. FWIW on January 30th, 2012 10:44 pm

    John, you are very gracious and very unique. I am still trying to figure out why you are not offended by me like everyone else is. :-)
     
    I have been told by churches that I would be welcome there, as long as I kept quiet. They did not want me to express my views, nor ask any questions. I was a trouble maker. That was not my intent, but I was always seen that way. I was a pain in their backside and I made too many waves. 
     
    I was told I was welcome at the blogs, as long as I did not make any comments nor reply to anyone. They said I could read all I wanted to.
     
    Maybe my approach stinks. At times I come on like a bull in a China shop. I am not really good at having my speech seasoned with salt. My favorite memory verses are Jesus quotes  like “Get thee behind me Satan”, and “You are a brood of vipers and white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones.” I did not do very well in the Dale Carnegie classes. I am thinking of starting my own seminars entitled, “How to make enemies and piss people off.” I seem to have a real gifting in that area. 
     
    Too much niceness makes me ill. I prefer a good theological battle with heated debate and nasty exchanges. Here is a video of exactly how Christians should dialogue. This is a MUST watch.
     
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB8lLN1VgDQ

  113. John Immel on January 30th, 2012 11:03 pm

    Shrug… IDK… you really haven’t said anyting offensive really.  Or even that scandlous in my mind.  Maybe you will eventually. IDK. 

    I don’t tend to live for offense. And I don’t fear ideas that I don’t agree with. Mostly cause I am fully able to make my case when encountering ideas that are erroneous.

     

    And I’ve been where you are… told to shut up and sit down and be quiet. All the while they tell me I have an obligation to believe what they say, do the menial work they give me for service, and give them my money.


    Homie don’t play that game anymore.


    I have pissed plenty of people off.  Maybe my good friends who read here will regale you with tales some time at the measure of consternation.


    I think Dale Carnegie is mostly fraud, but I will say this… I did decide that it was my job to be able to make my case for the ideas I want to advance. That has helped me mellow a touch over time. … but only a touch. >snicker<

     

    BTW … Argo asked you a question … but it was on another post… Pay no attention to the Doctrine Behind the Curtain. So not sure if you get the RSS Feed.

  114. Jacob J on January 31st, 2012 12:33 am

    LOL!! FWIW – I would attend that seminar! Hahaha
    John, you make some very good points. These ideas keep knocking around in my head a lot. I thought I had a nice Reformed outlook. I started to get involved with an SGM church, intrigued by the intimate, warm atmosphere and “true Gospel preaching, as well as doctrinal emphasis and intellectual activity. Then God led me to the other websites critical of SGM, (which started to give me a new perspective and made me examine exactly who SGM was and what they stood for), at which point I said “Nope, not getting involved.” Everyone I met was very nice, but my eyes were opened to some stuff. Then I was led here and a good number of my presuppositions got flipped upside down :P
    I think I am understanding some of the basic points you are making about the intellectual tradition in the Church. Are these fair conclusions to draw from what you are positing? I am not trying to simplify your statements because I realize you have qualified this stuff throughout the blog a lot, but I’m really interested in learning about this. The Church has vilified it’s intellectual opponents to some (a large) degree from the early Church up through the present time. And the people in the Church who have had a healthy intellect, since the Reformation, have been steered (Shepherded?) towards Reformed Theology. Reformed Theology prizes itself on Exegesis and Hermeneutics, but in doing so may be supporting key doctrines with Presuppositions and a form of faulty Exegesis (e.g. a lot of the texts that are used to point to Pervasive Depravity are not really saying that, since Pervasive Depravity was not a philosophical concept that was fleshed out (pun haha) until the 400s.
    I think I am seeing the distinction you are making between  A)Augustinian Original Sin and Pervasive Depravity (the logical conclusion of that metaphysical premise) on one hand, and B) Sin and what you call the kid stealing a pack of gum scenario.
    In group A, the metaphysical assumption of Pervasive Depravity is such that ALL human action is totally screwed up and selfish, due to our Sinfulness. This provides the next logical step towards Moral Relativism because if all human action and moral deeds are flawed and selfish, then no one can make a sound judgment call. Furthermore, the Pervasive Depravity doctrine seems like a direct continuation of Platonic and Manichean ideas about how flesh is evil, and everything in the world is evil pretty much. However I do believe all humans sin, but as you said, that we don’t merit God’s grace, but that doesn’t mean everything is completely depraved. It’s not all or nothing as far as that goes.
    This is only one facet of the stuff I have been getting out of Spiritual Tyranny, but I just want to make sure I’m on board with this specific train of thought. Could you qualify any of those statements at all? I’m not trying to be annoying, just very interested in this. I still need to think on this a lot more. Ah well Cie La Vie!

  115. Jacob J on January 31st, 2012 12:36 am

    AHH the paragraph breaks did not come through, sorry haha.

  116. John Immel on January 31st, 2012 1:14 am

    Actually Jacob… yes.. you have gotten the over arching point I am making. The only adjustment I might offer is to say that there are many problems with pervasive depravity… its affect at the center of moral relativism is just one.
     
    But to my mind the real function of pervasive depravity is to create a spiritual underclass, by disqualifying Man from having control of his own faculties. Its function is to separate man form his mind, and then man from his volitional action. If man cannot will to do his own action, and his every out of control action is evil, he is MUST necessarily have someone dictate the correct ideas … and then dictate his actions… alakazam poof… he needs a tyrant—oops—leader to make him “accountable”
     
    It is the moral justification for a ruling class and a spiritually servile class. It is at the heart of why select men are—somehow—qualified to govern those who cannot do good.
     
    This is Platonism 101. This is Augustinian political philosophy 101. This is Papal political philosophy 101. This is Calvinist Polity 101. This is Puritan political organization 101.  This is the central theme of modern Neo Reformed Ecclesiology. 
     
    Uh… it isn’t an accident.

  117. Jacob on January 31st, 2012 1:45 am

    Ahhhhh I completely get what you are saying now. When man relinquishes his volitional will, based on a metaphysical presupposition that says ALL his moral action is intrinsically selfish, TO people who “get” Christianity better/ have an anointing/ first among equals/ apostolic authority/ whatever, this creates almost like a vacuum of passivity. Which I think relates, in a big way, back to your blog post entitled “Men and Dogs”. Reading it in that context, I see where this plays out into practical life. Once you concede that “moral authority” for lack of a better term, you mostly relinquishing your right towards a fulfilling, purposeful existence.

  118. Jacob on January 31st, 2012 2:00 am

    This raises a lot of questions in my mind, but I completely get that progression now. It’s a pretty long train of thought which is very interesting to follow all the way back to the Bible. To what extent does man have moral culpability? The Scribes and Pharisees dictate truth, but do they lift a finger to help ease the burden? And of course I am not aware of all the implications of that this has, but that understanding doesn’t actually change the intention that Scripture has. It’s not heretical. It’s just coming at Scripture with different presuppositions.
    So then, naturally, I would have to question whether the dying to self, and picking up our crosses, and all the ways that the Bible talks about this (especially the New Testament), if we have really misunderstood this in Christianity. We assume that to die to self is means a level of passivity over our actions or our life. Of course all the while with some of the practical implications defined by the doctrine that we subscribe to, also convinced that our doctrine is more accurate then others.

  119. Jacob on January 31st, 2012 2:05 am

    Actually I take back that last sentence of the response at 1:45 AM. It is not my place to say if someones existence is fulfilling or purposeful. However when you concede that volition of yourself, and relinquish your right to it, you do let another person (not of the spiritual underclass) define to some extent.
     

  120. John Immel on January 31st, 2012 2:07 am

    Dude… wow… you are standing right on the edge of a brand spanking new perspective. This is impressive.  I’ve not had to many people get this far in their thought …. I’m gonna let you stew and keep thinking. You are doing a great job. The pieces will start falling into place.

  121. Jacob on January 31st, 2012 2:25 am

    Thank you man, I’m definitely going to stew on this for a bit and pray a bunch. Thanks for the perspective, I’ll comment in the next day or two.

  122. Argo on January 31st, 2012 10:40 pm

    Jacob,
    Yeah, man.  I’m impressed at how concisely and clearly you’ve worked out your perceptions.  Keep thinking and writing…I’m very interested.  And…kinda jealous. :-)

  123. FWIW on February 1st, 2012 12:10 am

    Hi Argo,
     
    I answered your question to me on “Pay no attention to the doctrine behind the curtain.” Just wanted to let you know because John told me you had written to me on that thread. I did not see the question until John made me aware of it.

  124. FWIW on February 1st, 2012 1:09 pm

    Hi John,
     
    I was wondering if we could discuss the atonement and why Jesus died on the cross. Did Jesus suffer God’s wrath on our behalf? Did Jesus came to save us from God??? Is the teaching of penal substitution the truth, or a gross distortion which teaches divine child abuse?  Is God some demented and twisted sadist who has to take out his frustrated anger on his Son so that He does not do it to us? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
     
    Isaiah 53 reads much differently in the Septuagint. Not a hint of God taking out his wrath on Jesus. Jesus came to reveal the heart of the Father and He hung out with sinners. He came to save sinners, not condemn them. I see no wrath from Jesus towards sinners. Jesus was angry with self righteous religious hypocrites, but very gracious and gentle with prostitutes.
     
