Learning Life

Getting life from God's Word is vastly freer than anyone's formulation of how to get it.

"The trees of the LORD are full of sap" Ps. 104:16

Mary was a young woman famous for learning at the feet of Jesus.  She makes it sound easy.  For me learning has not always been easy.  When I was a teenager my parents had big expectations that I do well in college and outside of school I was subject to daily studies and written and verbal comprehension tests.  I didn't handle it well, and as I grew up my attitude toward learning worsened.  I felt so much pressure that by the time I found my own place on campus in college, I remember opening up a textbook and I could not even read a sentence.  I just stared at the page.  All I felt was stress when I looked at a book.  I graduated college without reading for tests with a 2.4 GPA.

In spite of near failure at college it was in that time that I became a follower of Jesus Christ.  After graduating I accidentally joined a cult who told me I was not saved.  I needed to find truth in the Bible for myself.  I spent the next three years trying to understand the nature of baptism and salvation.  I thought I had answers on paper.  However I got something more out of all that searching.  It was by the life-giving experience of receiving love and restoration through His power and presence in His Word -- I noticed -- I finally enjoyed learning.  Jesus changed me!  For years I failed to identify who He is in relation to me and what it would do to me now.  Why didn't I perceive what He was going to do?  Later I went into the pre-nursing curriculum for a year and everything was different.  I studied anatomy and physiology and got the highest score in about half of the exams.  My attitude toward books transformed in the turning leaves of scriptures.

Mary had a true love for Jesus and meditated deeply before Him.  She was praised for choosing the "better" thing in receiving the truth, because it was better than her sister Martha's attempts to earn God's intimacy through works. She attempted to be a captive listener, but I wonder if she really believed what she "learned." When their brother Lazarus died in John chapter 11 I would have thought that Mary would be first to understand that Jesus wants to give life right now, not just final resurrection from the dead. Mary didn't greet Jesus when He arrived "too late."  She was only grieving.  Consequently Jesus did not test her faith.  She sat on the sidelines as an onlooker.  Though Mary failed to anticipate what Jesus was going to do, she was so grateful afterward she poured all her wages on His feet. She finally identified Him correctly; that believing in Jesus was the same as believing in the presence of God.

To Martha's credit, she was a woman of action and she rightly interpreted Jesus through those lenses. Now she understood what Jesus would do for her and she applied her less-intensive base of scripture to trust in God's power. "But even now I know that whatever you ask of God, God will give You," she said to our Lord (Jn. 11:22).  If the Father has given Himself to Jesus, then Jesus has given Himself to us.  Jesus' rebukes always fell to strengthen Martha: "Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?" (Jn. 11:40).

Jesus prayed out loud so that all would believe that the Father has sent the Son.  It is through this amazing abiding relationship that Jesus showed He was God's only begotten heir, the first of many sons to come (Heb. 1:2, 2:10).  Jesus was God and also With God from eternity and He came to us as such (Jn 1:1).  When he prayed concerning Lazarus to the Father He showed us the intimacy of the Trinity and therefore displayed how approachable He is to us all.  Identifying with another is integral to the image of God.  When we identify with one another in the Body, we imitate Christ (1 Jn. 4:17, 5:1).  We reflect Christ's image of the God-Man who was identified as With God; we also see the glory of God in our circumstances (Jn. 17:22-23; 14:13; 15:7-8).

Believing in Jesus is to trust Him to affect me because of who He is. Though I regret my GPA I have lasting joy over God's life-giving transformation in me.  He will continue to do wonders I don't even dream of asking if only I abide in greeting Him and His people.  He has glorified Himself in this small way of granting a love to learn.  I believe that those reading here can identify many of their own experiences of Jesus giving life.  Whether you are like Mary and are praised for learning or like Martha who was ready to see God's power, may we continue as one Body to encourage each other when in our human imperfections we miss the holy mark of receiving life right now by eyes of faith.  God is with us -- grow deep.

a little truth with grace

It was neat (after the sweating) to read free grace brothers and sisters noticing that I am "too gracious." What did that mean? I actually discovered this same message was being said to me elsewhere IRL (in "real" life). Grace, is good. But truth -- I could use a little more truth. I get it now! :) Truth is a "help" for God's purposes, just like grace is a "help" for God's purposes.

Evangelicals realize that preaching the truth is purifying to the saved and unsaved. But what they frequently overlook is that demonstrating grace is also equally purifying. Am I wrong or right? Grace is not license for sin. Understanding this point is a core teaching of the gospel Paul preached and defended as he was appointed by the LORD.

Here Paul commands the church to attain holiness through manifesting His variegated grace:

Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. Col. 3:12-17

I recently enjoyed reading through Proverbs. I wanted to find a proverb for every virtuous quality of grace.

Firstly, grace is virtuous:

He who loves purity of heart and has grace on his lips, the king will be his friend. Prov 22:11

And now, Colossians' various manifestations of God's grace....

Mercy over foolishness, is purifying.

He who follows righteousness and mercy finds life, righteousness, and honor.
Prov.20:21

Forgiveness between believers, is purifying.

The discretion of a man makes him slow to anger, and his glory is to overlook a transgression.
Prov. 19:11

Kindness toward inadequacy, is purifying.

He who has a generous eye will be blessed, for he gives of his bread to the poor.
Prov. 22:9

Humility is purifying.

By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches and honor and life.
Prov. 22:4

Forbearance is purifying.

By long forbearance a ruler is persuaded, and a gentle tongue breaks a bone.
Prov. 25:15

Love toward believers is purifying.

Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all sins.
Prov. 10:12

What I learned from the comments left by believer-friends, is that truth is equally worthy and I should be using it more often. I don't have to lean so hard into grace to see God's will be done.

Lastly, I must add a little more truth with grace.

Truth, of course, is purifying:

He who rebukes a man will find more favor afterward than he who flatters with the tongue.
Prov. 29:23

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but happy is he who keeps the law.
Prov. 29:18

Now, if I could just come to know how to wisely use both grace and truth? I don't know. It can be done, says the Word:

There is one who speaks like the piercings of a sword, but the tongue of the wise promotes health.
Prov. 12:18

Faults: Mine

The other day I was hanging out with a fellow believer and I was explaining to him how important an ethic of grace truly is in my eyes. I said the following to illustrate how far I'd take it:

I'd prefer to have ten million unkind, unflattering things said about me (that were also true!), out loud for everyone to hear, so that way I could be loved with true grace. True grace, to me, is the kind that knows one's weak points and loves them in spite of them.

Visiting Gary's, Tim's and Rose's blog just made my words ring in my ears. Might as well come to learn what my faults are. I won't be able to grow as well as a person just expecting God alone to tell me.

So if you are a friend, what I would like is to have you leave a comment, telling me plainly about a fault of mine. A sin, even, or a weakness. No COSF doctrine issues are game though. Just character, or personal flaws.

Seriously.

Leave a comment.

Now here's a blog post that's interesting for a change. This is so cool, I wonder what took me so long to think about doing this? Well, it's cool... but I know it'll hurt at first.

If you aren't sure if you qualify as friend, the qualification is that you and I have greeted one another pleasantly in the last six months on or offline.

My Introduction to Separationism

Legalism of Belief vs. Separationism

Before Zane Hodges coined the phrase "Theological Legalism" I was describing the same thing calling it "Legalism of Belief" here at my blog. Being someone who has been in and out of cults many times I got quickly tired with seeing the scriptures abused, through their use in endless variety of arrangements to show me that "Because you don't believe this, this, and this just as I do, you cannot have been saved!"

