If we let them win, we will get what we deserve.
“Pay no attention to the doctrine behind the curtain…”
People pay lip service to the Bondage of the Will, but you will cry out their injustice if they prohibited the smallest personal freedom. People will wail out their great worm-hood in Sunday service, but if they get stepped on in the grand rainstorm of life, their indignity rises to the heavens. 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 rebuttals to the Puritan construct when the strictures become too oppressive. But here is the greatest of all dogmatic ironies, the greatest of all Orthodox treasons: The anti-SGM blogging world is really showing their true paternity. They are really children of the Enlightenment.
It sounds like a churchy theory to advocate Pervasive Depravity and the great sinfulness of man. But at the end of the day, modern American churchgoers are presuming the rational assertions of Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas and John Locke. All you fine folk objecting to the fundamental disdain for human existence pouring out of SGM by the bucketful are the odd duck in this philosophical soup: You are sons of the Enlightenment and participating in the tail end of the Age of Reason.
• Every time you make an appeal to cognitive identity—when you insist that A is A, and not some other worldly form—you are leveraging the rational mechanics of Aristotle.
• Every time you transcend a precept with a concept—when you use abstract ideas and (not impressions of some special revelation) to form operative principles—you are leveraging the rational mechanics of Aristotle.
• Every time you point out a logical fallacy—when you point out contradictory thinking—you are leveraging the rational mechanics of Aristotle.
While many of you do this habitually—but certainly not all of you—the most important part is every time you presume to leverage the broad tool belt of rational mechanics, you are defaulting to the Aristotelian metaphysics: man’s nature is an implicit effective rational being. It was this presumption that started the hard climb out of the primordial ooze of medieval unreason, barbarism, mysticism, and despotism. It was this presumption that led to the Enlightenment. It was this presumption that led to John Locke, and Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington and the U.S. constitution.
But this is not limited to the outworking of civil authority or American social political organization. The philosophical challenge of Platonist Augustinian thought reverberated down the ages in biblical studies. Doctrinal absolutists could not defend the house of card they had presided over. Without absolute force, they could not defend against the power of human understanding as it succeeded in wresting interpretive methodology out of the superstitious hand of Church authoritarians.
For the first time, men found the freedom to challenge the myths that could only be defended by threat of force. Men like Thomas Hobbes were able to focus their mind on the scriptural conundrums perpetuated by the contradictory claims of church leaders. And this was only the barest beginnings radiating down centuries and growing concentric ripples throughout Christian thought. Debates produced further debates, produced greater research, produced academic hairsplitting, produced academic atom-splitting, and finally, landed in the hand of men like Friedrich Schleiermacher, who was the first to formulate the main hermeneutic task: discovering biblical author intent. Every time you raise the concept of “context” in a Bible argument, you are cashing in on the rational capital of the Enlightenment.
If you doubt me that “context” is a modern addition to Bible interpretation, take a fast look at say, Martin Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies and tell me how often he successfully argues interpretive conclusions by the force of authorial intent. Try to count how many times he asks the fundamental hermeneutical questions. Then contrast Luther with the substance of say David Bivin, Steven R. Notley, E.P. Sanders, Richard A. Horsley, or even a modern Eerdmans New Testament Survey. Then if you dare to continue the advanced studies, dig into the understanding that has come to light from the scholarship developed from Nag Hammadi and Qumran.
In many situations, children make different choices than adults. Woman make different choices than men. There are many more husbands that beat their wives than vice versa. More men commit crimes than women. Most men do not want roses for Valentines day.
My point is that many things influence what we want and how we get it. Race, religion, upbringing, environment, schooling or education, peers, personality, DNA, etc.
Rape is normally male against female. Men are normally more sexually driven than women. We have more testosterone. Woman get PMS. So our chemicals and hormones effect our emotions, desires, which may effect our choices.
Why do more women go to church than men? There are very few churches than have more men than women. Why is that?
Why did 99% of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan “choose” Islam as their religion?
