Very good article by 

MICHAEL J. KRUGER

Why Don’t Churches Stop Spiritually Abusive Pastors?

March 30, 2021

For the last couple of months I’ve been making my way through a blog series on spiritual abuse which I am calling “Bully Pulpit”.  You can see the prior installments here , here, here, and here.

Part of the goal of this series has been to lead up to my session on spiritual abuse at the TGC National Conference.  I will be leading a panel discussion on this topic with my friends Dan Doriani and John Yates, at 11AM on April 12th. Please join us if you will be attending TGC, or you can tune-in online.

With the conference right around the corner, this will be the last installment of my blog series. But I am in the process of writing a full-length book on the subject of spiritual abuse, so you can keep an eye out for that over the next year or more.

As we come to the final post in the series, we face one of the most troubling questions of all: Why don’t churches stop spiritually abusive pastors?

In story after story of abuse, the same tragic series of events plays out. The abusive pastor engages in his destructive behavior for years and years until someone finally speaks up. But even then, most churches do nothing (in fact, many churches actually attack the victims). And even when the church does do something, it’s often a half-hearted, inadequate response. And even if the rare church finally removes a pastor for abuse, that just leads to the next question: Why did it take you so long to act? Why did you tolerate this behavior for 25 years?

The reason we ask these questions is because there is always evidence—actually, lots of evidence—for the destructive behavior of these abusive pastors. As we observed in a prior post, abusive pastors often leave a “relational debris field” or a “trail of dead bodies” in their wake. So, why don’t churches see the trail of dead bodies? Why don’t they connect the dots?

There are a lot of reasons churches don’t see what’s happening. But I would suggest there are several theological misunderstandings that have contributed greatly to the problem. Let’s look at three of them.

A Misunderstanding of Total Depravity

Reformed folks frequently talk about total depravity—how sin is deeper and more pernicious than we realize, affecting every aspect of our lives (actions, mind, will). Consequently, every human being (even pastors) have the potential to commit serious acts of wickedness.

And yet, despite affirming this doctrine on paper, it is amazing how quickly it is forgotten when it comes to cases of spiritual abuse. As soon as someone has the courage to speak up about abusive behavior, they are usually met with a chorus of rebuttals along the lines of, “I know this pastor, and he could never do this.” Or, “This pastor has blessed and helped countless people over the years. Thus, he could never do something like this.”

In other words, rather than taking the concerns seriously and investigating them carefully, they are dismissed as essentially impossible (or at least so unlikely as to not merit further consideration).

And in tragically ironic turn, the defenders of the abusive pastor will often raise questions about the integrity and the character of the victims, suggesting that they are out to “slander” or malign a person’s “good name.”

So, the doctrine of total depravity is forgotten when it comes to the pastor, but remembered when it comes to the victims.

Sadly, the events of the last year with Ravi Zacharias have shown us that even the most respected and well-loved leaders have the potential for unspeakable depravity. Ravi had his defenders, arguing that he could never, and would never, do these things. But, it turned out that he did, in fact, do them.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that we do away with the presumption of innocence. But, as David French observed in regard to the Ravi Zacharias case, “No organization can allow shock at dreadful allegations (or the conviction that, “I know him. He would not do that”) transform the presumption of innocence into the wholly improper assumption that an accuser is lying.”

A Misunderstanding of Grace

Christianity, at its core, has always been about grace. And in recent years, particularly in Reformed, evangelical circles, there has been a burst of new attention on grace—and that’s a good thing.

But, in order to accentuate the beauty of this grace, an additional step has been taken by some. Since we are desperate sinners saved by grace, it is reasoned, then it must be the case that we can make no distinctions between levels of sin. Now more than ever, then, we hear phrases like “all sins are equal,” or “all of us are equally sinners.” Such language is intended to uphold grace; it’s just another way to say that no one is any better than anyone else.

Now, the phrase “all sins are equal” is partly true, depending on what one means. If one uses the phrase simply to indicate that any sin is enough to separate us from God and warrant his wrath, then it would be correct. God is so holy that any violation of his law, no matter how trivial in our eyes, is an offense in his eyes worthy of condemnation.

However, that is not the only way the phrase has been used. Others use this phrase as way to “flatten out” all sins so that they are not distinguishable from each other. Or, to put it another way, this phrase is used to portray all human beings as precisely the same.

But, this understanding is deeply problematic on a number of grounds. For one, to say all sins are the same is to confuse the effect of sin with the heinousness of sin. While all sins are equal in their effect (they separate us from God), they are not all equally heinous. In fact, the Bible clearly differentiates between sins. Some sins are severe in terms of impact (1 Cor 6:18), in terms of culpability (Rom 1:21-32), in terms of judgment warranted (2 Pet 2:17; Mark 9:42; James 3:1), and in terms of whether one is qualified for ministry (1 Tim 3:1-7).

Even more importantly, however, this misunderstanding of grace has been used to defend abusive leaders. If we are all equal sinners, it is argued, then we should give these abusive pastors a break. They are sinners too, just like the rest of us. To say otherwise is to put ourselves in a place of judgment over them; it is to make out ourselves to be more righteous than other people. In other words, we need to “show them grace.”

It is difficult to overstate how destructive and debilitating this sort of theological error can be. It makes the victims feel almost like they are to blame; as if its their own “unforgiving” heart that is in the way of “reconciliation.” Moreover, it utterly ignores the heinousness of the abusive itself. It forgets that some sins are worse than others. And some sinners are worse than others. And a shepherd abusing the sheep is one of the very worst. On top of this, such a misuse of grace ignores all the passages in Scripture about upholding justice, righteousness, and defending the innocent.

A Misunderstanding of Conflict

Sadly, there is an additional way that a misunderstanding of grace has been used to defend abusive pastors and further harm the victims. If we are all equally sinful, it is argued, then that must mean that the abusive pastor and the victim are equally to blame for the conflict. A wrong understanding of grace, then, is used to minimize the heinousness of the abuse, and accentuate the sins of the victim (whatever they may be).