Well, thanks be to God that I am able to recognize that my salvation is not predicated upon precise or advanced doctrines that can only come through being a student of the Word for many years - though there are still many Christians who either believe or else act as if this is the case. What I am more interested in at this time, is to examine the same allegation made by those who might measure who is walking blameless before God by faith, through orthodox beliefs and confessions. Again, they would say to me, "Because you don't believe this, and this and this just as I do, you cannot be in right relationship with God!"

I'd like to think it is true, from the foundation I have so far in the Word, that believers who have fellowship with God by faith in the Spirit, also have rights to full fellowship with one another in the Body of Christ. What do you think? Would you place any restriction on fellowship with such an obedient believer?

Dr. Pickering, in his landmark text called, "Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church," did. On the grounds of one requirement if not more (I'm still grasping this as I share this in blog posts). He has found reasons to bar from fellowship other Christians who are walking in the Spirit. And he bases this upon whether they confess or teach orthodoxy.

Is Dr. Pickering justified in teaching this? I want to lay out his concepts and let readers conclude. I tentatively plan to post brief excerpts from his text on these topics:

Apostasy
First Separation
Second Separation
The Holiness of God
Ecumenism

And then as a summary, I would like to of course examine the scriptures to see what they say... without all the commentary.

Concluding Comments

I want to re-submit two comments of mine in a post last week at my blog: First; at this time I am convinced that there is a conservative Baptist disagreement in how seriously Christians should retreat from error. Therefore, it may be a free grace problem. I'm not sure if that's right but I'm hoping to explore if this might be the case.

The second comment I resubmit is that I have had a change of heart about my own "legalism of belief" perspective. There came a place for me to rescind, probably in conversations with Kev, that doctrines are designed for my sanctification, not my bondage. The world may use the Word of God for evil but I should not give off aires that His Truth is anything short of freedom to the child who is growing up in the LORD. I'm not bashful to admit that I went too far.

Also: (this is just me, but) it is interesting to note that a 298-page textbook can be written on a topic which includes... what, maybe 15 relevant scriptures, total? How can it be drawn out to fill so much space - I wonder this, then wonder the same thing of all the other texts which have done the same thing on the same short supply of biblical mandate. And then to think that some Baptists will set these books out as the markers for why they do what they do as they engage in ministry. But, I am learning, as I post through this. Which is most unlike the educated reader that my blog most fortunately takes now and then. I pay forward gratitude if or when they should contribute in explaining things if I would overlook something significant.

"Theological Legalism?"

I have the impression that the online climate is more capable of handling disagreement and opinions of a various sort, without communication shutting down as a result. So, let me finally take a crack, but just a small one.

There's a lot I don't know.

Here's what I do know:

"Theological legalism" is a uniquely evangelical phenomenon. This is simply because we are the only Christians who, by definition, believe that the bible is literal and true. In fact, the drive to preserve and defend the scriptural make-up of the gospel message, has caused legalism to manifest quite noticeably here in this free grace movement. But, I can tell you that any other band of evangelicals will have a much worse arrangement of theological chokings. It begins with creeds and gets more complicated from there; in fact, the entire body of apologetic work done for each class of non-believer, has replaced the gospel of salvation. Isn't that horrible? But it's true!

If the entire apologetic construction has truly replaced the gospel message, you might understand why I say, "I hate it" (see next paragraph). "Lordship Salvation" is but one tiny manifestation (and a less-gross one I might add) of the phenomena of evangelicals adding much, much more to the message of the gospel, and the combinations have as much variety as there are denominations. That's one of the reasons why I always said I felt like I didn't belong amongst my own infallible-scripture-believing kind. Though, it does make me an awesome tool for annihilating the error of any message I happen to come across: I point them all back to the cross, and then sometimes they're done with me.

I hate "theological legalism." I've called it the "legalism of belief," and it is one part of two in what I call "the evangelical problem." The evangelical problem is the infiltrating deception to believe in self-righteousness by both what the law can measure, and othertimes a belief in the self-righteousness by the theology an infallible bible provides. Evangelicals preach righteousness in union with Christ by faith, alone. When they cling to either theology for righteousness, or, law for righteousness, they have unconsciously contradicted their reason for which they needed Christ.

The fact that I hate anything is a big clue to me that perhaps I'm not balanced, though you may have noticed I keep the hate under regulation, y'all. I came from the out, in. I came from experiencing works-legalism, and then watching evangelistic-legalism, toward the freedom of faith alone in Christ alone by the power of the Word of God. And I am so happy to have free grace friends who are like me. But: if I am "escaping" that means I am still not "resting" and this can only be done by examining the Word and correcting the error that is inherent when I am hating anything.

As for the gospel according to Stegall/Rosker, and the gospel according to JP, I believe it will take me some time to review for myself what I see many people in these circles have been already working on for a couple of years or so. But at this time I will continue to consider myself "crossless" in the "content of saving faith." I am also more or less crossless in my understanding of the gospel, for now, as well. Here is the reason, and, I haven't seen anyone address this topic, yet: the pre-eminence of faith, over all other requirements. Has anyone addressed this point, yet? As long as no one can theologically conquer their "gospel" and "content" debate over the theology of faith's sufficiency, I too will not likely be moved too far from where I am at this time.

Again, I know I don't know anything. But the theology of faith's pre-eminence is the reason why I have fallen in love with evangelistically engaging the non-mainstream Christian movements ("cults"), and it is also the only reason why I ended up free grace in soteriology before I knew of them. So I owe all my accomplishment to the scriptures, and I can't move till someone can meet me there.

Thanks for letting me be transparent.

P.S. A week or so ago, Ben told me that I am most likely being foolish by using my term of "legalism of belief" as interchangeable with Zane Hodges' term of "theological legalism." He's right, I don't know for sure what Hodges defines it as. Hodges may mean something I don't intend. I've been avoiding reading anything by Hodges for all these months even though I have some of his books sitting on my shelf. Why? Because I just get this feeling that I am so Z.H.T.N.G. (Zane Hodges The Next Generation). I think I naturally am even if without expertise, an additional independent witness that this alarm is necessary. However, Ben's right. It is foolish to avoid awareness, just because of that.

So, I've decided to begin reading Hodges' "Theological Legalism." And then, I'll share my assessment.

"The Evangelical Problem"

What am I talking about when I use this phrase: "The Evangelical Problem"?

There is one thing I wrote back in 2007 on this, that has stuck with me as my working definition:


I can hear even in my own mind the scriptures, and they seem to be pleading for their moment to depart my lips. I'd rather let someone squirm with the Word of God alone in their own chamber than see myself their equal in Christ and have fellowship with them. Do you see how the Word is used as a mechanism to assess and drug ourselves righteous, and to make ourselves experts? The Word is often temptingly used as a wall to protect the supposed sanctity of our own lives.

Self-Control and Balance

I have very little self-control when it comes to the Word of God. I know that this isn't a bad thing in a sense, but I mention it because the very "evangelical problem" I have been writing about in the last couple of years, mightily dwells in me; I am the most audacious criminal.

Case in point: The Wednesday morning women's bible study that just began at my church. Guess what? It's full-blown, no shame Lordship Sanctification. I listen to the complimentary lecture given during our weekly meets, and during those talks it's "sovereign" this and "sovereign" that; sovereign, sovereign sovereign. I went up and asked her, "When you say that word... SOVEREIGN, what do you mean? What does that word MEAN?"

Some leading questions (or statements!) sprinkled in between the passages to read:

So, is there anything not under God's control? Ever?

(Blah!!)

God is sovereign over the natural, physical world.

God is sovereign over the social world.

God is sovereign over the political world.

God is sovereign over the spiritual world.

God is sovereign in salvation.

God is sovereign in my inner spiritual life.

I just came out of three years of believing that God was so "sovereign" that He had appointed me, to sin. Listening to this bible study brings this pall and a headache all come back to me.