    I do not believe that God poured out His wrath on Jesus, and I do not believe the Bible teaches any such thing. I would like to hear your perspective and anyone else who wants to join in. Have you read about the “Christus Victor” view of the atonement?

  125. John Immel on February 1st, 2012 2:57 pm

    FWIW…

    No… I have plenty else that I want to write about. I’m toying with an article idea addressing Altruism and need to dive pretty hard into the collectivist/Marxist thought that is pervading Liberation Theology so I’m not hurting for material.

    I’m not a fan of blog based bible studies, becuase they tend to degenerate into proof texting fests. So… shrug…  

    If this is something important to you then this might fall under the building your own platform idea.

  126. FWIW on February 1st, 2012 5:41 pm

    I did not want to do a bible study, I just wanted to start an argument and cause some more trouble. :-)
     
    With the present state of things, I doubt any of us will be at a loss for material any time soon. Things seemed to be fairly quiet here the past few days, so I really just wanted to start a dialogue about any interesting topic.

  127. John Immel on February 1st, 2012 9:10 pm

    Yea…. Well… quiet I’ve learned means people are thinking.  And that is what I want … almost more than chicks and money.
     
    >snicker<

  128. FWIW on February 2nd, 2012 12:51 am

    Sometimes quiet means we have fallen asleep. You know, like Sunday morning at church. We need something to WAKE US THE FREAK UP! Let’s talk about something lively with some punch to it. Something with an edge to it. Something that will make people roll over in their grave. Something with some BEEF on it. Something that makes us say in amazement “OH MY GOD”!
     
    Sound the alarm here John. :-)

  129. Jacob on February 2nd, 2012 1:26 am

    Argo, thank you for the kind words.

    FWIW, I do enjoy lively discussions a lot myself. Right now I am just meditating and chewing over a couple of articles and some of these ideas, but be sure I will be engaging in more convo very shortly.

    I want to be able to contribute dialouge with bredth and depth, or at least ask some decent questions. It’s cool how everyone of these comments brings a differant dynamic to conversation. Shalom and ttys.

  130. JLC on February 3rd, 2012 12:23 am

    I’m not sure I understand the purpose of SGM Refuge. It looks like 7/8 of the last posts there were are direct reprints of and/or links to other people’s material. 

    By contrast the SGM Survivors blog and Brent Detwiler’s blog have lots of original material about SGM issues.

    Why would anyone run a blog if he/she didn’t have any of his/her own thoughts to contribute to a discussion?

     

  131. John Immel on February 3rd, 2012 7:15 pm

    JLC… hello and welcome. I don’t think I’ve seen you on here before.
     
    As for your question.  Of course the best person to ask I Jim, but from what he has said (at least what I have understood him to say) Jim doesn’t really consider himself a blogger.  His original stated goal was a combination of taking his church complaints public, with the end goal of reconciliation (assuming the organization would reconcile) And having a “safe” place for people to come air their hurts, pains and frustrations.   This focus has changed/branched over the four years of sgmrefuge’s existence.  For a while the focus turned to some small doctrinal conversations, then it was focused on readership stats, and I don’t remember all what else. Then a little over a year ago, [I think] Jim quit blogging… meaning he quit offering a perspective beyond his existing conclusions. He has been candid that he does not like the task of running a blog but persists because he believes that is what God wants him to do. And since, I’m pretty sure he moderates all comments for acceptability, that would be an enormous amount of work.  I think he got tired but still believes the content of the blog is important for those who care to review.

  132. JLC on February 4th, 2012 10:09 pm

    Dear John,

    Your site is awesome. We must all do we feel God calls us to do irrespective of what others think of our actions.

    Thank you for the considered response to my question and the detailed explanation about the Refuge site’s history.  I have but one supposition regarding SGM: advocating for reform is no longer a logical course of action as the organization presently benefits no one (not even the folks at the top of the pyramid who are embarrassing themselves and rapidly losing financial support), and there are no procedures in place for changing that fact.

    C’est la vie.

    ;-)   

  133. John Immel on February 4th, 2012 11:57 pm

    JLC… Thank you and you are welcome.
     
    And I think you are exactly right. Reform is a pipe dream. It always has been.  I wrote about that dynamic in the article To Reform or Not to Reform, probably 3ish years ago? That is what I said then.

    And as for their financial support dropping … reality is a great arbitrator of cause and effect action. But, if I had to guess, I doubt they see a correlation between their practice and the corresponding drop in money. The doctrines taught pretty much affirm hardship as a manifestation of God’s affirmation: either his “discipline” or his “blessing” or a “hardship” to be patiently endured. But at no point does reality mean they should quit teaching the doctrines that produce the outcomes.  So, Reform… nah… ain’t happening.

  134. Jim on February 5th, 2012 3:53 pm

    John is correct that I’ve been sick of blogging for a long time. I’m happy to post what other people write, as I’ve said all that I have to say. As far as my original goals, the only one that I think we’ve excelled at is exposure. I think that refuge became a sgm tabloid long ago. One small correction-I don’t moderate comments for acceptability. Sometimes a comment will be brought to my attention, but I don’t read every comment with an eye towards what I think is acceptable. There’s a very short list of things people could say that would cause me to reach out to them and ask them to rephrase/edit/reconsider/go away.

  135. FWIW on February 5th, 2012 8:14 pm

    I made it to Jim’s short list!

  136. DB on February 5th, 2012 9:46 pm

    I am pretty outrageous and Jim has been quite tolerant and gracious.

  137. FWIW on February 6th, 2012 10:13 am

    On my Facebook page, I allow people to discuss any topic whatsoever without any restriction whatsoever. They have total freedom of speech. Recently some very dear friends of mine joined a group at  Bethel church in Redding California, run by Bill Johnson. They talk about seeing angel feathers, gold dust, glory clouds, and other nonsensical manifestations of the “supernatural” and some pretty strange doctrines.
     
    I tried to warn my friends about this very dangerous cult. They said not like what I said whatsoever. I asked them to prove me wrong about my findings. They could not. There are numerous YouTube videos filming this wacko group in action, and I posted some of them for all to see for themselves. They decided that was enough and did not want to talk to me any further.
     
    They said I was being unkind and not saying nice things. I asked them if they had some friends who were going to join the Jehovah’s Witnesses, if they would not warn them about the false teachings and dangers of that cult. They would not answer me. 
     
    There are some that just do not want to discuss their doctrines because they have become sacred cows to them. The Bible is “SO CLEAR” on these doctrines, they refuse to discuss it. 30,000 denominations and sects worldwide – but theirs is the right one. So don’t bug them. Why are some people so reluctant to discuss and thoroughly examine their beliefs? Is their faith that fragile?

  138. FWIW on February 6th, 2012 11:21 am

    correction to my second paragraph – They DID not like what I said whatsoever.

  139. John Immel on February 6th, 2012 12:02 pm

     
    FWIW
     
    Well, I’m going to assume that your last two questions are mostly rhetorical. Or maybe I should say, from what comes before, the conclusion within the questions is assumed.  But if I had to guess, the reason this conversation gets no traction is because this is at its root an irrational conversation. And this is one (among many) of my criticisms of the “Cult” argument. It is actually no argument, but rather a conclusion, or an adjective designed to summarize really, really, really, really bad believing. And the true function of the adjective is merely to inspire fear. That is to say, one is cajoled into abandoning a belief structure to get out from under the really, really, really really bad believing accusation. The end goal is to terrorize… not persuade. So… no matter how much someone tries to frame the “Cult” label as “objective” — because it is what the “Bible clearly says” and deviating from that clarity is bad, bad, bad, bad — at the end of the day it is little more than calculated terror. 
     
    And considering you have specifically rejected the consequence of eternal damnation for human “sin”, I’m guessing that really takes some of the “intellectual” punch out of the “This is really, really, really, really bad believing.” The average 15 year old can answer your argument with … “yeah, WHAT EV-er.”  

  140. FWIW on February 6th, 2012 1:24 pm

    Hi John,
     
    I rarely use the word cult when talking to my friends who are in cults. I try to use biblical terminology. Having correct beliefs is important to this life. Let me give you a for instance. I was very ill for almost 4 years. I had some “Job’s friends” who told me it was because I was not tithing. That put me in great fear, so I started tithing. I was not then giving to God because I loved Him, I was tithing because I was scared that He God would terrorize me with sickness until I gave up that 10%. I came under bondage to a lie. I was put in a prison, and it was the truth that finally set me free from that oppression. 
     
    One cult I was in, forbade us to be close to our parents, unless they spoke favorably of our group. We were strongly encouraged to confront (in your face style) our parents if they had any doubts or negative thoughts regarding our group. Another cult I was in forbade us to wear shorts, even in the summer heat. The women were forbidden to wear pants or put on makeup or jewlery (Pentecostal Holiness – Jesus only).  So I am sorry if the word “cult” offends you, It is a lot more than mere doctrine. It is mind control, manipulation, fear, brainwashing, domination, elitism, etc etc. I actually wish I could use a stronger word than cult.
     
    These groups refused to be persuaded. If you challenged them, you were labeled as rebellious and then “disciplined”. The others were told to avoid you because you were divisive. It was horrible. I speak from much experience having been spiritually abused for decades. People invented the word “cult” for a reason, and not just to belittle a group, but to warn others of the dangers and implications of being controlled and dominated – not just because they had really, really, really, bad believing.
     