At this point, elder boards will typically make statements like, “Well, everyone here’s guilty of sin.” Or, “There’s blame on both sides.” In other words, they have taken abuse, and turned it merely into a “conflict.” It’s no different, they say, than just Paul and Barnabas disagreeing.

If the prior error was tragic in its own right, this second one may be even worse. It’s hard to conceive of a greater abuse of the doctrine of grace, but sadly it happens all the time—ironically, in churches that most loudly profess to be about grace. What these churches have done is wrongly assumed that all sins are equal and that all conflicts are equal in terms of blame and accountability. Rather than helping, they are actually further abusing the victim.

It would be the equivalent of taking a situation where a husband abuses his wife and telling them they just need to each confess their sins and go to marriage counseling. But this would be a tragic mistake. An abuse case is not just a “conflict.” It is not an equal playing field. Of course, the wife is a sinner too. But, whatever sins she may have committed do not justify the husband’s abuse, nor should they distract the church from making it a priority to address that abuse.

Conclusion

We should remember that even if churches don’t stop abusive shepherds, that does not mean there is no hope. After rebuking the bad shepherds of Israel in Ezekiel 34, God promises that he will do something about them: “Behold, I am against the [bad] shepherds . . . I will rescue my sheep from their mouths” (v.10).

How will God do this? By coming himself to be the great shepherd: “I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declare the Lord God” (v.15).

With such a promise in mind, the words of Jesus in the Gospels take on a new significance: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). In other words, Jesus is declaring that he is the Lord God keeping the promise of Ezekiel 34 to shepherd his people.

And he will do the opposite of what the bad shepherds of Israel did. They saved their life at the expense of the sheep, whereas Jesus will save the sheep at the expense of his own life.

Burning Hearts Are Not Nourished by Empty Heads

Christianity Today 26, 100 (Sept. 3, 1982). | Sept. 3, 1982 | R.C. Sproul

How can we love what we do not understand?  What do you read first when the newspaper arrives? I dive for the sports pages—an involuntary reflex action left over from a youth spent with visions of Pittsburgh Pirates and Steelers dancing in my head. The child within me still suffers more anxiety over league standings than the Falkland Islands. Old reading habits die hard. It is the same with Christian magazines and periodicals. When I first began reading Christianity Today, two columns hooked me quickly. One was "Eutychus and His Kin," the other, "Current Religious Thought." I still go first to "Current Religious Thought," for I know I will encounter some vignettes of intellectual insight to nourish my too-empty head.

We live in what may be the most anti-intellectual period in the history of Western civilization. We are not necessarily antiacademic, antitechnological, or antiscientific. The accent is against the intellect itself. Secular culture has embraced a kind of impressionism that threatens to turn all our brains into mush, and the evangelical world has followed suit, developing an allergy to all things intellectual. The kind of debate waged between Luther and Erasmus or Edwards and Chubb would be unacceptable today. Their reasoning was too acute, their polemics too acerbic, their critiques too rapier-like for our modern comfort zones. Debates, if they are held today, are won by charm and a benign smile rather than by lucid argument. Satire is almost extinct, the verbal gladiators who used it having perished with the fathers.

To be sure, William Buckley persists, but he is an anachronism, a refurbished antique whose style is so uncommon that some mistake him for something new. How I pine for the days of yore when Ad Leitch responded to Tillich's recasting of traditional categories of divine transcendence from "up-there" to "down-there" on the depth dimension of the Ground of Being. Does anyone remember Leitch's article in the early sixties about the impact Tillich's theology would have on church architecture? He said that instead of steeples pointing heavenward we would have to have our church services while assembled in a cavernous open pit. Our search for the Ground of Being would occur not while singing "Rise Up, O Men of God," but rather ''Go Down, Moses." Kierkegaard, after evaluating the state of the church in nineteenth-century Europe, wrote, "My complaint is not that this age is wicked, but that it is paltry: It lacks passion." The Dane should be alive today. Passion we have —it is reason that is in eclipse.

Christianity is an intellectual faith. This does not mean that it flirts with intellectualism or restricts sainthood to an elite group of gnostic eggheads. But though the Word of God is not limited to intellectuals, its content is addressed to the mind. There is a primacy of the intellect in the Christian life as well as a primacy of the heart. How can that be? To speak of the primacy of both mind and heart sounds like a neo-orthodox creed, a dabbling in dialectics. How can two distinct things have primacy at the same rime without resorting to contradiction? Must there not be one ultimate primacy, or at least a primus inter pares? We can, I think, have two primacies if they hold their primacy in different relations. The primacy of the intellect is with respect to order. The primacy of the heart is with respect to importance.

 We know that the disposition of the heart toward Christ is of supreme importance. If our doctrine is correct, our intellectual understanding of theology impeccable, it is to no avail if our heart is "far from him." If the head is right and the heart is wrong, we perish. On the other hand, if the head is confused, the understanding muddled, and the doctrine fuzzy, there is still hope for us if our hearts beat with a passion for God. Better the empty head than the empty heart.

Why then bother with religious thought, or speak at all of the primacy of the mind? Precisely for the sake of the heart. How can we love what we do not understand? How can we worship an unknown God? If the character of God remains an enigma to us, all our singing, praying, and religious zeal becomes a useless passion, a beating of the air. Religion degenerates to superstition and liturgy becomes a form of magical incantation.

There is a content to the Christian faith. That content is directed, by way of order, to the mind. The New Testament calls us to be childlike, but not with respect to understanding. It is the plea of the apostolic heart that we not be ignorant in our heads. God has made us with a harmony of heart and head, of thought and action,  God the Holy Spirit superintended a Book that is to be read, whose verbal content is to be so understood and digested that our hearts may burn within us. As the ankle bone is connected to the knee bone, so there is a marvelous circuitry fashioned by God that flashes back and forth from head to heart. The more we know him the more we are able to love him. The more we love him the more we seek to know him. To be central in our hearts he must be foremost in our minds. Religious thought is the prerequisite to religious affection and obedient action.

