As I reviewed your comments, I realized that in many ways, you have asked and answered the question.  You do accept the premise that people are free to pursue their own life. You subsequently argue that a pastor does not own you, and yet you concede they hold a special place in your interpersonal critique.  I’m not sure why the title pastor necessarily reserves the status of taking their word ‘very seriously’ but beyond that, we seem to be on the same page. As far as I’m concerned, taking any wisdom that seeks towards personal mastery and improvement is worthy of being taken very seriously.

The operative issue in your comments is in this sentence: “…even if I may ultimately choose to disregard some of their advice.” This is really what I contend is at issue.  In some Christian environments, people do not have this freedom.  The leader’s advice is tantamount to God’s sanction. While I grasp the logic that gets people to this place, I am overtly saying this is a misapplication of truth.

When I discuss the issue of sovereign individuality, I am discussing the metaphysical starting point of our epistemology.  The axiom of human existence is human existence. So the starting place of our ethical actions directly revolves around Man’s capacity to grasp and know the world in which he lives and modify his actions accordingly.  The doctrinal assertions under discussion destroy that ability at its root and thereby elevate dictatorial power of an elect few to the moral necessity to government force. I contend this is an erroneous starting place and an ultimately immoral conclusion.

Let us assume you have sex with prostitutes… how exactly can a pastor stop the action? Are you any less morally culpable if a pastor never renders a verdict?  Are you free merely because a church leader consecrates your actions?  The answer is he can’t, and no, and of course not. The only way this becomes possible is for this leader to posses force to compel an outcome. So, the means of grace is the effective imposition of select men to commit violence.  
Uh… this ultimately makes the “Means of Grace” Flesh.

Shrug…

As for the passage in Corinthians…  

Mmmm… how to say this without having to exegete the bulk of Pauline theology…  

Dare I say this? The trap that Paul laid for himself when he sought to subordinate observance of Torah to what he called the fulfillment of Torah, i.e. Jesus, was the logical conclusion that all action was fair game.  In other words, there was no moral failing, because the Torah had been fulfilled, so what difference did having sex with prostitutes make?

This conclusion, of course, scandalized Paul, and he was pressed to find an argument that remained constant with his new doctrinal perspective while maintaining the ethical standards embedded in Law.  His argument in Corinthians is effectively twofold.

1.  That since we participate in the resurrection, we are part of Christ’s body and therefore subject HIS body to our decadence.

2. If that does not deter sexual use of prostitutes, then don’t you recognize you have been purchased? While you might be free, you are not really autonomous because you are God’s property.

The underlying issue here is the ideas used to short-circuit the use of prostitutes for sexual release.  Paul is seeking moral grounds to undercut what has been given moral sanction by the logical extension of his doctrine.  His argument is basically this: your individual action ultimately affects another individual—namely God—because you have been united with him in the same absolute measure as that of marriage.

I contend that this is exactly the starting place of ethical action—the violation or fulfillment of individual identity.  Individual actions have ALWAYS been subordinate to the individual boundaries of other people. So in as much as any man’s actions violate those boundaries, their ACTIONS are not their own. You are not free to take EVERY action merely because all sin has been atoned.  Of course, this is an important point because the logic could have been extended to murder, or theft, or any other over exploitation, and sanctified by the same covenantal fulfillment. So Paul’s argument hearkens to the standards of boundaries and intimacy, and insists they still apply.

You CAN do what you want… but Jesus’ sacrifice does not eradicate moral responsibility.  The Corinthians were using Paul’s very own doctrine as eradication of moral responsibility, and that was the problem he was seeking to remedy. My advocacy is not to antinomianism. My advocacy addresses the underlying presumption that divine ownership necessarily means individual subordination to a collective slavery.

We are bought with a price.  We have been taken back from full solidarity with death. The war between men and God has been forever ended, so man is without excuse when he looks at the world and chooses to persist in war against the truth.  That seems abundantly obvious to me.

And welcome to the bandwagon, Nick. The great thing about this blog is the underlying ideas are timeless.  So, we can pick up the discussion any time.

You’ve posed some good questions… and Spiritual Tyranny is largish, so I can appreciate wanting a short course. 

To Reform or Not to Reform is my longest post by far, and there is a lot of content.  Some of what you are asking is addressed within: namely, the issue of pastoral authority.  I contend the issue is not a when, but a what. What is authority? And then the question must be asked: “what is  authority in service to?”  Of course, the answer is philosophical assumptions are the driving substance that shape the use of force.  So unless the governing assumptions change, reform is impossible in any authority structure. This was the central theme of this post. 