This is pure deception. First of all, here is what this in-house bible study (created by one of our members) says of her theological approach to doing the bible study:

I centered [my bible study] primarily in the New Testament. Each lesson contains many verses, most looked at apart from their context to get a specific aspect of God's character. Please feel free to read before and after verses listed in the lessons to get a better picture of the context. However, the point of the questions or comments is specific to the verses given.

Given... out of context??

The very first question in the entire bible study, was this:

1. God is sovereign over the universe (and beyond!). How do these verses speak of God as sovereign?

- Rom 11:36

I listened to the ladies at my table, blow right past this question without even noticing the context. So I spoke up to them on that first day and said "Before we move on, can I say something? What does that word "sovereign" mean? What about free will? God was not "sovereign" over every detail for the Israelites. This passage pulled from Romans 11 is about the nation Israel; it says in verse 20 "Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either."

To that there was a moment of silence. They said, "Well, yeah, I guess sovereign means...." And in that even they tried to explain it as if I couldn't comprehend that God was in control in the overall sense. Of course, I understand that; they missed my point, or rather they didn't really know how to answer it probably, so they left that part alone.

All three weeks of this study, a slowly building storm is rising in me. I'm beginning to burn with anger. ... It's always like this in the beginning, before I get some measure of apologetics written out. I don't want to blow them away with righteous indignation. Though at this point they are aware that I am having difficulty "understanding" the material, and one has even agreed to have a sit-down meeting with me about it to "answer my questions."

I have a plan. I'm going to write my apologetics. Make a copy for everyone at my table. Appeal to their love for the scriptures and desire to be helpful and a blessing to me. Most of them are elderly so I need to have a real honest respect for them (I'm not all the way there yet). Then they're all going to get a copy. I'll ask them to just read it and take it to heart, and, if they like it, pass it on to the leadership or to other ladies at other tables. One table, out of the whole 9 tables of women in the study? Yes, that's good enough for me. I have faith it's sufficient to get the ball rolling.

I already have in my mind, some starting points for these apologetics:

- The "Sovereignty" Teaching Demeans the Lordship & Deity of Jesus Christ

- The "Sovereignty" Teaching Demeans the Purpose for Why Jesus Came as a Man

- The "Sovereignty" Teaching Demeans Christ's Heart of Love for Men and the Heavenly Father

- The "Sovereignty" Teaching Demeans Man's Ability to Glorify God in the Way we Live our Lives

I need to take some space and some heart and some faith. I don't want to blow them out of the water. I feel like they deserve it. I'm sure they mean well....

My Comment at Martuneac's "Salvation" Post

(On August 7, 2008 I left a comment on Lou Martuneac's blog, linked above in the title of my post. This is in no way an affront to Lou or even concerning him specifically, at all; I remain the same as recently described in approach. I notice many people making practice of transcribing their comments to others, into official blog posts. I have sown much my ideas out there in the blogdom and I thought I might extropically give it a shot.)

I have a thought, again, about the substance of Lou's point #3. He referred to a problem for which I have an idea of how to deal with:

3) The most vocal advocates of a position like LS & the Crosslessgospel are not impossible to recover, but often their conscience has been seared to the point where they will not hear truth. They build walls around their extra-biblical presuppositions and will not allow for anything from the Bible or reasoning to chip away at their position.

I love the example 2 cor. 3 gives on how we ought to write the scriptures upon our listeners. It says our goal is not to write on stone which is nonliving but upon tablets of human hearts. In the twenty-first century, we don't actually write upon rocks, or even so much upon paper. We write upon portals of two-dimensional graphical interfaces; still -- this can kill rather than give life as we are intending to do.

When we are writing only upon the internet the children of God turn their face away from the glory of scripture, because the veil that comes by reading the law is set in front of them. Their minds are made dull because they do not put in perspective the Spirit to mediate, to reveal, and the Spirit is the source of all understanding. We must first bring them to a place of freedom by the Spirit, just as Peter did in Acts 15 when they were still in the discussion phase with heresy. He said:

"So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” acts 15:8-10

The Word of God is always a burden to any man who is not walking at that moment in the Spirit; it becomes a ministry of condemnation, furthering all of us from unity in Christ. But evangelicals should know well enough how to find and walk in the Spirit, so, let's get them there by what we say and what we revel in. We purify our discussions with one another when we are talking while publicly trusting in Jesus (they and we are purified in our hearts by faith).

Even though unburdening the Lordship person is your goal, when you start your conversation with such language as:

"Yeah but you must do...."

"Okay but you need to know..."

Then you are, unfortunately, acting as a Judiazer, even if the content of your message is the opposite. For this reason, when for instance Lou shares the [LS-correcting] message of "the results of salvation must NEVER be made the requirement FOR salvation," be sure to precede it by acknowledging the freedom we have from being considered inadequate, because of the cross.

I see how ironic it is, that they are more-or-less the Judiazers, yet they don't realize it, and when we try and show it to them, we too are accustomed to treating them in a Judiazing manner, troubling their consciences by the rejection of the boldness we have to come before God by good faith, not by accomplishments. However we can come before God by faith. And He can endure both theirs and our misperceptions. We, like He, must endure fellowship with the church yet patiently correct their errors.

They aren't worthy of fellowship with us just only if they believe everything we do. That's essentially promoting the very kind of error in calvinism (needing to endure to the end in order to be saved, and never really having a sense of having done enough, for security). Here is what Lou wrote of Lordship in the "Barter" thread's comments:

"Lordship’s Gospel is a promise to perform in exchange for the promise of eternal life."

When we give them a laundry list without acknowledging the Spirit we are asking them to perform, in exchange for the privilege of acceptance. We're saying that their mediator, Jesus Christ, isn't sufficient to make them clean. They aren't going to get the message we share because our message is not accompanied by an appeal to the Spirit.

"Freedom" doesn't mean that the Lordship message is irrelevant or tolerable. But when we have reminded them of the freedom that comes by the Spirit, then we are leading them to remember the very things we are trying to correct in their theology. In that freedom, there is still room for a correction or two. In Acts they conclude their message of freedom to the churches this way:

"For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." acts 15:28-29

Using this model, we are still free to give the Lordship bunch one or two important things to be working on -- just a couple of ideals in this particular age.

There may be a time where certain members of the lordship group need to be treated like heretics. But so long as the conversation is honest even if heated, we need to be careful to show them how to see our message, which is that we are indeed saved and sanctified through faith.

Looking forward to your reaction, Michele

"We Are Going After The Lost"

"If you call me and I come to Oregon, we are going after the lost."

Wake up!

-- Pastor-elect for Salem First Baptist Church



How can I bear this happiness? The LORD has answered your prayers, and, mine. This man sees the lost of this world, like I do! Here is a paraphrase of the things Pastor Mark said, along with my responses interjected to each thought.

He said that we can't just keep doing church for our own pleasure. It isn't enough to have expository preaching in the pulpit; if that's all we have our doors will still close. We need to get to know the culture and speak the language of the lost around us. Praise God! This church could be on its last generation, unless we're willing to be a little uncomfortable and change our priorities. What does it take to make a church grow, you ask? Babies. Babies. They're not all that great. You have to change diapers, you have to watch tv shows that they want to watch.... When you got married you once had a lot of freedom to do the kinds of things you like to do. But once you committed yourself to the responsibility of being a parent, you gave up a lot of freedom so that you could do things with the children. It's the same with the church.

The kinds of people coming to faith in Christ, today, are not the same kinds of people that came to Christ a generation ago. The people of today receiving salvation, are broken. Broken, like you don't want to know all the things they've been through in their life. We expect that when they accept Christ their lifestyle will shortly turn around, but that's just not practical many times. They might go on having multiple abortions, or sleeping with every guy that comes their way.