We must have passion—indeed hearts on fire for the things of God. But that passion must resist with intensity the anti-intellectual spirit of the world. The entrance of that spirit into the house of God is like a Trojan horse, concealing within its belly the troops of the enemy who would beguile us with contentless religion, thoughtless action, and vacuous zeal—fire without; light. Its only legacy will be a tomb for a forgotten deity inscribed with the; epitaph, "To an Unknown God."

How Bible Preachers Can Turn Into Cult Leaders

High profile church leaders need accountability to keep them focused on Christ and his truth.

Written by Philip Rosenthal | Tuesday, September 4, 2012

There are 3 stepping stones used by personality cult leaders in developing a following. Loyalty to Bible to Movement to the Leader. If they were just to go around saying: ‘I am the messianic hero – follow me,’ then they would mostly just be ignored as crazy. So instead they use a 3 step strategy.


You’re in a church that affirms the inerrancy of scripture so you’re safe. Right? Sorry. No.  There are other problems.  Liberals have long pointed out how that cult-like authoritarian leaders are almost all pastors in conservative Bible believing churches.  Unfortunately and painfully that is true.  Why?  And how do we correct the problem.
Three Stepping Stones to Cultish Authority
There are 3 stepping stones used by personality cult leaders in developing a following. Loyalty to Bible to Movement to the Leader. If they were just to go around saying: ‘I am the messianic hero – follow me,’ then they would mostly just be ignored as crazy. So instead they use a 3 step strategy.

• First, they promote loyalty to the truth of the Bible. This massive absolute trustworthy authority gets them lots of sincere followers and provokes little challenge.
• Second, they promote loyalty to their movement as a means to implement obedience to the scriptures. Fair enough to do so and necessary, but the break point becomes when loyalty movement becomes more important than loyalty to scripture. Then people are drawn into the next level and for them the movement becomes a cult. The successes of the movement are boasted about in an unrealistic manner. All sorts of benefits are promised. The value of defending each other is emphasized. But most others are still loyal to scripture.
• Then the third stage is the transfer of loyalty from the movement as a group to the messianic hero leader himself. Lots of subtle ways to do this: self-promotion, boasting, mentoring, special promotions etc. Telling people their destiny is linked to being around a great leader etc. Leaders introducing each other in bloated unrealistic ways. Anyway, at the same time different people in the movement can be at different stages in this loyalty slide: Bible to Movement to Leader.

Once the person is loyal to the next level, loyalty to the previous level can be dispensed with quite conveniently. e.g. Once people are blindly loyal to the movement, then the Bible can be dispensed with. Once people are blindly loyal to the leader, the interests of the rest of the movement can be dispensed with. This explains how certain cultish people can be so hypocritical. They no longer really care about the Bible or really care about the interests of other people in the movement. Their professed loyalty to these other things are just stepping stones for people to stop on in the manipulative plans of a personality cult.
In some cases, the driver of this movement is not actually the leader – it is the followers. They move themselves with no encouragement to the next level of cultish loyalty. In fact they push the decent honest leader to behave as if he was God-like, they hero-worship him and flatter him and try to attack anyone who disagrees with him. But it is evil and idolatry and good people must stand up to this degeneration and stop it.
The pattern also explains how someone can be teaching stuff that is almost 100% Biblically correct and yet still be leading people astray like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Yes, it’s painful, but this is how good honest God-loving people get sucked into a personality cult. We must expose this manipulation and try helping these people back to God and the Bible.
Why do Bible Believing Groups So Often Go Cultic?
Liberals have pointed out how many Bible believing groups abuse their followers in a cultic manner.  How do we as evangelicals explain how belief in the inerrancy of scripture co-exists with spiritually abusive behavior? I would explain as follows: The cult leader wants absolute power. He does not want partial power or a degree of power. He wants it all. Anything that is affirmed as absolute and infallible automatically carries with it an enormous amount of power and authority. The cult leader wants to share some of that. So he tries to associate himself with the authority (in this case the Bible) in the minds of his followers. This is the same dynamic as the junior wannabe deputy cult leaders who suck up to the senior ‘apostolic’ and ‘senior pastor’ ‘cult leaders’ / ‘wannabe Pope’ – who try hang around them in the hope that they might get some of their power. It is also a bit like the junior leader who ‘name drops’ about all the important people he knows in order to get people to put him on their level. So the cult leader wants to affirm the high authority of the Bible and then also put himself on a similar level of authority as the sole interpreter of the Bible to his followers. That way, he and not the Bible gets affirmed as the final authority.
Now in churches which don’t affirm the inerrancy of scripture, this trick to steal authority from scripture won’t work. If the Bible doesn’t have authority, then all that counts is everybody’s human opinion. Why should I listen to you – I have my own opinion. Now in such churches there are other ways for people to manipulate to get power. In these instances, power usually goes to the Modernist or Post-Modernist academics who are seen as all knowing and the men with all the answers. But in these instances, it is basically an intellectual following. They can’t get people bowing and scraping to their every whim and hanging on their words as if they proceed directly from God.
Now really the problem is not with the inerrancy of the Bible. The problem is with cult-leaders who act as though their interpretation of and application of the Bible is infallible – and their cult-followers who believe it.
To give a further illustration as to why personality cultists tend to prefer to affirm the infallible word of God. There is real money and there is counterfeit money. They look similar, but on close examination they are not. But what do the counterfeiters counterfeit? Do they counterfeit one dollar coins? No. That would be a waste of time. They counterfeit hundred dollar bills (or hundred rand notes for South Africans). But does that mean that all hundred dollar bills should now be suspect. No. The issue is that counterfeiters go to the trouble of counterfeiting something that is real and valuable. They don’t copy cheap stuff. So there is very little point in trying to counterfeit liberal, modernist or post-modernist Christianity. It has no real authority, so there is very little to steal or borrow from. The infallible word of God on the other hand carries with it divine authority – now for those who want to be ‘little gods’ in their own community – that is a good stepping stone in their quest for divine status. So that is why personality cultists like to affirm the absolute authority of scripture – just that they never want scripture used to hold them accountable. You can’t do so because they are the only one who can interpret it. If you challenge them, then they say you are interpreting wrongly and must listen to their interpretation. Their interpretation can bend and change with whatever is convenient at the time – so it is not actually scripture which has divine authority – but them that has divine authority.
Charismatic Elitists
Certain elitist Charismatic groups take this authoritarianism to an even more extreme level with the idea that God speaks through the Messianic leader with ‘words of knowledge’ and a ‘hotline to heaven’ with perfect accuracy – but that the ordinary congregation member can’t get guidance from God themselves.  Then what do you get? A man interpolated as the voice of God – who you better absolutely obey else you are disobeying God.
Correcting Cultic Authoritarian Interpretations of Scripture
A correct understanding of scripture corrects these problems.  While the Bible is infallible, the interpretation of it is not – and the senior leader is accountable to other leaders and in extreme case ultimately everyone else in proving his interpretation of scripture from scripture.  Historic confessions referred to these teachings as ‘the priesthood of all believers’ and ‘the clarity of scripture’.  In the book of Galatians, even the apostle Peter made a mistake and had to be corrected by the apostle Paul.  Nobody then is above challenge. Systems of church governance which give mechanisms to hold senior leaders accountable to their followers help correct such personality cults developing.  If your church doesn’t have those, seriously consider pushing for reform or moving to a church with healthier governance.