    It is about this life and being free in this life. This life is important to God. If we all end up in Heaven, that does not mean it is ok live like Hell, or in Hell, during  this life.

  141. FWIW on February 6th, 2012 1:27 pm

    correction – I was afraid that He (God) would terrorize me…..

  142. FWIW on February 6th, 2012 2:32 pm

    John,
     
    Instead of  using the “c” word, how about I describe these groups as being guilty of spiritual tyranny, and then explain why.  :-) Is that agreeable to you? Is the end goal of the expression “spiritual tyranny” to persuade? Or does it terrorize as well? Is terrorism in the eye of the beholder? Is spiritual tyranny not also a conclusion rather than a argument? I gave my definition of cult and gave my reasons for that label, just as you defined what you mean by spiritual tyranny.  (Although you do a much better job than I do.)
     
    Our end goal – yes – to persuade with convincing appeal to correct thinking and correct understanding. We use words to do that and we define those words in the process of our presentation.

  143. John Immel on February 6th, 2012 2:59 pm

    Shrug… people can do what they want. Of course I can’t address the times when one does not raise the specter of the “C” word in a conversation. I am only able to do that in the instances where it is raised.  It was raised here in conjunction to Sovereign Grace Ministries. I submitted that people should rethink the accusation (and I really was making a general statement. You are not the only person to advocate this perspective, just the only one defending it here).  
    I am merely pointing out what I see as a fundamental flaw in the “Cult” charge when it comes to addressing “erroneous” Christian practice. I think these flaws undermine the very outcome it seeks to bring about: the change of thought within a participating religious body politic.

  144. FWIW on February 6th, 2012 3:48 pm

    Hi John,
     
    I understand that. But there is also a warning for those on the outside not to enter in. Maybe some have friends in SGM and heard good things. They need to be warned to stay away. I worked once with a lady who started attending Bible studies with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. It took my wife and I a total of 2 years of dialogue before she finally saw how dangerous these people are.
     
    On the roadways we sometimes see signs warning of potential dangers ahead. They do not give us a long explanation – it may just be one or two words like “construction ahead”. Single words or short expressions get our immediate attention. Once that attention is gotten, then we can further explain if someone is willing to enter into dialogue. Or maybe they will just read and not respond.
     
    When I first Googled SGM to see what others were saying, I specifically used the word cult because I wanted to see if anyone had seen warning signs like I had seen. I already knew what “great things” people saw in SGM. I wanted to know the other side of the story. So I typed into Google -  “SGM cult”. That is how I found Refuge and Survivors. It was a Godsend.
     
    Is the “c” word misapplied and misleading at times? Yes it is. But if someone is calling my fellowship a cult, then I want to know why. I want to examine these charges and find out the truth. That was not always the case. At first, I was just defensive. I may have been offended, but so what? Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and a brood of vipers. Was that to inspire fear and terror? Did that inspire dialogue? Did Jesus’s  accusations bring about a change of thought for those Pharisees? Was that even Jesus’s intent? Maybe, maybe not.
     
    Again, those on the outside need to warned also. Those who may be seeking to find a church home need to be warned. The word “cult” just might make them do a more serious and a more thorough investigation before jumping into an SGM church. So my warning sign on the road would read “Caution – Cult Ahead”. Maybe your sign would read “Caution – Spiritual Tyranny Ahead”.
     
    There is not always time for detailed explanations.  The warning must be first be shouted loudly and concisely. When in a burning building – people need to hear FIRE!, FIRE! GET OUT NOW! I can get the details about the cause of the fire at a later time after my family is safely out. 

  145. JLC on February 6th, 2012 6:29 pm

    The word cult has the following two downsides: 1) It’s vaguely defined; and 2) it has negative connotations. Thus people understandably shut down when I use “cult” to describe a group or an entity that produces something they like.

    This is as true of discussing an attachment to SGM as it is of discussing an attachment to Apple’s iPods. By contrast, I’ve found the phrase “new religious group” to be more palatable to both myself and the person I’m talking to, in the the SGM case, at least. 

    ;-)
     

  146. JLC on February 6th, 2012 6:31 pm

    Dear FWIW:

    My philosophy to cults is as follows:

    If you have to think about whether you’re in one, you probably are.  

  147. FWIW on February 6th, 2012 8:04 pm

    Hi JLC,
     
    When I was in a cult, the thought never even entered my mind that I was in a cult. I always thought I was in the ONE TRUE CHURCH and it was everyone else who was deceived. That was my thinking while in the United Pentecostal Holiness Church, and to a lesser extant while at SGM. My thoughts while being at SGM were, “It does not get any better than this.” There was no better teacher alive than C J Mahaney and their was not a better “family of churches”. We may not have been the one true church, but by golly, we were definitely the best. 
     
    Using the term “new religious group” would simply spark my curiosity. New and improved? Better? More fun? It would not put up any reg flags necessarily. Maybe “dangerous religious group”, or “controlling religious group”. Or how about we just call SGM what it is – a CULT! :-)

  148. Argo on February 6th, 2012 10:48 pm

    John,
    I really appreciated your elaboration on the problems with accusing groups of being cults.  I haven’t read all the posts on the thread yet…but I will.  Anyway, the best thing for me about your site is that I’m constantly exposed to new ways of thinking about old ideas.  I really, really appreciate your intellect.  And I agree…much better to persuade by superior arguments than with labels.   I’ve heard people refer to the Jim Jones group (I forget the name and I’m too lazy to google it) as a cult…and that was the end of the story.  It took a History (or was it PBS) channel special a year or two ago to reveal what it was that he taught.  That’s when I was like, “Ahh…THAT’S why it was bad.  Because they believed THAT.”  In thinking, I really didn’t need the “cult” label…I needed a detailed understanding of their faulty belief system.  That’s what educated me, and will ultimately, help to protect me.  
     

  149. Argo on February 6th, 2012 10:50 pm

    I mean…I guess I could have taken it upon myself to learn about the Jim Jones belief system, but I heard the term cult, then shuddered appropriately, and said…”Ooooo, yeah.  That’s bad.”  And went on my way.  I guess I just [shrug] figured that “cult” about summed it up for me.  I think that, too, is one of the problems with the “cult” label.  People feel that they don’t need to look any further.

  150. FWIW on February 7th, 2012 12:48 am

    Argo, that is my hope. When people hear that SGM is a cult, they will not look into that group any further (for their sake). I want people to stay as far away as possible to save them from the horrendous abuses that my family endured there. I thought at the time that I deserved to be abused because i was such a bad person. But then one day, my wife said, “But what did I do wrong?” She had done nothing wrong – not one single thing. But they declared her guilty because she was married to me. Guilt by association. 
    If anyone wants me to define exactly why SGM is a cult, I am very happy to do so. I will warn anyone and everyone to RUN for their lives. Get as far away as you can from that hideous mind controlling cult. NEVER AGAIN will I submit  my family to spiritual abuse like that. To me, spiritual tyranny = cult. Although spiritual tyranny defines it more precisely, the word cult still sends out a strong warning and needed warning to all considering this hideous mind controlling organization.

  151. Berlin on February 7th, 2012 1:09 pm

     
    Hi FWIW,
     ”When in a burning building – people need to hear FIRE! FIRE! GET OUT NOW!”
    But most people can’t see the fire; they don’t see it as fire… that is the problem. And because they can’t see the fire, you will be considered a liar or a lunatic. No one will believe you. You need a better argument. How are you going to prove the reality of a fire when they can’t see or feel the heat?
     
    Your comment “Why are some people so reluctant to discuss and thoroughly examine their beliefs?” I think sums up your frustration. I’ve asked that question sometime ago. And you made me think about it again now. And my observation is people are so reluctant to examine their beliefs because we’re brought up that way. We don’t question beliefs (our beliefs and especially other people’s beliefs). We are just not encouraged to do that. So for those of us who have questioned our beliefs, when did that happen for us? What made us question our beliefs? Usually it’s when people have been mistreated by their church that they start to question their beliefs. For me it wasn’t that dramatic. No horrible experience whatsoever. But there was a feeling that something isn’t right. And so this is why it is so hard to persuade people to examine their beliefs. If they’re not sensing something is wrong, if they are content with their church/beliefs, then there’s really not much you can do. That’s why the seemingly benign ‘cults’ are actually scarier than the real cults. They make you feel nothing is wrong. What you don’t realize is that the part of your brain that makes you think for yourself has atrophied. You’ve become dependent on your spiritual leader. And that’s why you need really sound arguments in ‘persuading’ these people. They think there’s nothing wrong with their beliefs! Cult or not, you need to have a better argument than just mere labels.
     

  152. FWIW on February 7th, 2012 1:44 pm

    Berlin,
     
    Very well said! I agree 100% with your assessments and conclusion. BRAVO!

  153. John Immel on February 7th, 2012 3:32 pm

    LOL… Cult = Spiritual Tyranny.

    Well… your Venn diagram is inaccurate.

    There may be Cults that perpetrate Spiritual Tyranny but not all cults do. With your Webster’s dictionary definition in mind, I doubt the cult of Justin Beiber is demanding that ridiculous haircut in the name of musical purity. The cult of Twilight is pretty scary when a gaggle of teenage girls come out of the theater swooning but I’m a bit puzzled how their adolescent vacancy ranks on the tyranny meter.