Praise God for this message!! Thank you!!

Discipleship today is labor-intensive. These new Christians need help all the time. Expect to get a phone call at 3 AM, or four calls in one day as they face their temptations and need encouragement to not stray. How can we expect them to be put together? She can't act like a mature woman because she has no idea what that looks like. Men have no idea what it means to be a father. They will slowly learn it by prayer and patience and faith in God.

Wake up! Wake up! God has been listening and He is ready to bless you and I. He was listening all along, wasn't He?

The pastor-elect said the culture of today is marked by some clear trends:

1 -- they resent and are suspicious of authority

2 -- they don't believe in absolute truth

So just using scripture is not going to win them.

Praise God for this message!

On average it takes about six months of someone coming to church, hearing about Jesus and experiencing love in relationships, before they will --believe-- and receive the gospel. In fact there is a church in Ogden, Utah where the LDS people are coming. For them, give it an additional two months - eight months on average - of them attending. NOT being called out. Not being noticed, or preached to. Just being there and experiencing it, is how they will be prepared to put their faith in Jesus.

Praise God! Wake up, wake up, God is coming near to the broken hearted, the downtrodden, the forsaken. I love you LORD, for doing this in my sight, in the days of MY life!!

He said it isn't enough to win people by having a friendly church. Friendly churches? They're a dime-a-dozen. What the world is hungry for, is a true friend. There is a difference between being friends and being friendly; a world of difference.

What do you do to save the prostitutes in the inner city? You go out there and you go get 'em. You don't need a build a program; you, go!

Yes, Oh, LORD! Send me, with your grace! I believe in You in this way.

Recalibrating Myself

What have I been trying to say, I don't know?!? but this person, he just said it for me. He is my advocate. I went up and I told him; I said to him, "You? You are my advocate. You said everything that is important to me. Thank you."

All the people in my world? Family. Neighbors. Other religions. Even "carnal" evangelicals. This is what I've been trying to say all along. Free grace theology read Galatians and Romans to me in the way I needed verification. The gospel should be presented as a true gift of God through faith alone.  That was the biggest thing, till now - this is bigger. Why?

Because I think I would rather live my life without being understood or alone according to truth, before, before I would let my church be comfortable turning away from the people I long to see know Christ. I would rather forsake the satisfaction of enjoying my own kind, from even affiliating myself as evangelical, before I would promote another moment of pain and disillusion for those kinds of people who only need a little more effort than what we think they're worth. Too those in the church have frequently dismissed that suggestion for being radical. We, evangelical Christianity and I, we were at odds with each other.

I don't want to choose, God, I always have thought to myself. If I have to choose between those whom You love and the ones who I feel comfortable around, I'll spend the rest of my days with the lost, no regrets.

Doctrine such as the gospel affects who? Mostly it affects me. But everyday I face a world that needs Christ. This is why I felt so little familiarity with evangelical Christianity for this long. Because my friends, my family, my neighbors were alienated by this old (scripture only/first) method of discipleship. And I didn't even have the words to say this, until this week.

Now I know. I will stand up, ready to serve, and bear the infallible scriptures with pride, but now with sanctioned temperance.  It is finally best to share the gospel while expending equal effort toward love and presence.  The Spirit wants to engage hearts, whole persons, whole lives.

LORD, you have found me and knitted me back into the fold!

Relationships that build victims {1}

Focus on Performance

The dynamic: How people act is more important than who they are or what is happening to them on the inside. Love and acceptance are earned by doing certain things. Living up to the standard is what earns acceptance, the result of which is acceptance of behaviors, not people.

Manipulation

The dynamic: Relationships and behaviors are manipulated by very powerful, unspoken rules. These rules are seldom, if ever, said out loud. In fact, when spoken out loud many of them sound ridiculous. No one says out loud, 'What people think about us is more important than what is really happening.' The 'can't talk' rule keeps people quiet by labeling them as the problem if they notice and confront a problem.

Coding is an example of verbal manipulation. When we 'code,' we say something in a crooked manner. Messages are sent through a verbal code that others are supposed to decode. People also code non-verbally with body language - by giving dirty looks, becoming loud or quiet, or leaving the room in a sullen or disconnect attitude.

Triangling is another way to act manipulative in relationships. This simply means to send a message to someone through another person instead of delivering it directly.

Unbalanced Interrelatedness

The dynamic: Members of shame-based systems are either under-involved or over-involved with each other. Another word for under-involvement is neglect. There is no relationship structure in which to learn about behaviors and consequences. Another word for over-involvement is enmeshment. This is when there are no clear boundaries between people. Two lies govern: First, it is your responsibility to make sure everyone else is happy and well and you have the ability to achieve this. Second, everyone else is responsible to make sure you are happy and well and they are capable of doing so. Consequently, everyone is responsible for everyone else, while ironically no one is responsible for himself or herself.



{1} "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing & Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church," by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen. Bethany House Publishers, 1991; pp. 56-57, 58-59

The Offense of the Cross

What should a man do, if, the one for whom he has a critical message, turns aside to his own opinion?

The assumption sometimes is made that if they do not listen, they must therefore be seeking to disobey God in their heart.

Paul had authority to speak for God. He said, "...when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also works effectively in you who believe." 1 thess 2:13. Since then there has not been an equal authority for truth than those words of Paul (and the other apostles). The only way to put our message on par with Paul's is to only quote scripture and not interpret it.... There have been many teachers of the word, but they should not desire it so easily. What if there has been error? And we all know that all of us have said or taught error to those we speak with, at one time or another.

So, how can we tell a true message from a false one?

I don't think it's supposed to be easy. At least not when we use more than just scripture, but also our own words. I think it has to be up to each of us to hear the right in each other when in fact they do have something right.

Then, how we preach should be biblical as well:

"Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, when we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So, affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us. ...that we might not be a burden to any of you...." 1 thess 2:6-9

Just because someone lacks gentleness when sharing their message does not automatically make it false, nor do messages that are gracious and patient mean they are true, conversely, either. But, it is a sobering thought, to remember Paul's instructions here that those who impart a message of truth, should do so with obvious affection and no burden to the listener....

And with all this improvement, the listener still might reject the message. Does this mean they are out of fellowship with God?

Could be. I know that Abraham was 75 when he first obeyed the Lord's voice, and 85 when he was deceived into bearing a child with a maid instead of his wife. Another thirteen years later God said, "You will have a son with your wife Sarah," and Abraham's reply was essentially "What about Ishmael? Isn't he good enough?" Some time later, Sarah heard the promise of God that she would have a son, and laughed, then denied laughing. What a big mess of deception, disobedience, and disbelief... at least in part. But did God abandon the work? God still called him "friend," and Abraham, though having many hiccups, walked with God by faith.

If you or I were looking at Abraham at any one year in his life, like we do our brothers and sisters in Christ, would we have seen all that God was working in him? Probably not. God does not look at the outward things like men do. He looks into the heart.

What if our brother in Christ is experiencing a hiccup? A laugh? A time to wonder "is this good enough?" They hear the Word now, but they can't really process it in a way where we will see the outward change, till much farther along.

In the meantime, should we second-guess their own profession that they're still walking by faith with Christ?

I've seen sensitivity on the part of all, even the beginnings of change according to pleas for righteousness. Even when there has been no movement, on some issues, they have at least clearly listened and considered; twice, three times, seven times....

The offense of the cross is this: there is no quick and easy fix. Obedience may be slow in coming. But, it just does not count if not borne out of faith. That is the Way of Christianity. Jesus fulfilled the law, and we grow in righteousness by faith in that alone.

We certainly do not want to put so much pressure on our brother that they feel obligation to obey us instead of God.