You Can't Get There From Here... pt 1

Can a Reformed Baptist that holds to covenant theology as expressed in the 1689 LBC be a Theonomist?

IT is my contention and others as well that for someone to say "I am a Reformed Baptist and a theonomist" is an actual impossibility. Covenantal Presbyterian no but I can see the confusion, Covenantal  Baptist no!


Here is an excerpt from this article discussing Jefferey Johnson's new book on Reformed Baptist covenant theology.


"Our view of the covenants have profound implications for political theory as well.  Understanding the covenants accurately will play into questions on the relationship of the Christian with the State, the Church with the State, and the Christian and the Church with culture and society.  Should the Mosaic law be applied today?  The Christian Reconstructionists answer in the affirmative.  This is because of their understanding of the nature of the Mosaic Covenant specifically, and the nature of the Covenant relationships more broadly. But for those who hold to a Baptist understanding of the Covenants, it is a theological impossibility for the Mosaic law to be applied today.  That is, it would be a logical and hermeneutical systematic inconsistency to take this view".

Here is an email question I sent to Pastor Jefferey Johnson and his response.


Pastor Johnson,


.......I have recently been in a conversation with a confessing baptist brother (LBC) who is a theonomist, which is contra the confession. 

 

......As I have been reading these works, seeing the distinction of the Mosaic covenant as a republication of the covenant of works given to Adam, I am wondering is it possible for a Reformed covenantal baptist to be a theonomist? I am wondering if the understanding of the Mosaic covenant being a covenant of Grace is somehow responsible at least to some degree in a theonmist error. I find that most if not all of the writers and adherents of theonomy seem to be Presbyterian. Is it their view of the covenant of grace as the same substance two administration model which allows for the Mosaic covenant to be a covenant of grace somehow responsible for their theonomic views to be easily ushered in? Is the idea of too much continuity between the old and new testament somehow responsible? Am I on the right track? Am I looking for an issue here that is not necessarily an issue? I know the issue, at least when you see a rebuttal to a theonomist from another Presby, it always focuses on the misapplication of Old testament case laws enforced through the government authorities in todays society. Which i think is true, but I haven't read anything that approaches this subject from a covenantal standpoint. That is, from a Reformed Baptistic covenantal polemic against theonomy. I have read Sam Waldron's article. I did not notice a covenantal argument. 

 

Thanks in advance
Nolan.

Nolan,

I believe you are 100% right! It is very inconsistent at best for any Reformed Baptist to be a Theonomist. For Theonomy is based upon the Presbyterain assumption that there is essential unity between the Old and New Covenants. For this reason, Theonomy is the natural outworking of Presbyterian covenant theology, for what is true in the Old must be true in the New unless directly abrogated in the New Testament. I know of only one Baptist Theonomist, and could not understand why he did not view his children as belonging to the covenant.

Like you, I wish I knew of a good resource (book or article) that critiqued Theonomy from a Reformed Baptist position, but I know of none. I would assume this is because Theonomy is chiefly a Presbyterian issue.

May we keep pressing forward, brother.
In the love of Christ,
jeff 


Here is another email question I sent to Jason Delgado of Confessing Baptist website
I have been enjoying your website and podcast. Thank you,it has and am sure it will continue to be a blessing. I have a question that maybe you could help me with or at least send me to someone who can via email conversation, maybe.  Until recently everything that I have read and studied on covenant theology has been from a presby. I found Pascal Denault\'s book and it helped me see that there is a major difference covenantaly that I never knew. I also listened to your interviews with Denault, again thank you. I have recently read Nehemiah Cox and John Owen on Covenant theology as well as Jeffery Johnson\'s book \"The fatal Flaw\". In Bahnsan and Rushdooney\'s  writings on the subject of Theonomy, which by the way my former pastor endorses they do not see the Mosaic/Sianatic covenant as a covenant of works as do our reformed baptist brothers have seen, not to mention some presby\'s as well. It also appears that all the ones I see who are theonomic are presbyterians. So my question is can a Reformed Baptist who adheres to Reformed Baptist covenant theology actually be an \"honest\" theonomist? It appears that the difference a Reformed baptist sees between the old covenant and new covenant would make a theonomic position unattainable. Maybe they have been unknowingly influenced by an interpretation of a presbyterian view of covenant theology? Am I on the right track?
Has anyone written something specific that you are aware of on the subject of why a reformed baptist cannot be a theonomist?