    (Although the adult women swooning from the same theater does make me wonder about the content of the cool-aid served at the cinema. Puzzling… very puzzling…)

    Anyway….

    Jim Jones is everyone’s poster child for cult but the idea that what happened in Guyana is morally equivalent to say ….  the local Kingdom Hall is intellectually disingenuous. Not least of which, Jim Jones was a flaming Marxist, and his doctrine was a messianic variation of Liberation Theology. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses are collectivists (as are most all Christian denominations) on some level, but that doctrinal pedigree does not specifically trend towards the Marxist ideology or advocate suicide pacts and a dozen other important distinctions.

    And the distinctions matter; so lumping pretty much any religious ideology that one deems “mindless” or “controlling” or “dangerous” with Jim Jones is a reckless generalization. It is this generalization that prevents the “cult” denigration from gaining any real traction. Most people can see through the generalization: And I guarantee that those within Sovereign Grace Ministries can see through it and are (rightly) insulted by the trivialization of their considered judgment.

    The most disastrous assumptions that an intellectual can make is to decide that the reason everyone else doesn’t agree with him/her is because everyone else is somehow handicapped in pursuit of the truth. It doesn’t matter what form this presumption takes— “People are mindless,” “People are asleep,” “People are stupid,” “People are in a cult,” “People are x,” (fill in the variable)—at the end of the day the intellectual is making a horrific judgment.

    It is true that some people can’t think themselves out of a paper bag. It is true that not all comers to the Arena of Ideas are equals.  I won’t pretend, I am better at this than a LOT of people. But that judgment is infinitely different than me presuming that the barbarian hoards are somehow incapable, somehow inferior to the task of getting TRUTH. That conclusion is a profound conceit, a debilitating arrogance, and a rationally corrupting operating principle.

    And this is really what is at the root of this “Cult” accusation. You don’t fundamentally believe that people in “cults” are in fact capable of following an argument that will persuade …. for whatever reason. What is most revealing in your last comment is that your real goal with “cult” is to stigmatize.  You fancy that you are shouting a warning: “Fire!” but what you are really doing is shouting: “Leper!” And the people you are calling leper, look at their hands and feet and face, and count the parts, and go: “Uh, no, nothing missing here. What the hell is he talking about?”  

    You will scare a few people who live their lives based on superstition to avoid the “cult” but these same people will avoid walking under ladders, across black cats, and umbrellas indoors. They couldn’t care less about arguments or counter arguments or better ideas. They will circle left around a chair to change their luck so their life outcomes magically improve. But anyone else, with even a modicum of rational intentionality, will listen to the strident “Cult! Cult! Cult! Cult!” look around for the cool-aid, patterned bald men in black robes, and cloven hooves and shrug their shoulders.  

    And the real tragedy: this is the reverse of SGM and their endless tirade against “heresy.” (and we ALL know how much that generalization grates on your soul)  SGM is perpetrating the same intellectual/theological presumption: people are just not enlightened enough, God has not given them the grace to “perceive,” they just haven’t studied “Sound Doctrine,” or Eric Phenomenal Simons exhortation against heretics on the internet, because bloggers in their underwear are just a click away. It is the exact same profound conceit, debilitating arrogance, and a rationally corrupting operating principle. When one assumes that the audience lives a metaphysically stultified existence the only recourse to “persuade” is to stigmatize. The result is an intellectual paternalism that treats thinking adults like children. “No, don’t touch that … its daaaannngereous!”

    But here is the truth. The vast percentage of humanity is capable (and this is the important part) that makes them responsible. And because they are responsible they are morally culpable.

  154. JLC on February 7th, 2012 3:43 pm

    FWIW:

    Excellent point about it not even occurring to most folks that they’re in a cult.  

    “New Religious Movement” is the euphemism many academics use for “cult” when they’re writing papers about organizations such as SGM. I use the phrase when I don’t want to seem rude by calling an entity someone is attached to a cult. 

    I think that SGM is just a business at this point. Which isn’t to say that many cults aren’t profitable…just that I don’t see much genuine interest in exploring religious issues in its present “doctrine of the day” set-up.

    If there’s money to be made in pretending to be Calvinist, SGM will tell everyone they need to call themselves Reformed. If books promoting Arminism (sp) are the latest rage, Calvinism will go out the window. 

    Etc. Etc. 

  155. FWIW on February 7th, 2012 4:02 pm

    John,
    My main focus is on the control issue – mind control, manipulation, scare tactics, dominant hierarchy, lording it over, authoritarianism, etc. My focus is on the leadership, not on the passive pew person. There is a spirit at work in the shepherding movement that says that if you do not submit to their authority, then you are out from under covering and have no spiritual protection. Satan will eat you alive if you “touch God’s anointed” (which only applies to these leaders).
     
    This goes way beyond mere doctrinal issues about water baptism etc. This is spiritual terrorism. Tithe to this church or God might strike your children with some horrible life threatening disease. Or at the very least, you will lose you job and become homeless. You will be “CURSED WITH A CURSE”. The cross no longer has any power to those who do not tithe.
     
    C J is the Pope of SGM. On that we agree. He is idolized and worshiped. No one in SGM ever dares to say one word contrary to his teachings. That would be blasphemy. He is the Messiah of SGM. Either you kiss his ring or get burned at the stake.
     
    So just in case  I forget to mention it – SGM IS A CULT!

  156. Argo on February 7th, 2012 10:24 pm

    It is the exact same profound conceit, debilitating arrogance, and a rationally corrupting operating principle. When one assumes that the audience lives a metaphysically stultified existence the only recourse to “persuade” is to stigmatize. The result is an intellectual paternalism that treats thinking adults like children. “No, don’t touch that … its daaaannngereous!”
     

    FWIW, I can understand the temptation of those who’ve been victims of spiritual abuse to fight fire with fire.  But at the end of the day, if you’re not offering a superior rational perspective, your (I mean this in a general way…not YOU specifically) just being a hypocrite.  Which in the end is offering the person still in the “cult”, whom you are trying to persuade into leaving, an orange or an…orange.  We rail and rage against the fact that they just can’t see…why can’t they see?  But here’s the thing.  They CAN see.  They see a banana that says Chaquita and another that says Dole (I’m craving fruit, obviously).  So really, they are being offered no choice at all.  That’s why labels like “cult” ultimately don’t work, either to persuade rationally, or to even scare people off, which seems to be your well-intentioned purpose. Worse yet, they’ll piss people off because they’ll SEE your hypocrisy and want nothing to do with you.  You’re yelling “fire!”, I get in theory, but why would people run from one burning building into another?  We need to offer them a better reason to leave SGM than “You’re in a cult, man! Can’t you see?  It’s obvious to the world, man! Look at me over here; sweating and foaming as I sound the alarm!”  Instead, we need to say, “You will never be viewed as a rational equal to the leadership of SGM, therefore, you will never have any meaning in a practical way in that group other than the amount of cash you pony up each week and how often you volunteer to scrub the toilets for free.  Here’s why:  the doctrine of Pervasive Depravity, a foundational tenant of SGM Ministries says….”  That’s what got me out; never someone crying “Cult!”.  I was in SGM for YEARS.  Believe me, the label “cult member”…eh, been there, done that.  [shrug] BFD.  Didn’t help.  Having people elucidate the flaws in the believe systems that allowed (and still allow) for the perpetration of utter straight-faced hypocrisy from the plexiglass up on the lofty stages and the Gaithersburg Vatican in the name of sound doctrine, sure as hell did. 

  157. Argo on February 7th, 2012 10:43 pm

    And I think I should add that I do not believe that SGM trembles at the label “cult”.  I think that accusation is the least of their concerns as far as threats to their power go.  The real threat are ideas that challenge on a fundamental and foundational level their claims to interpretive authority.  These threats are real because they can be quantified rationally and even biblically as true.  I would argue that “cult” cannot, in general, and certainly not as it relates to SGM.  

  158. FWIW on February 7th, 2012 11:06 pm

    Ok, I do not want to beat a dead horse here. I just want to reiterate that the way I found Refuge and Survivors was to Google “SGM cult”. I wanted to see if anyone else had the feelings that SGM was a cult. So in my case, that is what I was feeling and needed to hear, that someone or anyone had that same assessment that SGM was a cult. That brought healing to my soul. I needed to know that I was not crazy or the only person in the world who felt that.
     
    I think maybe we should move on now to another topic, if that is ok. I do not mean to offend anyone with harping on the “C” word.

  159. FWIW on February 9th, 2012 1:57 pm

    There are mind altering drugs, and there are mind altering churches (MAC). A mega churches is called a BIG MAC :-) The MAC will tell you what God’s word REALLY says and what it REALLY MEANS. They have the real insight into God’s word. If you REALLY want to be close to God, then their path is the right path.
     
    Romans 12:1-2 talks about being transformed by the RENEWING of your mind. MACs want to control your mind and brainwash your mind. They tell you to be led by the Spirit unless it disagrees with them. If you disagree with them, then of course you are not REALLY being led by the Holy Spirit.
     
    They love their twisted version of Hebrews 13:17 which says “OBEY YOUR PASTORS!!!” Of course that is not what it says, but that is how they will teach it. They want you in FEAR of going against anything that THEY teach. If you go against them, or speak against there teaching, then you are disobedience and God will squash you like a bug.
     