Thanks, John. Sadly, the more I think about it, the more I see the perfect opportunity for behind the scenes hate groups present in the SGM church model. After all, Calvin and Luther were directly and indirectly responsible for many deaths; Calvin, for his best friend’s murder, and hundreds of Anabaptists and other Christian dissenters when he came to power in Geneva, and Luther advised the princes in Germany at the time of a peasant uprising, to simply kill them all, which they carried out. I can understand that they were raised in the Catholic culture, but such attitudes and behaviors speak much about some of the deficiencies of Reformed theology. BTW, how safe am I posting on this site?
2=2….
Yes, I believe you are correct. The elements of the doctrine are what undergirded Protestant slaughter against pretty much any group that resisted the political powers that were in ascendancy through the 16th century in Europe and the theocracy of Massachusetts. I make this case in Blight in the Vineyard that Calvin’s real motivation with the Institutes of the Christian Religion was to create a religious ruling class that held the full moral authority for theocratic state rule. Europe was awash in bloodshed in pursuit of that very end.
The thing I have been trying to illustrate with these articles are the ideas that undergird statism and the monopoly of force that creates tyranny. It is the ideas that drive the actions. And it will be the ideas that give rise to the hate groups you reference. Whether they come from SGM is anyone’s guess, but the ideology that gives rise to “Christian” theocratic statist oppression is centered in the Puritan/Calvin construct. And the crazy part is … it has already happened. As you observe Calvin’s conduct … he is hardly the only one to use violence in service to despotic outcomes.
How safe you are?? Not sure what your concerns are but currently only one other person has access to my blogs admin panel and I trust them implicitly. I have some pretty steep security measures in place to prevent hacking. So, as long as people behave themselves they are safe in my mind. I did have two users that abused their anonymity to do things that were unacceptable … So I exposed their specific fraud. But that is hardly the norm. I won’t be handcuffed by someone’s anonymity but in my mind I give people who seek to remain a pseudonym the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks! Have heard that there are folks around SGM who are trying, sometimes successfully, to track the posters.
God doesn’t want me fearful of anyone but Him, I do need more courage.
2+2…
Oh…. I suspect their tracking success has more to do with a blog poster talking about specifics that only a select people could know about. Since this blog doesn’t really lend towards the tabloid, it is much easier to remain anonymous.
But beyond tracking folk down. If that is a genuine concern you have … I think this fear illustrates a profound failing within the doctrines. Only an utterly evil body of doctrine can instill such lingering fear of “public” exposure for daring to disagree in public.
If you haven’t yet, I recommend you grab my book: Blight in the Vineyard. I deal with the power of our fears and affections … and how these doctrines are designed to leverage those parts of our nature against ourselves. And I think you will benefit from the last two chapters. I lay out a path to getting out from underneath that fear.
The paperback version is most conducive to studying and taking notes. I picked a font and a book size that gives margins and space. The layout is very readable… if I do say so myself.
Thanks, John, think I’ll pick up one for myself and husband. He’s why we’re still there, and although so far, he’s appreciated thinking he’s part of their boys’ club, (I think they see him as a means to their never ending quest for power), to me, the underlying issue with that is caring so much about how one is perceived by others. May free more than 2 birds with 1 scissor. “Perfect love casts out fear”. What does that say about us SGMers?
“Perfect love casts out fear”. What does that say about us SGMers?” very well and sysinctly said.
As for your husband … Well… they are using him. Particularly if he is successful in any real meaningful way: like if he actually makes something useful. At CLC I was always amazed at how transparent the pastors were in pursuit of those with “worldly” success to “commend” them, all the while pretending that such things were trivial and even sinful to achieve. But the power of the boys club is a heady tonic so lots of men get sucked in.
I’d be interested to know how your husband takes my comments. I have some pretty harsh criticisms in Blight for those men who leverage the accolades of the boys club for their own “selfless” purposes. My chapter “The Interpersonal Train Wreck,” is particularly scathing.
John,
I just re-read this, and I am convinced that this article is the best description of the fundamental roots of the problems within SGM. The problem IS the doctrine. The doctrine is not just a place to look, it’s really the ONLY place to look.