Thanks in advance
Nolan

 Howdy Nolan,
Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I am unsure as of yet who would be best to answer this question (been trying to dig) but I don't have anything specific. I will keep this question in mind though if I find someone who would be best to answer.

Regarding Reformed Baptist and Theonomy here are two post we have that have dealt with it. Neither one endorses it to say the least and show it is inconstant with 1689 Confessional theology:

http://confessingbaptist.com/theonomy-christian-reconstruction-and-the-1689/

http://confessingbaptist.com/theonomy-christian-reconstructionism-by-roger-nicole/

I would be interested to find any 1689 pastor that was positively endorsing it though.

soli Deo gloria!

jason d. of The ConfessingBaptist.com

To be continued.........

Can An "Orthodox" Christian Minister/Elder Share Six Sociological Characteristics of Cult Behavior?

Ron Rhodes, The Challenge of the Cults and New Religions: The Essential Guide to Their History, Their Doctrine, and Our Response (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 31–34:

[1] Authoritarian Leadership

Authoritarianism involves the acceptance of an authority figure who exercises excessive control on cult members. As prophet or founder, this leader’s word is considered ultimate and final. . . .

Often this authoritarianism involves legalistic submission to the rules and regulations of the group as established by the cult leader (or, as in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, submission to the Watchtower Society). Cult members are fully expected to submit, even if they do not agree with the requirements. Unquestioning obedience is compulsory.

[2] Exclusivism

Cults often believe that they alone have the truth. The cult views itself as the single means of salvation on earth; to leave the group is to endanger one’s soul. . . .

[3] Isolationism

The more extreme cults sometimes create fortified boundaries, often precipitating tragic endings (we have already mentioned the tragedies in Waco and Jonestown). Some cults require members to renounce and break off associations with parents and siblings. . . .

[4] Opposition to Independent Thinking

Some cultic groups discourage members from thinking independently. The “thinking,” as it were, has already been done for them by the cult leadership; the proper response is merely to submit. . . .

[5] Fear of Being “Disfellowshiped”

It is not uncommon in cults that people are urged to remain faithful to avoid being “disfellowshiped,” or disbarred, from the group. Again, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a prime example, for a person can be disfellowshiped merely for questioning a Watchtower doctrine. . . .

[6] Threats of Satanic Attack

Finally, some cults use fear and intimidation to keep members in line. Members may be told that something awful will happen to them should they choose to leave the group. Others may be told that Satan will attack them and may even kill them, for they will have committed the unpardonable sin. Such fear tactics are designed to induce submission. Even when people do muster enough courage to leave the group, they may endure psychological consequences and emotional baggage for years to come.

Sadly, some Christian groups share these characteristics to some degree. Some "orthodox" churches suffer from leaders who take on "authoritarian" tendencies. Here is an excerpt from Tom Chantry.....


.........what is authoritarianism?  In an age that rebels against any and all authority, even the legitimate rule of elders will be labeled by some as “authoritarian.”  Yet all agree that there is such a thing as authoritarian church rule.  Authoritarianism may be identified by several characteristics.

First, authoritarianism is seen in leaders who go beyond the authority granted to them by God in His word.  When, for example, a pastor or a board of elders binds the conscience of a believer in an area where God has granted liberty, this trespasses on the authority or rights belonging to another. 

Second, when an individual pastor acts unilaterally without securing the approval of fellow elders, he acts with authority not granted to an individual.

Third, when a pastor or board of elders regularly demonstrate arrogance in their dealings with the church, either privately or in the pulpit, this indicates an abusive approach to authority. 

Fourth, recourse to church discipline in cases in which it is not justified is authoritarian.  Scripture lays out specific situations in which discipline is required, but authoritarian leadership exemplifies the tendency of the hammer to treat each problem as a nail.  Finally, when a pastor or a board of elders exercise their authority without apparent affection or concern for the wellbeing of the flock, this suggests the presence of authoritarianism.




Does your church resemble the things above? Have you experienced something close to what has been listed above? It is amazing how churches that hold to Christian "orthodox" doctrine take on similar traits. Continue reading below.....


When elders become obsessed with the submission of the flock, they have a view dangerously close to the autocracy of Rome......Tom Chantry

The following excerpts are from by John G. Reisinger


"'Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture'! declares the Lord. Therefore this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says to the shepherds who tend my people: 'Because you have scattered my flock and driven them away and have not bestowed care on them, I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done,' declares the Lord... 'I will place shepherds over them who will tend them, and they will no longer be afraid or terrified, nor will any be missing,' declares the Lord." (Jeremiah 23:1-5)


How many sincere sheep do you know who "have been scattered" because of the tyranny of pastors and elders? How many sincere believers do you know who have been "afraid and terrified" even to speak what was in their hearts for fear of the elder's discipline? How many husbands and wives have been alienated in their affections from each other because of the intrusion of the church or elder into their relationship with each other.


 Many of you who read these lines have seen in practice what the following verse describes:
"The prophets follow an evil course and use their power unjustly." (Jeremiah 10:23)


I would pray to God that some of the preachers who have split churches over the issue of "elder authority" would ponder Ezekiel 34. Usually when people are run out of a church for refusing to obey the "duly authorized elders" (which, interpreted, means refusing to sell your conscience in "unquestioning obedience" to the eldership), they are never visited personally by the pastor. They are not contacted in any manner except to be informed in a "duly authorized" letter that quotes a lot of verses (mostly out of context) and then informs the "rebel" that he has been "duly" excommunicated from the church, or cult, as the case may be. Sometimes, not too often, the rebel is told that the elders are willing to consider receiving him back as soon as he will genuinely repent, which of course means, kiss the pope's ring in submission.
"This is what the Sovereign Lord says:


 Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds, clothe yourself with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock." (Ezekiel 24:2, 3)


If you were a pastor whose church was sacrificing to pay you close to $50,000 a year in salary and benefits and putting less than $1,000 a year into any kind of mission work, how should you feel when you read the above words from Ezekiel?
If you were helping to pay that $50,000.00 salary and you were personally being treated like a dog, or even worse, maybe that pastor was systematically turning your wife (or husband) and children against you, how should you feel when you read the following verses from the Word of God?