Obligation makes superficial obedience, which, when removed later on, proves general lawlessness.

Meanwhile we are disciples of a God who justifies ungodly people because there is active faith in Christ and what He accomplished at the cross.

We can't expect to have Paul's authority; that was a special, one time thing for those who were actually taught by Jesus Himself. But, God uses us and uses His Word. Should we use Satan-esque language for their disobedience to our message? Paul might have properly deserved the privilege to say such things. I'm not so certain it's right for us. Certainly, where there is error, it is the work of the enemy, but what believer hasn't learned to love studying scripture to put down that very threat? Errors are the work of Satan, to be sure; but perhaps not in the way we think; perhaps not all of the error belongs to the listener, alone.

I just assume that before I'd ever use the finality and negativity of damnation that comes by error, and the predictions of deprivation wrought from making mistakes, I ought to first use that language over myself. The wrong thoughts and deeds I have done. Have I ever erred? Have I ever made a wrong choice? What is the spiritual substance of my errors? Are mine not also the achievement of Satan? Of course they are. Am I as alarmist and public about my former mistakes (or, the mistakes I make today which I will see in twenty years)?

"Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, who passes judgment on someone else, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things." rom 2:1

We all make mistakes but we are also all a work in progress. There are a few people amongst the believers who seek to cavort in a false form of godliness. Those people are the kind who do not honor the Word, take no correction from it, and give no defense for their actions. I'd like to say who I have in mind when I think of such men; if you read this, you're not that kind of guy. Special reservation for these are made for so much more than being stubborn or emotional in seasons.

The offense of the cross is this: we will not all be in conformity, outwardly. We are made blameless by walking with God, alone.


Paul says in Galatians 5:10-16

"I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is. And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love, serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh."

The world hates this message. It is offensive to the human way of being, to say that our righteousness in God should stand on something greater than our knowledge. It is offensive to the human way of being, to suggest that it's okay to not be obedient in all works, today, by claiming we have faith alone. It is offensive to the human way of being, to think that God might handle someone else's life a little differently than what we think we know is right. We all want power. A true leader will point others not to conformity, but to the authority of the Spirit in faith.

Our confidence was never in our own righteousness, our own understanding, anyway. There is nothing to fear when faith leads the way. It will deliver in due time.

Unspoken Rules {1}

In abusive spiritual systems, people's lives are controlled from the outside in by rules, spoken and unspoken. Because [the rules] are not said out loud, you don't find out that they're there until you break them.

For instance, no one at a church gathering would ever say out loud, 'You know we must never disagree with the pastor on his sermons - and if you do you will never be trusted and never be allowed to minister in any capacity in this church.' In this case, the unspoken rule is: Do not disagree with the church authorities - especially the pastor - or your loyalty will be suspect. Rules like this remain unspoken because examining them in the light of mature dialogue would instantly reveal how illogical, unhealthy and anti-Christian they are. So silence becomes the fortress wall of protection, shielding the pastor's power from scrutiny or challenge.

If you did disagree openly or publicly, you would break the silence - and you would quite likely be punished. You will suffer one of two consequences: either neglect (being ignored, overlooked, shunned) or aggressive legalism (questioned, openly censured, asked to leave - in extreme cases cursed).

Ephesians 4:25 says:

"Therefore, laying aside falsehood, speak truth, each one of you, with his neighbor, for we are members of one another."

The 'Can't Talk' Rule

If you speak about the problem out loud, you are the problem. In some way you must be silenced or eliminated.

Those who speak up are most often told, "You were angry - you didn't confront the matter in a 'loving' way. So it proves you weren't handling the matter in a mature, Christian manner." Or, they say "The problem is not that your boundaries were crossed and violated, the problem is that you talked."

The real problem, however, is that if a Christian who feels violated stops talking, then the perpetrator will never be held accountable for his behavior.

In abusive spiritual systems, there exists a "pretend peace" -- what the prophet Jeremiah decried, saying, "The prophets say 'peace, peace,' when there is none." If what unites us is our pretending to agree, then we have nothing more than pretend peace and unity, with undercurrents of tension and backbiting.

Leaders are more accountable because of their position of authority - not less accountable. Why? Because if you are a leader people are following you, behaving the way you do. You are spiritually producing after your own kind. What are you reproducing?



{1} "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing & Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church," by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen. Bethany House Publishers, 1991; pp. 67-69

Spiritual Abuse is Not New {1}

Is there such a thing as spiritual abuse?
Are we making a big deal out of nothing?

It is far-reaching and it can be as wounding as other forms of abuse. If you're a counselor, you may balk at that, and we don't mean to minimize sexual, physical or emotional abuse, which certainly leave people with serious wounds. Spiritual abuse, however, puts people at odds with their best Friend. It causes some people to question, doubt, and even run the other direction from their Source. They see their strongest Advocate as their biggest accuser, their Ally as their enemy.

But on what authority do we base our claim that spiritual abuse does exist? As we reexamined the Bible we suddenly saw a "picture" of two opposing spiritual systems: one that is under the reign of God, intended to bring life and freedom to the people; one a false spiritual system that is under the rule of men, attempting to drive people so that they perform in religious or "pseudo-spiritual" ways, oblivious to the fact that this drains life and steals power.

Jeremiah 5:26 "...for wicked men are found among my people... they set a trap, they catch men." Here is God's lament over the situation: "An appaling and horrible thing has happened in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority" (vv. 30-31).

Notice that the abuse is happening from a place of religious authority. Spiritual abuse can only come from a place of power. It is possible to be abused by someone who doesn't have any true spiritual authority. In Jeremiah 6, we see spiritual neglect:

"For from the least of them even to the greatest of them, every one is greedy for gain, and from the prophet even to the priest everyone deals falsely. And they have healed the brokenness of my people superficially, by saying, 'Peace, peace,' but there is no peace"(vv. 13-14).

How sad! The religious leaders are so self-consumed that they don't have time or energy to minister to people's needs. The people of God are left to make do with the religious leftovers. Today, we might parallel Jeremiah's dilemma by examining our own spiritual setting in which the people of God are so often counseled to ignore their real needs and are offered placebos in the form of easy answers, "try hard" sermons, and the latest "get rich" formulas. As in all unhealthy relationships, in a spiritually abusive system the most important thing is how things look. So the ugly and messy relational process of meeting people's real needs gets sacrificed for a better-looking but false peace.

Many times, "You just need to tell your problem to the Lord," actually means, "Just don't tell it to me," or "Quit saying it out loud."

It takes only a superficial reading of the New Testament to see that Jesus was not at odds with "sinners" -- the prostitutes, lepers and the demonized -- but with the religious system of his day. In Matthew 23, referring to the religious leaders, Jesus says,

"They tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger" (vs 4).

"Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my load is light" (vv. 28-30).

The word "weary" refers to those in the act of working themselves to the point of exhaustion. It is important to see, that despite their ceaseless efforts, the weariness only grows. Trying hard only makes things worse.

There is the neglect of real needs in favor of the "needs" of authority; then legalism replaces rest in God with demands for spiritual performance.

True prophets stand in front of a narrow gate, the one that says "Come to me, all who labor...". You can only fit through this gate if you drop all of your "works" baggage and come through alone. One the other side you find heavenly rest. If you try and go through with your perfect attendance pins and Bible quiz trophies, or any of your own righteousness, you simply won't fit. Jesus is the narrow gate. Religion always teaches that you can get to God by doing something. Your good standing with God depends on what you do. Do the law, perform religion, do it right, look good, try hard. They look like sheep, and they appear to be the safest, most righteous, but they lead people down the wrong path. Jesus plus anything is not Jesus!