My head was so buried for so many years. I patted myself on the back for having the stones to do my own thing in the face of the dictates of the “authority”–I said the occasional “shit” or “ass”, I listened to Hank Williams Jr., I didn’t read my Bible everyday; oh, what an enlightened rebel I was!–never once thinking about the abuse in the name of the sound doctrine that I explicitly supported with my presence and tithes,, which were perpetrated upon those who actually had real life problems and were told just to shut up, stop hating God, and forgive.
I don’t ever want to pretend that I have chosen the path to freedom from SGM and her oligarchy because I’m superior, or smarter, or more loved by God. No…I chose the path because I am so ashamed.
Argo … that is a pretty powerful comment and an incisive summation of how so many people are complicit in the unfolding drama.
Hi John,
Re-reading this. Not to be a suck up, but this is so friggin brilliant. I’ve never read such a concise and blunt examination of CJ’s “doctrine”, and which proves just WHY it’s so damn destructive.
You wrote this:
“Each person-to-person interaction is a wholly unique event that is measured up against … nothing … but the ability to “perceive” as God grants grace.”
And this is exactly why I submit that, despite AOR’s timid, milquetoast calls for changes in polity and structure, and chains of communication, and avenues for grievances, and processes whereby laypeople and pastors can be assured of a consistent and fair hearing of concerns and disciplinary protocols and blah, blah, blah, when pigs fly, etc., etc….it will never, ever happen.
It will not happen because this kind of structure and CJ’s epistemology are completely at odds. He simply cannot have a structure of pastoral discipline, for example, where all pastors go through the same channels in a fair manner that is based on objective protocols because each case will be subject to the whims of his “divinely inspired” perception. He needs to allow himself the freedom to decide how to think and act in any given situation in a way that allows his particular mood that day to dictate outcomes which will appear consistent with his special, divinely inspired moral superiority.
Mark my words; I don’t care how much the TALK about protocols, CJ will never allow them to exist. And if they do, it will be in lip service to their “promises”. AND IF they do exist, they will only be used when and where CJ decides; another tool of his ability to act as he “perceives” he should, in any given moment. If CJ will not be held accountable to a group of “apostles” of HIS OWN choosing, do we really think he will be held accountable to processes and committee rules that were recommended by an outside organization. What even?
John,
I agree with one of the conclusions of this article, that modern pastors/bishops function as Plato’s “philosopher-kings”, by way of interpreting all doctrine, initiating force, etc. What I am wondering, is how you view the biblical role of elder/bishop? Do you think this is a righteous idea, do you condemn the whole idea from the root? Do elders or pastors serve any wholesome functions?
Hey Jacob,
I’m always glad you like the articles. BTW.. I put up the last TANC session. And I have a new article up.
“What I am wondering, is how you view the biblical role of elder/bishop? Do you think this is a righteous idea, do you condemn the whole idea from the root? Do elders or pastors serve any wholesome functions?”
Well, my first response to all of this is tied to dispensationalism. If we presume that Apostles and Prophets no longer exist, why do we magically assume that Pastors, Evangelists, teachers and Elders still exist? The very same arguments that dismiss apostles and prophets could be applied to the rest of the titles … but it just never has. If the “Authority” of the first two offices vanished why do we maintain an “authority” for the rest?
And this last question is really the heart of the matter: the quest for Authority. Any time someone wants authority he/she is in pursuit of force, which means he is in pursuit of the ability to compel a given outcome. Since you are a long time reader here, you already know where that goes.
In your comment, you are still referring to mere logic (if..then logic) “if not Apostles… then not Bishops”. When we should examine what the basis of truth, the Bible, has to say on the matter. The Bible explains the need for authority in the context of order and organization (He is a God of order), but with clear directive of servant leadership – not dictatorship and power- mongering. Jesus was the ultimate example. He, who is God, washed the feet of the disciples. Yes, man by his nature will distort God’s word and intent, but once a person is “born-again” he then has the “mind of Christ”, the very Spirit of God indwelling him, allowing him to make wise decisions. I think this is overlooked in the whole “human depravity” debate. With the mind of Christ, a man can be a good leader. With the mind of Christ, a man can understand God’s word as intended.
JAL, the problem with that approach is the nearly infinite versions of the Bible based upon who is interpreting it.