"You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back strays or searched for the lost. You ruled them harshly and brutally. So they were scattered...." (Ezekiel 34:4, 5)


If you are a pastor who has driven families out of your congregation only because they dared to disagree with you, and you have never visited one of them to try to resolve the difficulty, who do you think God is talking about in Ezekiel 34:2-5?
My friend, beating the sheep into subjection with the supposed "duly authorized office of eldership" and sending them home bleeding and wounded is just as hateful to God as daubing with untempered mortar. Rubbing salt into an open wound is exactly what many preachers do week after week. Because true sheep have tender consciences, a false preacher can pummel them to death with two big clubs. When the law (club number one) is swung by the "duly authorized prophet of God" (club number two), you have a gruesome twosome that will bring any tender conscience into subjection and fear. When one of these sheep finally gets enough courage to leave such a church, or in one writer's words, "...with a sigh of relief some sheep escape such ministries," I guarantee you that God does not view this "escape" as rebellion against His "duly authorized church." He views it as a refusal by a sheep to follow a false shepherd. When a child of God flees from that kind of tyranny, he is being obedient to the voice of his one true Shepherd and he is rejecting the authority of a false prophet.
The amazing thing about this sad situation is that so many sincere sheep seem willing to submit to a form of Romanism without challenging it with Scripture. The words of Jeremiah is true in many churches today:


"A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, and priests rule by their own authority, and my people love to have it this way." (Jeremiah 5:30, 31)


Arrogance and an overbearing spirit is never acceptable in elders. Popish demeanor reveals pride in the heart. Pompous and tyrannical treatment of subordinates almost universally attends positions of authority in the world and in human institutions. Never is such deportment permissible in elders. Our Chief Shepherd has said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you"! (Matthew 20:25,26)
Christ and Peter are not addressing hypothetical possibilities, nor peculiar attitudes of ancient times. Self-importance and lording it over others is a shameful reality among modern ministers. Many young Christians have been seriously injured by the imperious ways of elders..
We live in an age when rebellion is common against all divinely constituted authorities. Many have no respect for those whom the Holy Ghost has made their overseers (Acts 20:28). Multitudes of local churches are ruined by anarchy. Christians must be taught to submit to Christ's order and to his assigned elders and deacons. Yet a church may be as much injured by tyranny as by anarchy.
At times there come challenges to issues of truth and righteousness which are vital to the glory of God and the well-being of the flock. Then pastors must know how to be insistent in their opposition to immorality and heresy. Their prophetic voices should thunder and their feet hold firm. But all issues are not so essential. Neither should a severe, authoritative stance be the characteristic feature of a pastor's bearing.
Some have imagined that with Biblical commands that the sheep submit, congregations could be coerced into non-resistance to the pastor's opinions and decisions. Zeal for truth and righteousness mixes with an inflated self-esteem in the elders. Other men are not led by example but suppressed by the worst of worldly tactics. Disagreement and question are rigorously stamped out. When elders become obsessed with the submission of the flock, they have a view dangerously close to the autocracy of Rome. That outlook involves an egotism from which ministers must be delivered.
Some elders never appreciate the compliment given them when a saint disagrees with the pastor's exposition of a text. At least the Christian under his care is devoted more to Scripture than to the man in the pulpit. Under his ministry the child of God has reached a maturity to think through issues for himself and has imbibed a Berean spirit (Acts 17:11). But some ministers cannot endure the process of maturing in the sheep. At times parents are so flattered by the dependence of children that they cannot bear to see them grow independent with passing years. A swollen image of self-importance suffers too much for them to relinquish the reins. It is even so with domineering ministers.
provokes mature men of strong minds and independent judgment to leave the church. These very ones would have the greatest potential for future leadership in the assembly. Dictatorial measures make lesser men craven and dependent, stunting their true growth. But it also has its harmful effects on the "lords over God's heritage." It makes them egotistical and self serving.


From: The Christian Ministry and Self Denial, by Pastor Walter J. Chantry, Banner of Truth Magazine, November 1979, Page 22, 23. There are only two options for you if you are sitting under a ministry like that so clearly described by Pastor Chantry. One, you can stay in that church. However, you will have to shut up and obey the "duly authorized eldership" and totally dry up spiritually. You will be sinning against Christ by allowing your pastor to be the Lord of your conscience -- and believe me, that is a grave sin! If you stay under such a ministry very long you cannot help but yield your conscience to the leader. However, the moment you do that you will begin to live in fear of that leader and his authority over your soul. When you reach that point, you are actually part of a cult and you have totally given up your true liberty in Christ. You will be afraid to even think for yourself, let alone speak and act that way.
Unfortunately, there are some churches that actually demand that kind of submission from you in order for you to be a member in their church, or cult, as the case may be. They will bounce you in and out of membership according to your "rebellion" (questioning anything the elder says or does) or "repentance" (treating the pastor like a pope). Some poor souls have been in and out of church membership many times at the whim of the preacher. These kind of churches use the office of elder and deacon as a carrot stick to award the "really loyal devotees." It is sickening to see men grovel and lick boots in order to be in favor and power with "the man of God."
The second, and right, choice for you if you feel Pastor Chantry is describing your pastor, is to get out of that church as fast as you can and never go back again. I do not know your situation, but I personally know of six Reformed Baptist churches where a large part of the membership was thoroughly convinced that Chantry was talking about their church and their pastor! The next time some key families leave a church, don't be too quick to believe that the "duly authorized" pastor and his devotees were right and the people who left were all "rebels against authority." It just may be that the pastor was a power mad paranoid that had begun to think of himself as the infallible voice of God. It is possible that the power structure in a church can be wrong! It is even possible in a "true" Reformed Baptist church! As Chantry said, "A church may be injured as much by tyranny as by anarchy." I have yet to see a Reformed Baptist Church ruined by anarchy, but I know of more than one that was ruined, or is being ruined, by the tyranny of pastors.