    So the new word for today is MAC – mind altering church.

  160. FWIW on February 12th, 2012 3:10 pm

    Why does a particular church need to have a statement of faith? Are people not welcome there who have a different understanding of the Scriptures?  Do I need to practice their form of worship? Can I wear a tee shirt and shorts even though every other man in a particular church may be wearing a suit coat and tie? What if I do not want my kids in children’s church? Can I keep my kids with me during the service, or will that be frowned upon? What if I like to sit during worship while everyone else is standing? What if I want to ask the pastor a question in the middle of his sermon? Is that unbiblical or just “out of order”?
     
    What if they want my kids to be water baptized before they can take the Lord’s Supper. What if I do not see that requirement in the Scriptures? Does that mean I should pack my bags and go somewhere else? Is that what the Bible says? How many denominations were there in the NT to choose from?
     
    Worse yet, what if I am considered a heretic by most churches, and am not even welcome there? But the Bible tells us to forsake not our assembling  together. What is a false teacher like myself to do? Start my own cult church? Finding a group of fellow Christian heretics is not easy, as I am not a Unitarian by any means.
     
    Most churches seem to be saying “We can be friends and fellowship together as long as you agree with us on doctrine, worship style, children’s church, tithing, church government and authority, church discipline, etc, And you need to have your family involved in youth groups, vacation Bible school, small group meetings, prayer meetings, outreach, missions, fund raisers, or whatever other activities the church puts on. If you do not, you will asked “Why? or Where were you?”, and not just once, but many times by many people. 
     
    There is much pressure to conform in just about any church – “Our way or the highway.” I spend most of my time on the highway.

  161. John Immel on February 12th, 2012 10:04 pm

    FWIW

    Soooo … when you have asked this blistering list of questions to the people who actually advocate such things, what do they say?

    And you know… it is ok to walk your own highway. Kinda lonely sometimes, but it is an option… and when you finally do meet someone on that road they don’t tend to want to “fix” you, and that is MUCH better. 

    Just a thought…..  

  162. FWIW on February 12th, 2012 10:59 pm

    When I have asked such questions, they sometimes respond with the verse “How can two walk together unless they agree.” I found out later that verse means “How can two walk together unless they agree to walk together.” That changes everything. We do not need to agree that drinking a beer or smoking a cigarette is sin. We do not even need to agree about infant baptism or tithing to walk together.
     
    We Christians spend our entire life trying to fix our sins and the sins of others. My former SGM pastor spent most of his 10-5 office time, doing counseling sessions. So much sin and so little time. I am so glad to be free from counseling sessions, but yes, people still want to “fix” me. When they can’t, they either block me or ignore me.
     
    John, it would be wonderful to meet someone that does not want to fix me. It would be even more wonderful to find someone that actually likes me and enjoys me (apart from Jesus, my wife, and my daughter that is). I miss the fellowship and interaction with other men.  I too am guilty of trying to fix others. Mostly trying to fix their doctrine (the blind trying to fix the sight of the blind?).
     
    So is it “I’m ok, you’re ok”, or is it “I am screwed up and you’re screwed up”? Some graciously reply “Let’s just agree to disagree” as they show me the door. Maybe I enjoy debating too much. Or am I just passionate about what I believe? Perhaps both are true.
     
    Mitt Romney being a Mormon, believes that God the Father has a wife (God the Mother?) and that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. And he is running for President. I am running for my life from those who want to burn me at the stake. 
     
    And John, thank you very much for your encouragement. That meant a lot to me and touched my heart. Yes, it is lonely. That is why I try to blog. It is the only fellowship I get outside of my family. Thanks for allowing me here.

  163. John Immel on February 13th, 2012 12:52 am

    “How can two walk together unless they agree to walk together.”
     
    Lol… that is pretty well said. I’ve always thought what they really meant was “How can two walk together unless YOU agree with ME?”

     
    IDK… there is time for introspection I suppose; trying to see if my part of a social interaction is the problem.  That part never stops I guess because that is how we gain social acceptance.  It isn’t a bad thing… just a thing.
     
    I eventually got comfortable with the fact that not everyone is destined to know every facet of who I am… and the number of people who will are precious few. I have found that people outside the church are much more willing to just engage… just talk about whatever. And as long as I’m willing to listen to their Jagermeister stories, they are open to hearing me rant about political social philosophy. And when they are not… I shut up and just listen.
     
    Not sure what else there is to do about it but get out among people and keep offering the values I have as an individual. I figure eventually people will gravitate to that.

  164. FWIW on February 13th, 2012 10:32 am

    I think that most churches today view other denominations as spiritually inferior. I always wanted to be in the “best “church. Best teaching, best worship, best Jesus??? We had the real Jesus while the others preached another Jesus. We had relationship while the others had religion. We always wanted people to come to OUR church. We never told them about the church down the street.
     
    I went to an independent Bible study one time where we were told not to discuss what church we went to. It drove me crazy because I wanted to size everyone up according to the denomination they belonged to. I wanted to JUDGE them! I am still very guilty of wanting to judge others, doctrinally speaking, but yet I do not like people judging me – go figure. It is ok if they cheat on their taxes, as long as they agree with me on doctrine. Then we will get along just fine. Unfortunately, that seems to be the mindset of most Christians. Tolerance is a bad word for us Christians. So we end up with 30,000 denominations and sects to choose from. May God help us all.

  165. Bridget on February 13th, 2012 6:20 pm

    FWIW -

    I’ve been reading here for a short time – you sound a bit down. Maybe “walking together” means just that – take a walk with someone who wants to go for a walk. Jesus walked all the time – with all sorts of people. He wasn’t too particular and he told lots of stories. He was a friend to many a man, woman, and child. He didn’t seem too worried about having friends, but he was a friend, and he appears to have made some friends on the way :) Most people seemed to enjoy his presence!

    John -
    I started at the beginning . . . it’s going to take some time to get through the ideas. I have many jumbling around in my head. Some (in my head) I’ve used in responses on other blogs (SGM related). Then I came here and saw similar ideas. It’s interesting to read ideas from someone that uses logic and follows the logic to its conclusion to see what you really end up with.

    I get upset with the way people communicate sometimes – especially when they start with a statement that implies that people shouldn’t or can’t think for themselves, or that their thinking is bad or sinful because of some implied assumption (total depravity). BTW – how can we be totally depraved if we are created in the image of God to begin with? Total depravity would mean that there was NOthing left of us that resembled God in any way. Wouldn’t that have been a total victory for satan at the fall? I don’t recall God conceding “all” to satan at the fall (sorry for the rabbit trail). If all was lost at the fall, then God is not God!?

    Anyway – God gave us all brains. I believe He wants us to use them! :) I have been thinking about all kinds of people in scripture that didn’t follow the crowd of the day – hmmm. They had different ideas (not into the group think I guess?), but they did do some amazing things while following God!

  166. FWIW on February 13th, 2012 9:16 pm

    Hi Bridget,
     
    You said something that really woke me up and put this whole church thing into a whole new light. They do NOT want you to think for yourself. THAT’S IT! They want me to think THEIR thoughts. No one ever asked me what I thought or what I believed. The only thoughts that were heard were those of the pastor. Everyone knew what he thought about any given subject. We spent hours listening to his thoughts. And his job was to make his thoughts our thoughts. We all needed to be like minded with the pastor.
     
    But of course his thoughts were the thoughts of Christ, right? He was God’s ordained mouthpiece. At least that is what we were led to believe. Was there any dialogue about the pastors thoughts, or just blind acceptance? Were people encouraged to question him or to think for themselves? NOT!!! We were instructed to SUBMIT and OBEY his authority. No questioning allowed. Questioning was divisive and rebellious.
     
    Our thoughts were fed to us – prepackaged each Sunday. “Here are your thoughts for the week.” At the mid week care group (SGM) we would only discuss what the pastors thoughts were the previous Sunday. Not to question or to have our own thoughts, but merely to talk about how wonderful the pastors thoughts were. No disagreements encouraged or allowed.
     
    “If I want your opinion I will give it to you.” So this is how brainwashing works. In church, we are told what to think and how to act. How to be a spouse, how to raise children, how to be a good and diligent servant of the church, etc etc etc. We are the puppets with the church pastor pulling the strings. If we do get to speak, it will best be by ventriloquism with the pastor with his hand in our back, controlling our mouth and mannerisms.
     
    When was the last time anyone here was ever asked to give the Sunday morning sermon? Ever? I had the audacity to ask my SGM pastor if I could teach one Sunday because I felt the Lord had given me something to share. The answer was NO! He did not even ask me what it was that I felt God was showing me. I was a nobody and I would remain a nobody.
     
    There is a verse that speaks about God’s thoughts being higher than our thoughts. In the church, the pastor’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts. MUCH HIGHER! So if everyone will just listen to his thoughts and obey his thoughts, all will be fine. Just keep your own thoughts to yourself. Better yet, just replace your thoughts with his. Your thoughts are not worth keeping anyway.

  167. John Immel on February 13th, 2012 9:21 pm

    Bridget … welcome.
     
    You started at the beginning… outstanding. That is the best way to do it. There is a lot here, and it takes a while for the ideas to find their place. Thinking is a very intensive, very individual event. Take your time and those ideas will settle out for you.