Historically, Religious Professionals interpret the Bible (and construct and teach doctrines) in a way that cements their power over the congregants. Remember, for instance, that the KJV was translated by edict of King James, who famously had a political agenda: he wanted to ensure that the Church of England (and by extension, the British Throne) was cemented as authoritative in God’s eyes. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version).
Because most Christians have been taught to interpret the Bible in a fashion that supports the concept of “the authority of the Clergy,” most Christians believe in an interpretation of the Bible that is skewed in favor of “The Clubhouse.”
For instance, most Christians believe it is biblical for Christians to tithe (which benefits the Clubhouse) even though there is zero evidence in the New Testament for this practice. You could argue that Jesus mentions tithing, and you would be quite right. But it is very clear in context that Jesus is speaking of tithing to Jewish Religious Leaders, who have a legal obligation to tithe and teach tithing to their congregants.
Anyway, back to the original point. Why not just trust Christians to exercise the “mind of Christ” to understand the Bible? That would work just great if there were not this constant pressure to conform to church doctrines. If the doctrines are in conflict with the “mind of Christ,” congregants have to choose whether to remain loyal to the Clubhouse or to trust God. That is a choice very difficult to make, since inclusion is based on doctrinal adherence. For this reason, the “mind of Christ” is largely silenced in the typical believer, replaced with the Law that is preached from the Clubhouse Pulpit.
I have recently been discussing this issue in another venue. The idea that any group of adults ALWAYS need a perpetual leader. Could it be the goal has been to amass followers and not make “disciples”?
These “functions” are fluid not static. Someone “pastors” a new disciple and that disciple becomes “perfect” like their heavenly father is perfect (mature, fully developed which is what that means) and so it goes. There is no “authority” involved. An elder would be someone who is fed to the lions first so the others can get away.
“Servant leadership” is an oxy moron. It does not exist but sounds nicer. I was around in the old days when Ken Blanchard was hawking this term to mega church pastors as a kinder way to amass power. Make them see you as a servant who is a leader.
You know, we have had about 2000 years to get this “Body” thing right. Yet, we keep going in despotic circles. Could it be our premises are wrong? God was angry when the Jews begged for a king (like the pagans had). He was their king but he gave them what they wanted. I find it ironic that Jesus was pegged as King of the Jews. Which He was! We still don’t get it.
Adults have a “leader” in Jesus Christ. Anyone else is potential danger.
Lydia,
I agree completely.
Amassing followers to what end, though? In America, the purpose seems to be pecuniary — providing a living and a retirement to the Clergy Class. More universally, there is power in the position of Anointed Proclaimer, and the pseudo-love congregants shower on their Leaders. All of these ends align perfectly with the ends of most religious systems. Congregants need to be led, Clergy Men and Women need to be praised. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism. All fit the same pattern, and it comes from a root of self-righteousness. If The Self does the Right Things, The Self is Declared Righteous by the Doctrines of whatever Religious System is being proffered.
People desperately want to be Declared Righteous, because they do not want to face their shortcomings. So, any religious system that proffers Self Righteousness in a palatable way is going to gain adherents. And the cost of the Self Righteousness is Spiritual Domination. Every. Time.
Christ alone breaks the pattern of Spiritual Domination by the Clergy Class, but only for those who understand that the Clergy Class is not of His making, and is actually Demonic. Hard to get that message across to those who continue to be dominated, because, like Théoden King, their “minds have been overthrown.” A lot of the fighting that we see on sites like this are about the blind, impotent rage people feel when they realize they have been duped. They don’t know precisely what is wrong, but they have clues. And when they see any of the “warning signs” of despotism, they attack. When they see a Great Leader who seems to agree with their plight, they sometimes attach themselves to such a Great Leader. No matter how incomprehensible.
JustaLayman,
What do you mean by “the Bible is the basis of truth”?
And can a person understand the bible without being saved first?
Just a layman… welcome. Thanks for you comment.
I’ll wait for your response to Argo before I follow up on your observations.
Hope to hear from you soon.
John
One cannot touch “couch” any easier than he can touch “blue”. It always boils down to this: what physically IS, which is infinite. And how it is conceptualized, which is a product of the observer and makes that which is infinite relatively finite, with the absolute reference being the observer.