Carefully read again what Chantry gives as the reason many good men leave a church like those I have been describing:


Lording it over the flock provokes church fights and splits. A domineering spirit in elders provokes mature men of strong minds and independent judgment to leave the church. These very ones would have the greatest potential for future leadership in the assembly. Dictatorial measures make lesser men craven and dependent, stunting their true growth. But it also has its harmful effects on the "lords over God's heritage." It makes them egotistical and self serving.


Part 3 from John G. Reisinger
http://www.batteredsheep.com/leave_part_03.html

1689 federalism compared to 20th century fedederalism (covenant theology)

 

 

 

 

What is your only comfort in life and in death?

Great question. I would like to focus on this thought by letting a book that is 450 years old guide us through God’s word. It’s called the Heidelberg Catechism.  It was written in 1563, after much study and prayer by a preacher and theologian named Zacharias Urinus and several of his friends in the southern German city of Heidelberg.   A catechism is simply a teaching tool that uses a question and answer format to share knowledge and truth. A catechism is not the Holy Bible nor is it a replacement for scripture and should only be used to help us dive deeper into the Word of God never to draw us further away from it.  That is why what I want to do tonight is to look at the first question asked by this Catechism and use various scripture to verify it.  The question is this: 

Question: What is your only comfort in life and death?

Answer: That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.¹ 

Before we dig into this let me say that the question that they are asking is not what makes you comfortable like a big lay-z-boy chair or something like that.  A better translation of this (remember it was originally in German….from the word “trost”) is where is your only ‘trust’.  It is no accident that Mr. Urinus and his friends thought this should be the first of a 129-question catechism.  In his own commentary on the catechism, Urinus says, “The question of comfort (or trust) is placed, and treated first, because it embodies the design and substance of the catechism.”  He goes on to say later that the design is to lead believers to sure and solid comfort (trust) in any circumstance we find ourselves in.  The substance of this trust is this, “that we are ingrafted into Christ by faith, that through him we are reconciled to, and beloved of God, that thus he may care for and save us eternally.”  I love this because it focuses not on what we must do but on what has already been done in Christ for his glory and our good.  Grace.  The amazing grace fact is that, if we believe in Jesus, we belong to Christ and in his pierced hands we are sufficiently, eternally, and fully cared for.  We are safe.  Safer than any other place we could be.  We are saved and he will see us through until the end. 

One of the great things about catechisms is the fact they list the scripture from which they draw their answers.  So, let’s dissect this and examine the scripture that led them to this conclusion. 

The first part of the answer says, “That I am not my own”

This comes from 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 which states:

¹⁹ What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

²⁰ For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

 “but belong body and soul, in life and in death” comes from Romans 14:7-9

⁷ For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.

⁸ For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

⁹ For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

“to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.” This is from 1 Corinthians 3:23

²³ And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

and Titus 2:14

¹⁴ Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

The gospel is the answer to this first question.  I am a firm believer that the gospel is not just Christianity 101 but is to be cherished and wrote on the tablet of every believer in Jesus Christ heart. We should remind ourselves of it daily.  Remind others who we fellowship with and tell it to those who may have never heard it.  Kevin Deyoung is an author I like and in his book, The Good News we Almost Forgot, he had this to say of question 1 from the Heidelberg, “We live in a world where we expect to find comfort in possessions, pride, power and position.  But the Catechism teaches us that our only true comfort comes from the fact that we don’t even belong to ourselves.”  The catechism does not only teach this…the Bible does.  The gospel is so counter cultural…so opposed to pride. Some may say, “But I enjoy my stuff.”  That’s fine…enjoy it.  But don’t put your trust in it.  Some may say, “But I’ve done much for the church, I read my Bible, I help people out.”  To which I must reply, “Amen!  That’s wonderful!” BUT if you are looking for that to save you….THEN it’s just filthy rags.  Dung.  Dross and loss.  

Do you know what we bring to the table when it comes to our salvation?  

The need for it.  

The sin.  

That’s it.  

We will not stand at the throne of God and be able to say anything in our defense except, “I belong to Christ.  My savior paid my debt in full.”  But, this is JOY.  How astounding is that?  Deserving wrath, I get grace.  My responsibility is to repent (turn from my sin and turn to Christ in my trust) and believe (that Jesus Christ is exactly who claims to be).  Derrick Thomas another author who wrote one of my favorite books (Romans 8: How The Gospel Takes Us All the Way Home) said this,

“If we were depending on our feeble effort and resolve to keep our salvation than it’s over, the devil wins.  But it is NOT because our salvation, from beginning to end, is God’s work as ‘he who began a good work in us will bring it to completion.”  

What a joyous triumphant verse this is!  Philippians 1:6, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ”  How glorious! The Greek word for ‘confident’ in this verse is the strongest use of the verb…in other words it’s like Paul is saying he’s absolutely, 150%, without a doubt, positive, that Christ WILL complete the work that he began!  How can he be sure? Because HE IS NOT HIS OWN!  Believers belong to Christ! 

You see that’s the key.  We are sure not because of doctrine or our action or our effort.  We don’t have a relationship with those things.  Our relationship is with Christ.  Doctrine is to get to know HIM more deeply, our actions are to get know HIM and HIS ways more clearly, our effort is to get to know HIM more intimately.  Notice that the recurring theme is to KNOW HIM MORE.  Let this be our goal, our breath, our prayer, and our cry. On my epitaph I pray that it will be written, “He sought to know Christ deeper.” And then in my spirit in heaven let it be so.  