Unfortunately, this subject is vast and the elements of this question have lingered with some very specific Christian expectations since before Marcion.  Much of our modern day bible reading has its roots in interpretive methodologies that tend to self-enforce a doctrinal conclusion.  So I’m not sure how I want to tackle your question just yet. Give me a bit to strategize.

In the meantime, I address some facets of the authority issue in Namaste Nemesis.  Also, if you are inclined, read Engage.  That will give some sense of the broader issues that precede the issue of authority: its use, scope, and function.  The metaphysical and epistemological questions need addressed so we can identify a starting point.

Also, if you haven’t yet, click the START HERE button: That will help round out the blog in the broadest scope. 

I’m actually working on a book rewrite… so don’t think I’ve forgotten you if a couple days pass.  I will try to give you a solid response.

I checked Wikipedia. This was its definition:

A pericope:   a set of verses that forms one coherent unit or thought, thus forming a short passage suitable for public reading from a text, now usually of sacred scriptures.

Not sure how you are using the word.

I guess in the broadest sense, Government as force describes a “cult”ural phenomena.  Government is the monopoly on force in a society for the express purpose of enforcing … something.  What that something is changes from culture to culture.   But that is the broadest sense of the word.

In context to Reform or Not to Reform, I highlight the governing philosophy that undergirds the SGM use of force.

As for my happiness that they took Dave Harvey’s polity thingy out of distribution…  hahaha… that is kinda funny but hardly a manifestation of doctrinal transformation.

What?  SGM banning books as a manifestation of governmental change?  SGM removing something from public scrutiny that may not be perfectly affirming?  Like that hasn’t been done before.

Hahahaha…..

What a riot.

I suspect that what really happened is they realized it wasn’t a good reflection on them and pulled it because it didn’t serve their governmental ends as well as they thought it did.

Or…

They pulled it because it really did capture their governmental ends but when unraveled — and dare I say by moi– they realized it was too effective in its job and caught heat for the reality that in their minds You don’t own You—they do.  They didn’t want to defend that assumption, so they remove any formal statement they can be objectively held to.

Oh, the memories…

Good times.

Chad… I know you love these guys… at least the SGM marketing and packaging. They are like a beautiful woman… at a distance they are easy to be attracted to.  I have certainly been there. But make no mistake … this bunch has been doing what it is doing now for a very, very long time.  They are good and making the most trivial action mean grand things.

Don’t get sucked in, particularly when, by doctrinal definition, there is no such thing as change because we are “all just sinners.”  The top of the SGM leadership are masters of the Moral Relativistic game when it comes to absolving themselves of the outcome of their actions and doctrines.   And from your first comment, I can tell they have already sold you down that path.

Never forget this: Pervasive Depravity is really the flip side of the Antinomian coin. And this is the twin whip of how SGM really uses the doctrine: to enforce the concept of Universal Guilt and as a justification for evading what should have rightly closed this bunch down long ago.

To Reform or Not to Reform did not address the issue of cult or raise the semantic difference you are offering up. What specifically are you interested in drawing attention to in regard to the article?  
 
John

I think this an apt summation: If the corrupt sheriff shoots and kills one of his corrupt deputies, it doesn’t mean there’s reform going on…it just means NO ONE is safe and the townsfolk can officially start s@#$%!*g their pants.

hahahahaha…

hahahahahahaha

ahahahahahhaah

Some are cheering the recent developments concerning Brent D and I’m shaking my head in bewilderment. The same tyranny that has already deafened the ears of the people is manifesting louder now, only no one can hear it. And that is no coincidence.

I guess many people still do not understand the parts and pieces of tyranny. If anything, to think that reform is possibly on the horizon because leaders have now shot down one of their own (his character or lack thereof is irrelevent to this actually) somehow implies hope and change? Yeah, silliness. It just means the path of destruction knows no boundaries. And leadership itself is far from exempt. Why? Because it is all death.

Everyone eventually dies because of tyranny. It doesn’t matter that the person who suffers at the hands of tyranny may be lacking in character and godliness (as some suggest Brent was). If personal character and godliness were really the measure by which leaders justify their tyrannical actions, then truly no one is safe. Because we’re all wicked and depraved according to them. Again, first element of tyranny: univeral guilt.

What happened to Brent really means that not one person in “the organization that shall not be named” is safe from the tyranny.

you said I mentioned predestined..this is a long thread with lots of comments, can you be more specific? Because I never mention or understand or apply predestination in the context of salvation, only in the context of sanctification, which is a huge distinction. My personal beliefs on this matter do not stem from SGM’s understanding or teachings, but my own through careful study of the Scriptures (ironically, I actually do study “Scripture alone” with the Holy Spirit leading me into all truth, not Scripture + man’s synthesis and interpretation of it and subsequent identification and determination as orthodoxy)