"There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst, like a roaring lion tearing the prey. They have devoured lives; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in the midst of her. Her princes within her are like wolves tearing the prey, by shedding blood and destroying lives in order to get dishonest gain" (ezekiel 22:25,27).

It was part of Jesus' mission to expose an abusive system. It's important to remember four things about his confrontations. First, His confrontations landed on those who saw themselves as God's official spokespersons--the most religious, the best performers. Second, Jesus broke the religious rules by confronting those in authority out loud. Third, He was treated as the problem because He said there was a problem. And forth, crowds of broken people rushed to Him because His message offered hope and rest.

Paul's Battle

[Paul had preached the good news in Galatia. Afterward,] he learned that a group of people had followed behind him and spread a teaching that demanded the people be circumcised as an added proof of their spirituality.

"For those who are circumcised do not even keep the law themselves, but they desire to have you circumcised, that they may boast in your flesh" (galatians 3:13).

You see, living with Jesus as your only source of life and acceptance is a confrontation to those who seek God's approval on the basis of their own religious behavior.

This, then, will explain the pressure you feel to perform religious behaviors in spiritually abusive contexts. If you [obey their message],

1] it will make them look good
2] their self-righteousness will escape the scrutiny of the cross of Christ as the only means to God's favor
3] it will allow them to examine you instead of themselves
4] they will be able to boast in or gain a sense of validation from your religious performance

And it's all cloaked in the language of being holy and helping others to live holy lives.

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ" (Galatians 1:6-7).

In other words, those who are "disturbing" you are urging you to commit treason. Paul took it very seriously when someone replaced the spiritual life of grace and rest with a life of imposed works.

In 1 Timothy 6:5 he warns that these erring teachers "suppose that godliness is a means of gain." They act godly not because they are godly, but to gain something. Have you ever met a contented legalist, a truly restful religious "performer"? No such person.

In Titus 1:9-10 Paul says:

"An overseer must hold fast to the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families."

Leaders are given to the church to protect the flock from legalists who push religious performance as the means to right standing or favor with God. Paul tells us that these rebellious men must be silenced.

Noticing a problem does not make you the problem. Remember, Paul urged the Ephesians to "be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock." (acts 20:28)

We believe that all of us, as Christians, need to be on guard - not only against specific leaders and systems that throw their spiritual weight around, but against the subtle use of "formulas" and doctrines that are so often used to press good people of the faith into conformity with a religious system instead of conformity to Christ.



{1} "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing & Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church," by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen. Bethany House Publishers, 1991; pp. 29-32, 35-39

Is This Abuse?

Is "recognizing spiritual abuse" part of the training for pastorship while at seminary? Have you ever heard of the term "spiritual abuse?" I don't know. I don't know what the awareness is, out there.

I thought this material is timely. The theme of the upcoming free grace conference is "Building a Grace-Driven Church." Meanwhile even I am engaged in building a friendship with a fellow blogger who, like me, is going to great effort, with considerable achievement I might add, to be brought fuller awareness of unhealthy relationships in the body of Christ. What's more, calvinist evangelical Christianity has made many disciples less secure and more fearful. Their traditional philosophy on intra-church relationships, is our inheritance. It will be the status-quo till the day we look intentionally and purposefully into the face of our own conduct amongst other Christians. Grace ought to set us free from fear and insecurity. Doctrinally--we get it. I want to take it into the practical realm. I hope that this book, like a counselor in the faith, might bring structure and peace to our relationships, beginning with myself. I have failed to obey healthy relational boundaries, from time to time. As I realize my wrongs, I will confess and ask to be forgiven.

What you read below is taken from the book "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse," by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen {1}. In a few days' time I hope to be able to share the essence of this book's most helpful punchlines. But for now, let me attempt to immerse the reader in this topic:

(portions taken from) CHAPTER ONE -- "Help Me..."

Jeri sat in the office of a Christian counselor, explaining that she felt desperate, and felt like she was going crazy. "Either that," she said dryly, "or I'm on the verge of a major breakthrough in my spiritual growth."

"Those are two big opposites," the counselor noted. "How did you come to that conclusion?"

"Well," she began, choking up, "I went to my pastor a few months ago because I was feeling depressed a lot. He pegged the root problem right away, but I can't seem to do anything about it."

"Root problem..." the counselor repeated. "What was that?"

Jeri looked down at her shoe tops. "I guess I would have to say the problem is, well, me. My pastor says I'm in rebellion against God."

What unfolded was an unfortunate, and all too common, case history: Jeri's church teaches that Scripture is God's Word, the standard by which we must live. But they use it as a measure by which we gain acceptance with God rather than as a guide for living. Therefore, when she asked her pastor for help with her depression, she was given a "prescription" of praise Scriptures to memorize and repeat over and over. This, she was told, would get her mind off herself and onto God. The depression would lift when she got over her sinful self-centeredness.

Jeri had tried what the pastor suggested, but her depression didn't lift, and this raised some questions. She noted that there was a history of depression among the women in her family, and that she was presently experiencing some physical problems. Moreover, she confided to her pastor that she was struggling in her relationship with her husband, because he shrugged off responsibilities with their two teenagers who were beginning to get into trouble.

"How did he respond when you said his suggestion didn't help?"

"That's when he dropped the bomb on me," Jeri said.

The counselor did not fail to notice her choice of metaphor--the devastation Jeri was trying to portray--and asked, "What sort of 'bomb'?"

The pastor had told her, "The fact that you won't accept my counsel without raising all these objections and other possibilities was the major indication to me, Jeri, that your root problem is spiritual, not physical or emotional. When you talked about arguing with your husband, rather than submitting to him and trusting God, that confirmed it." He concluded that the other problems--emotional depression, physical illness, a troubled marriage and teenagers in turmoil--were the result of her inability to submit fully to God and His Word.

Jeri had tried to object. "I told him I felt condemned. That I felt I needed some other kind of help."

"What happened?" the counselor prompted.

"That made it worse. My pastor just smiled and said I wasn't willing to accept his counsel--so that proved he was right. That's when he used the 'R' word on me. He said, 'Jeri, you need to repent of your rebellion against God. Then all these minor problems will be taken care of.'"

. . .

Jeri never noticed that she was not receiving help, which is what she was hoping for. Instead, her spiritual position before God was being questioned and, it would appear, judged.

At the bottom of this sad, painful encounter lies perhaps the subtlest dynamic: Jeri questioned an authority who considered himself above questioning, perhaps even above error.

. . .

In a word, Jeri was manipulated. ...Jeri asked an honest question and he "pulled rank." ... What does this attitude reveal? It reveals that the pastor was, at least in this encounter, not functioning in a caring position for Jeri's benefit, though she needed him. On the contrary, it appears she was supposed to affirm and bolster him by agreeing, regardless of how she felt and whether or not his assessment of her was accurate. Upholding his position of authority was what mattered most.

What is Spiritual Abuse?

Spiritual abuse can occur when a leader uses his or her spiritual position to control or dominate another person. It often involves overriding the feelings and opinions of another, without regard to what will result in the other person's state of living, emotions or spiritual well-being.

Spiritual abuse can also occur when spirituality is used to make others live up to a "spiritual standard." This promotes external "spiritual performance," also without regard to an individual's actual well-being, or is used as a means of "proving" a person's spirituality.

...Spiritual abuse can be heaped upon leaders as well as followers. [The phenomenon leaves individuals of any position] bearing a weight of guilt, judgment or condemnation, and confusion about their worth and standing as a Christian.

Is "Abuse" Too Strong a Word?