    You seem very upbeat, very positive. I’m glad you want to use your brain here! LOL

  168. FWIW on February 13th, 2012 10:16 pm

    John,
     
    We should NEVER use our brains. Our brains and thoughts are exceedingly sinful, deceived, depraved, wretched, wicked, nasty, demented, perverse, unholy, and ungodly instruments of Satan. Only the church leaders have the mind of Christ. Shame on you for encouraging people to think for themselves.

  169. Bridget on February 14th, 2012 2:35 pm

    FWIW -

    Anyone’s brain COULD be as you described . . . Christian or not. Christians are called to have the mind of Christ. But I see many unbelieving peeps who seem to display the mind of Christ more than some Christians . . .

    One can only be a puppet if he plays the part. We weren’t created to be puppets. If we were, I think we’d still be in Eden.

  170. Bridget on February 14th, 2012 2:49 pm

    John -
    I’m not always upbeat. I can “snark” quite well when the urge arises! I’ll put out a “snark alert” to warn the unsuspecting. You probably won’t need the alert as you seem well versed in snarkiness. I’m sure you’ll “sniff” it out! (it’s a joke)

  171. John Immel on February 16th, 2012 10:13 pm

    Bridget…

    Yea… I’m the king of snark.  I plan on renaming earth when I rule over it.  (I have the zeal and the concern so I qualify)>snicker<
     
    Besides, being upbeat and snarky are not mutually exclusive. Some of my best lines have come when I was in a really good mood.  Joke away… the readers here are a sharp bunch. I’m sure they will get it.

  172. John Immel on February 16th, 2012 10:22 pm

    Blues0080…
    Uh… you got your wish… just farther past Christmas than I wanted.  Check out Barns and Noble… or… If you are a kindle fan… Amazon.

  173. FWIW on February 17th, 2012 8:36 pm

    Hi John,

     
    I just read on Amazon the free pages of your book Blight in the Vineyard: Getting Free of the Myths and Tyranny’s of Sovereign Grace.  It is excellent. I hope AoR reads your book. Did you send them a copy? Did you send a copy to C J? Brent? I hope that everyone in SGM and those who have left, that are healing, all read this book. I would have bought a copy already if I were not so darn cheap. I have an ereader, but the most I ever paid for an ebook was 99 cents. Squeeeeek.

     
    So I hope that others are not as cheap as I am. I want so much for people to read your book, and not just SGMers. There are not many churches (if any) where spiritual tyranny does not take place in some form. Why do Christians want to rule over each other? Why do Christians  submit to such rule? Why do Christians still cry out to God: “GIVE US A KING!” Are we afraid of being led by the Holy Spirit?

     
    John, I have totally quit church, have you? When I visit the blogs, many are still involved in some sort of church set up with a pastor etc. There seems to be no getting away from it. If you say anything contrary, most get highly offended. People just love THEIR church and THEIR pastor. Some seem to worship their pastor more than Christ, and their church is a sacred cow that is not to be touched (spoken against).

     
    So how do we safely and effectively entreat our bros and sis in Christ to GET OUT, before they scream at us to GET OUT?

  174. Blues0080 on February 17th, 2012 8:43 pm

    Thanks John…just bought it on amazon for my ipad!

  175. FWIW on February 17th, 2012 8:50 pm

    correction on the book title -

    Blight In the Vineyard: Exposing the Roots, Myths, and Emotional Torment of Spiritual Tyranny
     
    I had copied and pasted the old title – my bad. Sorry about that John.

  176. John Immel on February 17th, 2012 9:38 pm

    FWIW…. Thank you so much.  And that 10% is just the beginning.  The only disadvantage of the ebook is the note taking.  If you like to read and take notes the print version is deliberately laid out to help with that.

    As for given those guys a copy.  The answer is no.  I don’t think I know who AoR is … (at least I don’t recognize the acronym) but the other two had access to my ideas for free for a long time. When I gave my thoughts away for free they ignored me.  I don’t talk from the cheap seats.  If they want my thoughts this time … they can pay for them.

  177. John Immel on February 17th, 2012 9:42 pm

    Blues0080 … thank you so much. It really does matter to me that you (and a growning number) have invested in this work.

  178. FWIW on February 18th, 2012 12:04 am

    AoR is Ambassadors of Reconciliation. They are the group that SGM hired to try and clear up the mess they made and to set things right (as least that is what SGM is telling everyone).

  179. FWIW on February 18th, 2012 1:05 am

    John,
    John 3:19 reveals that unbelievers (in this case, the SGM leaders who refuse to listen to you) love darkness rather than light. That is their condemnation. Even so called believers in Christ can be unbelievers. They rejected the truth which is in essence, rejecting Christ. That makes them equal to unbelievers who love darkness rather that light. It is the truth that sets men free from bondage, oppression, and darkness. But SGM loves their darkness rather than the light that you shined for them. So they remain to this day in the condemnation of their own darkness. Those who listened, believed, and left SGM have been set free.
     
    “If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.” John 8:36

  180. Jacob on February 18th, 2012 2:52 am

    I am interested in buying the book. I might buy it this week, still deciding if I want the print or the hard copy…probably the hard copy.
    John- Just wanted to comment on some stuff that hit home from this thread. I just read your posts up towards the top, that were Re-posts in respond to Lin and Gracie. There is some really great discussion in the first half of the comments…
     
    Determine, Define, Proscribe…I am seeing how that progression underlies historic tradition in Modern Christianity. I’m still trying to understand ownership a little deeper. You said: “Man is morally culpable for successfully judging the truth and offering the correct action for the understanding of truth.” This is another insight that is probably overlooked a lot. I don’t think I have never even heard this idea discussed before. That we have a divine responsibility from YHWH to not BS in either or cognition and or our actions. I know you write about this in a few other articles at length but yeah. We have a moral obligation to call a spade a spade, a windmill a windmill.
     
    I am going to reflect on some of the questions about ownership that you posed to Debie, above, and do some more reading in general and see where that gets me. Oh yeah, and you said it is very, very hard to challenge historic tradition unscathed and I agree. Most folks truly don’t know where to start- and if they do get sneaking suspicions they should be looking, spiritual hegemony and authority probably squashes those inklings quickly. However I think the first step is a Willingness to regain enough autonomy to question historic “doctrine” without feeling condemned- if that makes sense. That’s how it was for me at least, and I wasn’t even entrenched in spiritual tyranny or SGM anywhere near the extent I know other people were…. One last thing- saying when people embrace truth they embrace Jesus…hmmm that sounds heretical…watch out for stones from the bleachers!
    Well those are my ramblings…I am pondering some other things, but I’ll save them for another time. Grace and peace, and FREEDOM IN JESUS!
     
     

  181. FWIW on February 18th, 2012 10:21 am

    Hi Jacob,
     
    There is no place given in today’s churches to even discuss historic doctrine. We are not free in Christ to question or challenge those in church authority. It is ok for Protestants to question Catholic historical doctrine, but it is not ok for Protestants to question Protestant historical doctrine.
     
    This rule gets even stronger at the denominational level, and stronger still at the individual church level. Conformity is the number one rule. Christians speak against traditions, except when it is their own tradition. Then it is acceptable. Doctrines become traditions just like anything else. Christian like ritual, dogma, conformity, etc. We get very  comfortable with the status quo. Change is sin.
     
    Try challenging Calvinism in any church that has that teaching as it’s historical doctrine.  You will be burned at the stake. Unless you agree with them, you are not a real brother in Christ. You are a heretic and an apostate. So much for freedom in Christ. Churches despise freedom.

  182. John Immel on February 18th, 2012 12:19 pm

    Hey Jacob… might I recommend both?  >snicker<  I suspect you will prefer the hard copy because I am presuming you are a note taker.   Most all of my non-fiction is hard copy because I mark my books up so thoroughly.  Usually the book is more valuable to me after I read than before because it contains my interactions with the book. 
     
    “Determine, Define, Proscribe…I am seeing how that progression underlies historic tradition in Modern Christianity.”
     
    Yes, and I discuss this very theme/progression in Bight to great length.  Because once a person sees the how the ideas go together to produce political outcomes it is very, very easy to spot the sources and trends of tyranny.  This would be the “…exposing the roots…” part of the subtitle.
     

    “We have a moral obligation to call a spade a spade, a windmill a windmill.”
     
    And this is a central reason why man cannot be pervasively depraved.  If the nature of man’s nature preempts the capacity to judge correctly he has no ability to even know that what he is tilting at is a windmill, or a giant, or a dandelion.
    The central premise of Roman’s 1 is: man is culpable BECAUSE he can look at nature and judge correctly that God is the author. In other words, man’s rational faculties are perfectly able to render the TRUTH.  Man’s problem is his hostility to TRUTH, and his deliberate rejection of it. Man’s decent into “depravity” is the result of this ongoing hostility to truth, and the deliberate war man wages against it. And notice that the last stage of man’s degradation is the reprobate-ness of his mind. The result of defying “Though shalt not bear false witness…” is in fact the eventual erosion of the very faculties man uses exist in the world.  Notice that in Paul’s mind, Man does not start depraved, but he ends up there because of his refusal to judge accurately. 
     
    “Oh yeah, and you said it is very, very hard to challenge historic tradition unscathed and I agree. Most folks truly don’t know where to start- and if they do get sneaking suspicions they should be looking, spiritual hegemony and authority probably squashes those inklings quickly.”
     