Christ is the point, brothers and sisters.  

He is the author of our faith. He is the finisher of our faith

Hebrews 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

He is the sustainer of our faith (Philippians 1:6 “he will complete the work he began) because he is the OBJECT of our faith! 

We belong to him.  This is our comfort.  This is our trust and so mighty is our master that His will, will be done!

JI Packer said it this way:

“God’s love is a function of omnipotence and has at its heart an almighty purpose to bless that which cannot be thwarted.”  

His will, his Word, his hand…cannot be thwarted.  If Christ is for us who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)  This is why we can count it all loss because of the surpassing worth of Jesus Christ our Lord…because Christ owning us is infinitely better than owning ourselves.  This is JOY!  Christ!  This is why Paul could be beaten and stoned to the point where a whole town thinks he is dead and then goes back inside after he awakens to finish his sermon! This why martyrs sang as they were being burned! This is why no matter the struggle we cling to Christ because it didn’t begin with us it began with HIM.  We cling to the rock of ages because he is securely, yet tenderly caressing us. Every private struggle, prayer, pain, suffering, He is there perfecting you until the day when he says, “Well done thy good and faithful servant.”  Welcome home.    Keep that in mind and heart…those of you who reminisce on the past often.  Remember that your true ‘glory days’ are yet to come.

This brings us to the final part of the question, “What is your only comfort in life and DEATH?”  Death.  The great equalizer.  It comes to kings and paupers, strong and weak, mice and men, sick and healthy, young and old.  Most people live in fear of it, seeking cure after cure, spending all their money on a mad dash for re-generated youth.  But beloved, if you belong to Christ death is not something we fear.  Because our wonderful savior has overcame this dark shroud as well, by dying on the cross and then raising from the dead on the third day.  It has been well said, “What death did to Jesus is nothing compared to what Jesus did to death.”  Jesus Christ conquered death and we are more than conquerors through him that loves us (Romans 8:31). The Apostle Paul’s struggle was whether or not to go home and be with the Lord or stay to preach and help the Philippians and other brother and sisters.  In Philippians 1:21-25 he said,

²¹ For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. ²² But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. ²³ For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. ²⁴ Nevertheless to remain in the flesh is more needful for you.” 

Why?  Why is to live Christ and die gain?  Because, we belong to him and in all we do…in life or death, he is our comfort…our trust.  And praise God for it.  Listen closely, He is not only there at the first cry of life and at our last death rattled gasp but he is there beyond.  And when that time comes (and his timing is perfect, like Him) he has a place prepared for you in heaven for eternity, forever and ever, in his actual tangible presence in glory (John 14:2-3).  Let me read to you from the last chapter of the Holy Bible.  Revelation 22: 1-4

22 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

² In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

³ And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

⁴ And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.

⁵ And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

If you belong to Christ, He gave his life for you, his church, therefore; know that he will come back for you.  Death to us who are saved is bitter/sweet.  Sad for those we leave behind but beautiful for us.  Because we….are…going…home.

Let me touch on another aspect, in understanding all of this.   If God did all of this for you…all of grace, than who are we not to forgive and patiently love others.  Because of what Christ did for us, we are finally free to love others without expecting anything from them.  With only their interest and God’s glory in mind not our own recompense or needful desires.  Because our needs and desires are found in Christ and he took the and drank the cup of wrath we made for ourselves and gave us a sufficient overflowing cup of mercy that will follow us all the days of our lives and beyond. (Psalm 23:5-6)  So, who are we not to love everyone? And if you want an example let me tell you something a man named Sinclair Ferguson said that hit me between the eyes, “Jesus washed Judas’ feet, too.”  Our sovereign rulings Lord, creator of all the heavens and the Earth stooped down, cleaned, dried, and cared for the same feet that ran to betray him.  Think on that. If this were a Psalm now would be a good place to say, “Selah.”  We are told to bless those who use us and pray for those who harm us (Luke 6:28).  Saying ‘Amen’ to these thing is easy, now.  It’s when we are persecuted, suffering from sickness, hurt by loved ones, and tempted by Satan that at the forefront of our mind, solidified in the concrete of scripture, encased in our new heart that we must burn before us the blazing truth that, “Our only comfort in life and death is that we belong to Christ our Lord and savior.”  And what a well-placed, sweet trust it is. Everything we do should be filtered though this truth.  So, strong and secure is the hold our savior has on us that NOTHING can pry us from his safe, soft, strong, and loving arms.

 Romans 8:38-39:

³⁸ For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

³⁹ Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. 

Amazing grace, indeed.  How sweet the sound.

I want to now say that if you don’t know Christ, you have no comfort.  Only sinking sand.  You have no reason to sing Joy to the World because you have no joy.  Only temporary moments of fleeting happiness.  If you do not repent and believe in Christ than all you have ahead of you is the oncoming storm that is judgment and the just, fully deserved, consequence thereof.  But God, in his mercy, sent his son to be the sacrifice for sin.  I compel you and pray for you to seek the Lord. It is only as we go humbly in repentance and faith before the suffering instrument of death that is the cross of Christ that we can go boldly before the glorious, sovereign throne of the almighty God of all creation.  

This is how much He loved us, he became a man, lived the perfect life for us, suffered the wrath that we deserved, died the death that awaited us, and then stripped out death’s dreaded sting in bodily resurrection.  And not only is he here with us now in all we endure, but one day…he is coming back to bring us home forever.  WE THAT BELIEVE ARE HIS.  “Greater love hath no man, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” (John 15:13).  That is worth celebration.  So, this year, every time you say, “Merry Christmas.” Let your smile be ear to ear in anticipation for that day…the day we go home to our loving God and acknowledgment of what he did to get us there.