It's possible to become so determined to defend a spiritual place of authority, a doctrine or a way of doing things that you wound and abuse anyone who questions, disagrees, or doesn't "behave" spiritually the way you want them to. There are spiritual systems in which what people think, how they feel and what they need or want does not matter. People's needs go unmet. In these systems, the members are there to meet the needs of the leaders: needs for power, importance, intimacy, value--really, self-related needs. These leaders attempt to find fulfillment through the religious performance of the very people whom they are there to serve and build. This is an inversion in the body of Christ. It is spiritual abuse.

This is Not a Witch-Hunt

[This phenomenon] is not confined to cults but actually happening (sad to say) in the body of Christ. It's also important for you to understand this: Any one of us can forget about the empowering grace by which we're to live the Christian life, and to act or speak in a way that spiritually abuses others. ...We are not suggesting that anyone start a "witch hunt" to seek and destroy abusers.

-- It is not abusive for a spiritual leader to make final decisions using her best judgment, ...choosing to go against your opinion.

-- It is not abusive when a Christian confronts another Christian because of sin, wrongdoing or even honest mistakes that must be corrected. The objective, of course, is not to shame or discredit, but to heal, save and restore.

-- It is not abusive when a person in ministry or leadership is asked to step down because of emotional, physical, mental or spiritual problems. The goal, however, must be on helping the individual to receive help, so as to eventually return to their office or position if that is the best action.

-- It is not spiritually abusive or inappropriate to disagree, whether on doctrines or other issues, even in public. Keep in mind, though, that it is always crucial to maintain respect and never to belittle or attack.

-- It is not abusive to hold to certain standards of group conduct. It becomes abusive when others are spiritually degraded or shamed because they do not maintain the same convictions.

-- A strong leader is not automatically abusive because he or she is strong and decisive.

-- A person can be both a victim and a perpetrator at the same time.



{1} "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing & Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church," by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen. Bethany House Publishers, 1991; pp. 17-22, 24

A Sad But Firm Introduction

Tomorrow I plan to begin delving into the nature of what has been tagged "spiritual abuse."

I have re-written and re-written these following paragraphs. It has been difficult to make typical opening remarks. Any essay in its introduction makes known the purpose for writing. But how can I be clear, without also giving away hard, cold facts? If I use a name, or cite specific events, the liberty of any and all to find themselves in the 'spiritual abuse' material, as moved, provoked, etc., is stolen. In fact, I become nearer to the very thing I claim to oppose-the abuser-when I do not allow God's Spirit to convict in the void created by non-condescension.

So, while It is regrettably tempting to point fingers, I just hope that God will change me. I still go toward accusations, in my heart all the time. But what am I saving these perpetrators to, assuming I did have a helpful effect? -- A code of ethics? A new philosophy on how to do apologetics? I like that. But no. That's not good enough. In fact, compared to the greater achievement of letting them have the grace to walk and talk to God without my soundbytes, all I can say is this: "What profit a man if he gains the whole world but along the way loses his very soul?" If I want those who oppress to extend grace instead, they must first dwell right here and now within grace. That grace will never practically arrive in their life if they are not saturated in it by me and others too. Grace is always more efficient at creating true lovingkindness, than a list of rules or code of behaviors could ever be. Our Heavenly Father disciplines true sons. So how can silence ever feel like a mistake?

I only want to find myself in this material. Where I've been injured, where I've caused pain. That should be plenty to fill the mental plate....

Silence and grace isn't a mistake... unless the problem is not yet addressed. Let me identify it now, once and hopefully nevermore. This topic is pertinent because some have oppressed many in the free grace community, whom I can generally categorize as "the heretic labelers." I have said three times behind closed doors that the heretic labelers are not unlike in kind of an abusive husband. They are ultimatum-wielding and performance-demanding, while the bulk of free grace is like the wife, cowering and speechless, in shock.
I want to ask: "Is this abuse?" Perhaps I am grossly mistaken, and if that's true then I am glad! Through the years of my own life I've been drawn beyond my preference into four cults to date (and one more volitionally), so, when I experienced poor relationships firsthand here in free grace I was in real time also ultra-aware of the larger picture. Having been around the block, what I perceive as the familiar pattern of abuse is just not sucking me in like it used to. They may quickly disparage the woman-messenger who stands up for herself. But I don't care. You all know my passion is to illuminate freedom in Christ to the non-mainstream christian sects. Being cued in on abuse, therefore, how could I hold myself back from saying something?

There are two secular models to cure the abusive. Some people say... that it can work to cure the abuse by giving in to every one of their demands and expectations and attempt to be flawless. I suppose that some might come to a point where they see how far off-base their gratifications can take a relationship, and then repent? But I've never thought that model really works. Rather I think the opposite model works, and it has achieved a lot of wellness in some former experiences. This is the one where the abused individual mimics the behavior of the abuser. Threats, demands, self-gratification, explosive anger, authoritarian attitude in all things, and unexpected exposure to the watching world.

But Christ keeps bidding me to think anew about a Godly method to both cure with deadpan truth, and yet save to faith and grace. I don't think I really need to go all that far. The fact that I just don't take it sitting down, is probably enough. The fact that I'm just not afraid, is plenty. I'll leave out the temper and mimicking and the exposure. I want the reconciliation of my brother, and to go back to being happily feminine (silent and sacrificing, if you read my blog I love this character) and teachable in this community. My usefulness is wearing down, being limited to a small variety of topics, this perhaps being a last unveiling.

I don't get it. If the free grace community puts up with the personality of one person, as the general m. o. of an abuser, then why can't there be equality with a little larger reservation at the table for one more personality, being the general m. o. of a survivor? You call that "unprofessional." And you're right. I keep trying to remember the LORD, and his personality. I wanna get there, but not without my brother.

The most important thing I can say is this: I believe that the perpetrators of abuse have undiscovered of yet been the victim of spiritual authority's neglect or abuse perhaps many, many times. I also am convinced that they have no awareness or otherwise no tools by which to grow and be better. I have no idea if I'm right. My heart bleeds. I too, as you can see in my narrative thus far, know how to be abusive. I've done it too many times to want to remember though generally not with intention to hurt, and therein lies my greatest hope that others don't mean ill either. I've made a couple serious lapses into unhealthiness while interacting in free grace. One time almost cost me a friendship.

Looking forward to building brotherly bonds in righteous relationships....

"Let's be clear again: Not all Christian leaders are abusive, nor are all spiritual systems abusive. It's also possible that healthy leaders and spiritual systems can sometimes, unintentionally, treat people in hurtful ways. There is no such thing as a perfect family or church where people don't ever get hurt. But the difference between an abusive and a non-abusive system is that while hurtful behaviors might happen in both, it is not permissible to talk about problems, hurts and abuses in the abusive system. Hence, there is no healing and restoration after the wound has occurred, and the victim is made to feel at fault for questioning or pointing out the problem." {1}



{1} "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse: Recognizing & Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church," by David Johnson and Jeff Van Vonderen. Bethany House Publishers, 1991; pg. 32

"Swallow a Camel"

Over at Lou's blog he recently asked me to make clear my position on whether or not it is possible for a man to be saved apart from the knowledge of what Jesus did on the cross. He asked:

Do you agree with the heretical view of Crossless extremists that the lost can be saved no matter what misconception he/she holds about Jesus?

There are lots of angles in this conversation that I don't yet know how to answer. But I just want to inquire, where is the application of John 9 in our world in this age?

Where are these people? Where are the "blind" men?

At My LDS Stuff we are talking in a couple of threads upon the differences in beliefs between me and a Lutheran and the LDS. The Lutheran ("Echo") said to the group:

I think what it all boils down to in the end is that we each need to learn who exactly is this Jesus Christ and what exactly has he done. I think all correct doctrine will naturally follow if only we can get those two things correct. And vice versa, all false doctrine is caused by our not getting something right in those 2 things.