    I have held off the core of this discussion here because this is a central theme within Blight in the Vineyard.  FWIW is correct, the intransigent  of Calvinist groupies and the “orthodox” shills—their relentless determination to pronounce all things them = all things God—makes debating the elements of Christian tradition a truly frightening event. And you are right… most people don’t even know where to start. It is my plan to fix that.
     
    “One last thing- saying when people embrace truth they embrace Jesus…hmmm that sounds heretical…watch out for stones from the bleachers!”
     
    LOL… well Jesus was the one who said he was the way the TRUTH and the life. I’m just shortening the algebra: Jesus = TRUTH. If that is heresy …then… we really have a problem.  >snicker<

  183. Argo on February 18th, 2012 9:28 pm

    Hi John,
    Just ordered your book.  Man, I haven’t been this excited to read something since the back of Rubber Soul. 

  184. John Immel on February 19th, 2012 10:47 am

    WOW… that is soooo good for my ego.  Thanks Argo.

  185. Argo on February 19th, 2012 7:40 pm

    Hi John,
    Today I was visiting a church and the pastor was giving a message, the basic premise was that; “It’s never about you.  It’s only about God.”  And we need to “get over ourselves”.  Then at the end of the message, he dismissed us by saying, “Have a great week.”  So, my question is, if it’s never about me, and only about God, what difference does it make what kind of week I have? 
    I know it seems like I’m splitting hairs here, and maybe making a mountain out of a mole hill, but again, the contradiction to me is strange.  I mean, if anything about me is essentially sinful selfishness, then the kind of week I have should be irrelevant, no? The only measure of whether I have a good week or not is ultimately dependent on how this pastor (or whatever “leader”) defines how I glorified God and made every attempt to make sure that “I” was not considered whatsoever. 
    He also said of his relationship with God that “he would never trade it for anything in the world”.  So, naturally, my question is:  Why?  If it’s never about you, and you eschew any gain you may have in any sense, and to consider the benefits to him (or to you) is sinful because it’s never about him (or you or me) then what is so special about the relationship?  How can you preach a relationship to the fallen world in an attractive way if it’s never, ever about the person your speaking to?  Who would give up a life lived for their own pleasure to enter into one where their very existence is looked upon as being something that should be lived as though the person had been cosmically aborted?
    Again, perhaps I’m over-thinking, but it’s this kind of paradoxical preaching that I think leads to baaad things.  Because, if it can never be about you, then you must always be suspicious of yourself and your motives.  If there is any you in there, then you must destroy it.  But how?  How can you know?  Simple.  You ask your pastor, and he will tell you.  And then you have exhibit A:  SGM’s implosion. 
    And then finally, I’m left with this question:  If it is never about us, then what is ultimately the point of us at all?  I mean, wouldn’t it ultimately be most fully all and only about God if we didn’t exist?  God would have done a better job, I would think, of making sure it was all about Him if he’d never bothered to create humans.  Or am I missing something.
    See, this is my concern.  Saying it’s all about God and never about us sounds really holy, and humble, and worshipful.  But it can only lead to one thing, to me, and that is: Humans are trash.  They should be treated accordingly.  Treated by whom?  By God’s duly appointed spiritual leaders, of course. 
    I mean, am I over-thinking (as one family member accused me of)?

  186. Lin on February 19th, 2012 7:53 pm

    John, John, John. You have nailed it here. For one, this whole neo Calvinist movement is based upon lawlessness. Our actions mean nothing but what doctrine you believe means everything! I am seeing it everywhere. And on the watch blogs it is so confused and one sees people never connecting dots. There is a ton of cognitive dissonance going around.

    But my question when I read them is always: If your actions don’t matter because of all this cheap grace you are throwing around then why are you railing against Driscoll and Mahaney? Why do their bad actions matter?

    Yes, Calvin good. (nevermind Servetus and the magistrates who forced the “elect” to attend church) Driscoll good. Nevermind the bullying and making gender roles salvic. The list goes on. Amazing what people will believe.

    I think it comes down to a total misunderstanding of legalism vs lawlessness on one hand and on the other the horrid, blasphemous doctrine of total depravity/original sin. I have actually heard some of the neo Calvinist pastors say they preach to a totally depraved congregation. Gee, the Cross was simply not enough, huh? And you are expected not to grow in Holiness because that guy with a title is the Holy Spirit for you.

    On the question of the bible being “simple and clear”, I had to laugh out loud. What a lie! Here is one example. Just last year, I was studying what the 1st Century person would understand about the “heart” and “Head”. My goodness, that changes things for us. They believed the “heart” was where thinking and decisions originated. Now, go back and read every single passage with “heart” in it. What a wake up call. The “head” (kephale) was where the provision for the body came from as in breathing, eating, smelling, etc. (Really helps with the head/body metaphors). Just that understanding makes a huge difference in interpretation.

    BTW: I did not learn that reading Christian literature. But delving into writings on medicine, philosophy etc during that time.

    Don’t get me started on original sin. If people only knew they were following Augustine and the Platonius influence of the world, they would freak out.  But then, if we cannot help but keep right on sinning and still be saved, then party on. (Hebrews 10:26-31)

  187. Argo on February 19th, 2012 9:01 pm

    “For one, this whole neo Calvinist movement is based upon lawlessness. Our actions mean nothing but what doctrine you believe means everything! I am seeing it everywhere. And on the watch blogs it is so confused and one sees people never connecting dots. There is a ton of cognitive dissonance going around.”
     
    Hi Lin,
    I’ve noticed this, too.  Early on I decided to look into just why SGM pastors could engage in such obvious hypocrisy and bias without batting an eye or losing a minute’s sleep.  How could they preach humility and “worst sinner I know” in one breath, then in the next preach the evils of gossip and slander to those who are questioning the counseling tactics of pastors who are encouraging women with sexually abused children to make themselves more available to their husbands in order to avoid the abuse in the future? It didn’t make sense until I looked at their doctrinal premises regarding “leaders” and “followers”.  I began to see that SGM wasn’t necessarily the problem, but the philosophies which defined their biblical interpretations.  That is Calvinism, Altruism, TULIP, blah blah was the real “doctrine behind the curtain”.  They were just following their doctrine as they understood it.  To them, there is no hypocrisy, there is simply special dispensation as it pertains to neo-reformed protestants. 
     
    I will say that I’m finding that some are in fact catching on.  In particular, f you read Kris’s posts over at SGMSurvivors, it is fascinating to me to see her thinking evolve into looking at the fallacies of their foundational doctrines.  She’s not couching it in heady philosophical terms, but she is certainly connecting the dots.  I’m not surprised; she is very intelligent, I think. 

  188. FWIW on February 20th, 2012 11:06 am

    Why do churches name themselves? First Baptist, Central Presbyterian, Grace Covenant, etc. What is the point? There are no named churches in the Bible. Paul wrote to the believers of each city, not to any named and separate group. There were no Calvinists or Arminians in the Bible either.
     
    There is no such thing as “going to church”. Questions like “where do you go to church” and “who is your pastor”, are very common today, but have no Biblical basis. The Greek word ekklesia does not even mean church. Ekklesia was also used for civil gatherings as well, like a town hall meetings. To be called out to any meeting was ekklesia. 
     
    When we meet together, we do not need to name out little group. We are not independent. We are all the one body of Christ. There are no rules for how, when, or where, we meet together. Some of us meet together right here on this blog. Would I prefer to meet face to face with each of you? Of course. But we all live hundreds of miles apart.
     
    The only meetings of believers in my city are named churches. I tried some house churches, but they eventually turn into the same thing of THEIR group, THEIR beliefs, THEIR format, etc. It is just so hard to get away from.
     
    So I just BLOG ON and keep on bitching. (Can I use that word here?)

  189. FWIW on February 20th, 2012 11:12 am

    correction – we do not need to name OUR little group.

  190. John Immel on February 20th, 2012 12:02 pm

    We don’t need to name our group…. Dang it!  I was so looking forward to it being called Immelites … or Ma Ha Johnnyism or Snarknation!  
     
    Ok…THAT was hilarious!

  191. Bridget on February 20th, 2012 12:26 pm

    Christite for me folks. I’ve had enough exposure to those following other men :)

  192. FWIW on February 20th, 2012 12:39 pm

    Ok John, if you start a new church and call it the Immelites, I will join it. As long as you are the Most High Priest and Master Manipulator, I will submit to your every command. Please pass the Koolaid. 

    In the meantime, I decided to start my own new church. Right now, it only has one member – me. So I have to tithe to myself. 
     
    Reminds me of the story of the man who was stranded for many years on a deserted island after his boat broke down. When they did finally rescue him, they saw that he had made 3 buildings on the island. When they asked him what the buildings were that he had made, he said that one was his house and one was his church. When they inquired about the 3rd building, he said that was the church he use to go to. :-)

  193. JLC on February 20th, 2012 3:20 pm

    Just a few thoughts on all this great commentary:

    You do need to name a church and create bylaws for legal/tax purposes. Plus all responsible organizations need a hierarchy of some sort to function in the modern world, arguably. That may not have been true in New Testament times but it’s true now, and churches existing at the tail-end of the Roman Empire would have had to amend their polity and structures if they were transported to the U.S. in 2012, likely. 

    I don’t think we’re called to model current churches after churches described in the New Testament in every conceivable way, although I appreciate the perspective of those who think we are.
     
