New Calvinism’s Dirty Little Secret: How They Practice “Redemptive” Church Discipline
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not crazy about how most churches practice church discipline to begin with; for example, I don’t think Matthew 18:15-35 is a grid for church discipline—I think it’s a grid for resolving conflict among Christians. I also think the term is unbiblical as well; there is self discipline in the Bible, and there is God’s discipline, but there is no discipline practiced by the church. The church is to put certain procedures into motion that will pave the way for God to discipline, but the church does not perform the discipline. It’s an important distinction.
Nevertheless, churches need to be proactive in a biblical way in regard to resolving conflict and confronting sin. But the best kept secret of the New Calvinist movement (Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology, hereafter NCGSS) is its creepy, cultish way of practicing what they call “redemptive church discipline” (hereafter RCD). RCD is mostly practiced by Reformed elders in Baptist circles where local churches are not accountable to higher authorities. However, that will change as church hierarchies continue to show a lack of intestinal fortitude in regard to standing up against the big names of New Calvinism (hereafter NC).
It all begins with what is becoming clearer to me as I understand more, and more about this movement—everything is about an extreme form of justification, ie., being justified by Christ and His works alone. You would think that it would be impossible to take that belief to an extreme, but NC certainly does. Whether they will admit it or not, among other extremes, they teach that our present obedience was imputed to us by Christ in His atonement and presently performed by Him, and not us. They call this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” They often speak of the necessity that Christ lived a perfect life while here in the flesh so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to us along with a legal declaration of righteousness. So, other than His death on the cross (what they call His “passive” obedience) and His resurrection being efficacious for the atonement—His perfect life (“active” obedience) is not assumed by virtue of the fact that He is Christ, and was also needed so that obedience could be imputed to us as well.
However, while pounding that point home, when you ask them if Christ’s obedience is still active, you get the deer in the headlight look. Why? Because if they say “yes” (and trust me, according to their doctrine, the answer is “yes”), that can only mean that He is presently obeying in our place. If you pay attention, you can see hints of this in their unguarded statements. In an informal document written by Jon Zens that recounts his conversations with Robert Brinsmead, the subject at hand was “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” A reader coined a phrase yesterday that may be apt: “imputed sanctification.”
This extreme view of justification also leads NC to deny the centrality of the Father and the new birth. Logical conclusions also point to unorthodox teachings such as daily justification, or the need to be resaved on a continual bases. This blog is replete with quotes that affirm these accusations.
It therfore stands to reason that church discipline must concern justification as well. The problem this poses for NC is the fact that orthodox church discipline calls for obedience on the part of the believer—which shifts the “emphasis to the believer and away from Christ” (what they call an erroneous subjective justification rather than an objective justification). Therefore, they had to come up with a church discipline that focuses away from demands upon the Christian and implements the works of Christ instead. Hence, “redemptive” church discipline.
How does it work? First, the sin really isn’t the issue per se. Elders may announce to any parishioner at any time that they have been placed into the process of RCD. In RCD, the “steps” are not the Matthew 18 steps that could lead to disfellowship, rather, the steps are part of the process of which you are either in or out of—via elder announcement. If the elders perceive that you have a cooperation or colaboring view of sanctification, you can be placed into the process to correct your view of redemption—that’s why they call it RDC. Therefore, a member could find him/herself in the process because of a theological discussion with an elder, and in fact, this has happened. Once in the process the parishioner is not free to vacate his membership until the elders determine “fruit meet for repentance.” The process can move from step to step (supposedly per Matthew 18) within the process if the individual in the process shows no acclimation to the “proper” view of redemption. Eventually, no movement in the desired direction (months, or even years later) can lead to the fourth and final step—disfellowship.
Those who try to leave that particular church in the midst of the process are also disfellowshipped—the congregation naturally assumes this happened because the member attempted to vacate membership before an offended party, or those confronting sin could confront him in a second or third step with witnesses in a traditional church discipline. In other words, parishioners in NC churches usually don’t know that their elders are practicing this kind of discipline, but rather assume the more traditional practice. Worse yet, the congregation also assumes sin of the baser sort as the reason for the excommunication.
Secondly, any kind of sin can be cause for RCD because sin really isn’t the issue; the sin is merely the result of the person’s view of redemption—fix his/her’s view of redemption, and Jesus will start obeying for them—problem solved. Furthermore, since redemption is the goal, elders who practice RCD can also (so they think) bring non-members into the process because the church has a mandate from Christ to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, a parishioner who pretends to be converted to NCGSS in order to escape a church without being disfellowshipped can still be excommunicated if they tattle on the elders to existing members after they leave. In fact, this has happened.
Lastly, this puts counselees in a very precarious situation. Many churches who are NANC certified practice RCD. Basically, counselees can find themselves held hostage at a church via threat of public humiliation. This ministry is aware of many testimonies accordingly: people being placed in RDC for tithing issues, priority issues—you name it, while discussion of this form of discipline is nowhere to found. A more vile consideration is marriage counseling where one spouse accepts Gospel Sanctification and the other spouse doesn’t—resulting in the conclusion that it is a mixed marriage (believer/unbeliever). This of course, puts the marriage in a very dangerous circumstance.