Faith(trust) in Jesus is only Rock Solid when we understand these two things right. When we understand them wrong, even a little bit, faith is in jepardy because we are not trusting (putting faith in) the Jesus of scriptures. Instead we have put all or part of our faith (trust) in something that isn't true about Jesus. And in doing that, it has the potential to be lethal to faith. In fact it isn't faith at all. John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

Perhaps the applied "blind men" in our world are here? Perhaps some of them are LDS. Here is what I wrote:

I agree with the overall point of what you are saying. My thought though, is this:

It does not need to be exact. That's legalism, that's being like a Pharisee.

I agree that the only way the LDS will be dissatisfied with their traditions and heritage and push toward finding eternal life is if they hear the message about what Jesus did and who He was, and then believe in it and receive the Holy Spirit which is the hub for hearing scripture and growing in a way that is pleasing in God's sight.

The problem with this is that they have already heard about Jesus and what He did. That being in their own services. And yet still some of them have not received the Holy Spirit. Getting exact upon the scriptures could have helped them toward receiving the Spirit. Unfortunately, because we ended up bible bashing them with those extra, biblical emphases, we've actually hardened them against knowing Him as we desire, not softened them. So what is there left to do in this kind of situation, which I bet is where most evangelicals have reached with nearly any LDS person?

We've just got to point them to faith. You know, trust, assurance, conviction, and reliance on God. That is what is said to save, anyway. Jesus did not command an exact doctrine of Himself as prerequisite. Look at John 9.

Do you see the beauty in Jesus' method? True experience of God causes the correct (more or less) doctrine. At least it sure can work that way; experiencing the presence of God causes fidelity to truth.

The way Jesus quietly sets his hand upon the head of that man after they have their intercourse... that's the way I see so many LDS people. "But wisdom is proved right by what becomes of it."

Have you heard, Echo, the testimony of some of the LDS people here, of their prayers and assurance of God's love?

"The evangelical weakness"

Okay so this is not going to be a very popular blog series. I'll unabashedly admit that I'm slow in the head like all the other evangelicals who are in love with the Word of God. But, nearly as much as I am in love with truth, I am passionate... about this.

As I have been saying in the last month around this blog and over at Lou Martuneac's blog, it takes someone from outside your circle to show you your blind spots. It's nifty to be able to trust someone else to do that sort of thing for you. I'm thinking of asking "MaioCampo" to help throw some food for thought this way. He may have more than one reason to not want to receive attention for this, but if he does then at least it won't be me trying to remember and articulate the very things I am in the process of digesting for myself. Some people might think it's ludicrous to ask a Latter Day Saint to provide any instruction for us in issues of religion, but, isn't that the very heart of "the weakness"?

I have at least a couple ideas that need to get put down on paper. Usually I do things as inspiration gives me the ability to articulate, so, so far no set schedule. In the meantime, here are a list of blog entries I have already published regarding "the evangelical weakness":

Is this important? -- a response based on Jeff Lindsay's LDS blog entry on evangelical evangelism.

Swindoll's Sermon -- a response to a sermon on sharing faith, given by a preacher associated with free grace, before I was even aware.

Fundamentalist evangelical: some thoughts -- a blog entry on reasoning through the two different philosophies of evangelism.

The harvest is plenty? -- a blog entry on thinking outside of the box about a silent, truthless pre-work in preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"But, they're not like us!" -- a blog entry of my very own Pastor Greg's (free grace) sermon on ridding ourselves of our prejudices when it comes to sharing the Word with the world.

I was a little afraid to think about expounding on this topic, but, it's evident I already have been doing so.

Is this important?

I have been critical of the current methodology in proselytizing among those who are like me -- evangelicals. Is the criticism overdone? I don't know. I can admit that I have tended to label it as everyone's problem, but I am sure there are many who do it right. I myself am most known for doing it wrong. I've made a lot of mistakes. From those experiences, I want to do what I can to help those who are most like me in avoiding the same.

Let me ask you: how do you proselytize groups such as the LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses?

Is your answer "Oh; the LDS? Well, they have a unique set of difficulties and we really shouldn't get involved."

That's one answer I hear often. The other? To go and tell them what we know is the truth. A good description of the problems arising from usual methodologies can be found at Jeff Lindsay's blogsite in the post titled "How Can Anyone be so Stupid?", which was the recent topic of a thread at a LDS forum.

Feel free to read along if you're interested.

Swindoll's Sermon

I was listening to Chuck Swindoll's radio sermon last night. He was preaching part two in a series called Tough grace in difficult places. I just caught the end of it, but his message was to challenge us to be good neighbors. He said we ought to treat everyone the same regadless of religion, race, political party, income, etc. -- "can you do that?"

There was a young man he hadn't seen in some time who caught him up on his life. He had been living with a woman for a couple of years whom he had no intention to marry. Swindoll replied, "oh really?" That was the end of his reaction. They continued to have a good time the rest of their time together. Swindoll said "One day, that grace is going to pay off. And even if it doesn't, it always pays off. Is it any surprise that someone who doesn't know Christ is living against the standards of scripture? Who among us except Christians even have the power to live righteously, so, why are we surprised? Just think: When he confessed that to me I could have gasped indignation and said 'Don't you know what this book says?!?' But no one died and appointed me judge. He asked us not to judge others, and to let Him go about His work. That goes for people inside the church, and those who are in approach of it. Can we refrain from damaging the good name of Christ, and extend a little patience, a little mercy, to others who aren't living in the way we think they ought to, living in the way we would like them to?" [paraphrased]

Perfect. That's a really special message to come out of an evangelical mouth. This is the tightrope God is calling evangelicals to: not to cease preaching, teaching and rebuke, but, to balance it out and give it its place to work good when bound in the context of love. Love means peace: acceptance and being ultimately comfortable with the other person.

I can hear even in my own mind the scriptures, and they seem to be pleading for their moment to depart my lips. I'd rather let someone squirm with the Word of God alone in their own chamber than see myself their equal in Christ and have fellowship with them. Do you see how the Word is used as a mechanism to assess and drug ourselves righteous, and to make ourselves experts? The Word is often temptingly used as a wall to protect the supposed sanctity of our own lives.

What a lie this is, what an effort it is to try and overcome. I've been dealing with it in a real-life example for a few months, and, even though I preach this, it is so much easier said than done.

fundamentalist evangelical: some thoughts

In my mind I can hear the voice of the fundamentalist, making me feel guilty as I relate to the world in politics and in sharing my faith. The dialogue goes a little like this:

Fundy: "Don't you believe in preaching the gospel in season and out of season?"

Sanc: "Yes, the gospel shouldn't submit to the expectation of its audience. That doesn't mean that our voice should always dominate."

Fundy: "But Paul said, 'Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!' Isn't it our job to take the Word into every corner of the world so that they might accept the truth?"

Sanc: "Yes, but in the book of Acts we see how he was led along to places that were opened by God to the gospel, and away from those where it was not time to share. In the same way the sharing of the gospel can only be done Spiritually."

Fundy: "Well, don't you believe that when Jesus returns 'Every knee will bow, and every tongue confess that He is LORD'? There is no more important message in the world than that to accept Christ."

Sanc: "Absolutely. Even at that time, not all will be believers. Though it is not his desire that any will reject the gospel, it is His plan. The book of Revelation tells us the ending, and we don't have to guess. God is going to glorify Himself in those who believe and in those who do not believe. We are heartbroken, but that is something God feels too."

I hear the voice of those who are oppressed by evangelical Christianity, who have heard its sermons given over and over to the point where they are no longer interested in listening. They have worn others down because they cannot accept their answer of "no thanks." They cry "You don't understand how great a gift you reject!" "I can't leave you alone till you at least see how wrong your beliefs are, and how you are a sinner before God."

This is not good news at all.