    The problem with the mega-church concept and/or the mega-church/small church franchise idea is that running the whole operation becomes so expensive and complex that churches seem to become businesses first and churches second out of economic necessity. The degree to which this happens calls into question whether mega-churches should exist, in my opinion.

    The word “cult” has negative connotations so calling an entity someone is attached to a cult will not open their hearts or ears. 

    However that doesn’t mean that organizations can’t be described as cults in intelligent conversation. There’s lots of academic literature out there enumerating the characteristics of cults/new religious movements that’s valuable when evaluating a religious group or church one is considering joining. 

    Also, I don’t we think can persuade others to change their minds about their religious beliefs by suggesting in any way that we something they don’t know even if really think we do. 

    What this blog and Survivors does is give people enough information to make an informed decision about associating with a group such as SGM

    I also think the point about throwing around cheap grace is excellent, and I don’t know why anyone wants to give a dime to SGM right now. But that doesn’t mean I think I should impose my views on anyone who does by suggesting that so doing is inherently wrong or representative of poor thinking skills.

    I try, and admittedly often fail, to respect other people’s religious organizations/views even if they’re reprehensible to me. Part of the reason I do try to see where others are coming from  is that people respect the views of people who are truly listening to them as opposed to having a debate about who’s “right.”
     
     If I’m not really listening to people giving money to SGM presently how can I expect them to listen to me?
     

  194. JLC on February 20th, 2012 3:30 pm

    P.S. - 

    I think what’s really hurting SGM in particular right now is all the evidence indicating that they’re not a church or a even a cult in any meaningful way. They’re just a Christian-themed business that benefits very few people.

  195. FWIW on February 20th, 2012 4:22 pm

    Hi JLC, 
     
    We do not need to be tax exempt or have bylaws. If a group of Christians wants to meet together, there is no need to name it, organize it, or set up any form of government. If I invite a bunch of friends over for a meal, fellowship,and prayer, then we can keep it that simple. We can do that once a month or whenever we decide to meet. Or we can all go to the beach or the local park on nice days. No need for any buildings, tax exemptions, polity structure, statements of faith, etc. “Where two or more are gathered….”.  If 3 people show up, then we have already surpassed the minimum requirement. 
     
    Why would we ever want to make meeting together so complicated? No need for a church secretary to answer the phone. Just call me directly. We do not need to have a church building, a senior pastor, and a worship team to meet and fellowship together. All we need to figure out is who is bringing the hot dogs and buns and who is bringing the soda and cups.

  196. JLC on February 20th, 2012 5:02 pm

    FWIW:

    Excellent point. Perhaps your intelligence got you kicked off a couple blogs, that shall remain nameless, in which the moderators seem to find intelligent arguments intimidating or off-putting.

    If a church wants to qualify for non-profit status or tax breaks of any kind it must organize itself formally. Otherwise,  it does not have to.

    Forgive me, I was once an insurance agent who wrote policies for churches and other organizations.

    Having a few friends over is okay, but inviting 70 people to your home on Sunday might run you into some zoning and insurance problems if the neighbors can’t get out of their driveways or someone accidentally sets your house on fire and the insurance company says they won’t pay your claim because they were insuring a single family’s home, not an informal church meeting place.

    I think that home churches/hanging out at the beach services are a great idea, especially when compared to the mega-church model on the other end of the scale, but they do have their limitations, of course.

    ;-)  

     

  197. Lin on February 20th, 2012 5:08 pm

    “ It didn’t make sense until I looked at their doctrinal premises regarding “leaders” and “followers”.  ”

    Argo, keep something in mind. I come from the seeker mega movement. Very involved in it for many years. There is essentially NO DIFFERENCE in their beliefs on leader/follower than the Calvinists, NC, Reformed, Word of Faith, etc. They just use different terminology to do the exact same thing.

    It was one reason I was on the the NC so quickly. I knew the playbook. The NC crowd is actually much better at it. The seekers tried to introduce things like “Servant leader” and “relationship evangelism”. It is all the same thing when you peel back the layers.

    The seekers are all about cheap grace and wordly morality in 3pt sermons with a place for notes. The NC crowd is all about total depravity and Sovereignty of God (as if others aren’t)

    Those are simply the marketing slogans for garnering followers after themselves.

    But I will tell you, when it comes to “loyal” followers, the NC win hands down. The seekers just go find more “nickels and noses”. And the success of the NC is one reason why Rick Warren announced to the Desiring God audience a few years back he is now a quasi Calvinist. (wink)

  198. FWIW on February 20th, 2012 5:25 pm

    JLC,
     
    I believe that our fellowship together is best served in very small numbers. When Jesus said “Where two or more are gathered in my Name”, I think Jesus had small groups in mind. Most house churches are 25 or less. If it gets any bigger than that, then it is best two split into smaller groups. The smaller groups tend to be more intimate with one another. Besides, most people cannot fit a pipe organ into their living room, and there is no stage for the choir to stand on. And then there is the cost of today’s choir robes. Don’t even get me started on that!

  199. JLC on February 20th, 2012 6:25 pm

    @FWIW:

    Thanks.

    I see your point overall and largely agree with you. However, I do love organ music, and even if you could get a pipe organ into your home its $1.5 price tag would hurt. So you’d probably want the tax break that comes with buying it as a formal church entity as opposed to buying it as an informal meeting group.

    I like and respect both home churches and cathedrals with organs. To me the problem isn’t the cost of individual items as some churches have more affluent congregants than others and there’s nothing wrong with having a building in which to meet.  The danger arises when churches get over-leveraged and turn into businesses because if they don’t they’ll collapse financially. 

    In theory this could happen as easily in a church with 200 people as it does in a church with 8000 people.  I don’t know what the attendance “danger-tipping-point” might be but since many Christians and non-Christians view mega churches as businesses due to how most mega churches are managed and/or how the people running them behave, super-large congregations are inherently ill-suited to serve Christians well, in my opinion.

    That is just an opinion. 

  200. JLC on February 20th, 2012 6:26 pm

    I meant to say that pipe organs start at $1.5 million dollars as opposed to implying that they cost a buck fifty. :-)

  201. Argo on February 20th, 2012 7:36 pm

    About the term “cult”.  I was finding myself in John’s camp regarding the label applied to SGM.
     
    Then I saw those videos over on Survivors.  
     
    The Broadway number seemed, er, to change my mind??
     
    I remember watching a comedian one time, and he was gay so it’s okay he talked about this I guess…anyway, he said that sometimes, as insensitive as it might seem there were some things that could really only be described as “gay”.  There was no other adjective for them.  He used the example of the Fanny Pack.
    I’m kind of thinking that way about the term Cult as it applies to SGM.  I don’t really like to use it, but what with the CJ sign and the broadway number and all that.  Hmmm….it’s like they are the fanny pack in this little example and “cult” is “gay”. 

  202. Argo on February 20th, 2012 7:44 pm

    Or maybe not.  Who cares.

  203. John Immel on February 20th, 2012 10:18 pm

    Argo… you asked some great questions about altruism and the implication of utter human “selflessness” … I just posted a new article that evaluates the heart of that moral philosophy.

     
    Thanks Jacob for sparking the post.  You asked the catalyst question a few weeks ago. 

  204. FWIW on February 20th, 2012 10:35 pm

    Satan used seduction in the Garden, just as he uses seduction to manipulate and coerce the victims (members) into SGM. On the outside, it looks good, and is very enticing. Wonderful worship with talented artists, and silver tongued sermons by smooth talking charismatic pulpit people. And there is SOOOOO much love! Who can resist? 
     
    Only after you eat of this delicious forbidden tree does the death begin. You become ashamed of your nakedness after they rape you. They make you pay 10% of your income for the displeasure of being abused by them. You must submit to this abuse because it is God ordained and you are getting “better than you deserve”.  You are just “Filthy Rotten Sinners in the Hands of an Angry Leadership.”

  205. FWIW on February 21st, 2012 10:47 am

    I have wondered often about this tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Isn’t that what the famous Sunday morning sermon is mostly focused on: good and evil? Tithing is good and not tithing is evil. Going to church is good and not going to church is evil. Obeying your pastors is good and not obeying them is evil.
     
    So the sermon centers on the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. The pulpit people want you to know how evil you are if you disobey or if you disagree with them. ” The pastor becomes your judge. Everyone goes to him for counseling, so he knows everyone’s dirty laundry. He has his eye on you and is watching your every move. He knows when you are sleeping. He knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.
     
    Rewards and punishment, blessings and curses. Tithing = blessing. Not tithing = curse. SGM has GRACE as part of the name – Sovereign GRACE Ministries, but yet they put you under THEIR laws and keep in in bondage. It is really their sovereign law ministry. But they would never dare rename their organization with their true identity. 
     
    The GOOD people get moved into leadership positions. The EVIL people get stuck in the pews and sometimes booted out the door. So the church is made up of GOOD (the clergy) and the EVIL (non clergy). Only the clergy is close to God and that is why only they get to talk on Sunday from the pulpit. You are evil and you need to be talked TO, so that you can be judged, rebuked, disciplined, punished, rejected, humiliated, and disregarded. But they will smile while doing it and then shake your hand after the service.

Got something to say?





CommentLuv badge
This blog is protected by Dave\'s Spam Karma 2: 78838 Spams eaten and counting...