Would proponents of NC like to deny this? Well then, simply answer this question: “Why do you call it “redemptive” church discipline? Isn’t the word, “redemption” a little strong when we are talking about reconciliation? Please explain, and for once without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
I would be interested in some documentation of your claim that proponents of NC or NCT believe that Christ’s obedience [passive (preceptive) or active (penal) is ongoing. Of course, it is clear he has not now become disobedient, but the obedience that the Father imputes to the believer in justifying him, was an obedience rendered during the period of his humiliation.
LikeLike
Randy,
Didn’t forget you–been swamped–will get you the info tomorrow,
paul
LikeLike
Randy,
As you might suspect, proponents of NC just don’t come right out and say that Christ obeys for us. They know they would be rejected out of hand. But they can’t / won’t answer the question as to whether Christ’s obedience is still active for sanctification or not. However, though you have to look hard and die the death of a thousand cuts–you can eventually get the goods.
I think Arms makes the point in his book review of How People Change that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that Paul Tripp is teaching that Christ obeys in our place: http://wp.me/pmd7S-EC
Also, please note this post on TGC http://goo.gl/J9jWv
In the following comment, a reader honestly explains how NC/GS works–we can’t obey–we can only repent–leading to a re-justification. So, if we can’t obey, who is obeying?:
Bruce Russell
May 4, 2010 at 11:02 am
It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!
And you may consider this:
Chad Richard Bresson
May 3, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.[end quote]
How would Bresson (one of the Golden Boys of NCT and author of “Vossed World” answer my active obedience question? If he says yes, he’s admitting that he believes Christ obeys in our place, If he says no, then what is the significance of his point?
I will keep your question in mind and add to this from time to time as I had a little trouble finding it again.
LikeLike
Surely, you are aware that most of what Paul writes in Romans 6 is in the indicative and concerns what Christ has accomplished for us relative to sanctification. We are not told to die to sin and to what we were prior to conversion, but that, in Christ, we have died to sin and to the old man. It is based on that reality that we are exhorted to “count ourselves dead indeed unto sin and alive unto God in Christ Jesus.” I don’t know how you can get around the fact that our sanctification as well as our justification has been accomplished by the redeeming work of Christ. That does not mean we are passive in the matter of sanctification, but it does mean that both works were were accomplished in his obedience.
LikeLike
Randy,
I guess I pulled my articles on the whole indicative/imperative thing because I address that issue in my forthcoming book, but I will cite that portion here:
[start] Yet another biblical literary scheme that does extreme violence to this argument, is the necessary implementation of a command (imperative) in order to “experience” the indicative. Dennis McCallum’s explanation of this is barely less than perfect:
“The New Testament also teaches that, although the imperatives are based upon the indicatives, in many cases the experience of the indicatives is dependent upon our willingness to respond to the imperatives by faith. In other words, if I fail to act in faith based on what God has commanded, I may not experience the reality of my position in Christ. Of course my position is no less real, but I may not experience it in the way God wants me to.” This is exactly what Peter is saying in 2Peter 1:3-15.
Furthermore, we have reversed indicative/imperatives throughout Scripture (imperative>indicative) where the implementation of the command or the yielding to the warning determines the indicative work of God:
“For if you forgive men when they sin against you (Imp.), your heavenly Father will also forgive you (Ind.). But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins”(Matthew 6:14,15).
“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him (Imp.), so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins”[Ind.](Mark 11:25). These examples are just as numerous in Scripture as the other.
Another interesting study is God’s promise of rewards (indicative) in response to performing in regard to behavior (imperative):
“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?” (Matthew 5:46).
“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:6).
“When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:16-18). “He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward” (Hebrews 11:26).
LikeLike
My subjective response to what God has objectively accomplished does not in any way affect the reality of that accomplishment. It is true we have a responsibility to live in the light of what God has accomplished in Christ, but God has pledged to us that if we are truly in Christ, sin will not have dominion over us because we are not under law but under grace. Ultimately, God will apply to us everything Christ died to accomplish for us.
Re: forgiving our brother in order to receive God’s forgiveness, Jesus clearly means that God is not going to forgive us and maintain fellowship with us if we refuse to forgive our brother and maintain fellowship with him. I am not sure what you think that has to do with the issue at hand. If you are in any way suggesting that God will reward us based with everlasting life based on our forgiving others, loving others who hate us, praying in secret, suffering reproach etc. then you don’t understand the Bible’s clear teaching re: justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. If it is an issue of whether we must obey Christ or not in the process of sanctification, I don’t think you could find anyone among those you seem so anxious to excoriate who would deny that we must obey Christ in that process. If they do deny such clearly revealed truth, the sheep will not hear them anyway.
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
“If it is an issue of whether we must obey Christ or not in the process of sanctification, I don’t think you could find anyone among those you seem so anxious to excoriate who would deny that we must obey Christ in that process. If they do deny such clearly revealed truth, the sheep will not hear them anyway.”
Randy–that’s exactly what they all teach, and obviously, their following is huge. How can one obey when you are spiritually dead? Again, I refer you to the Donn Arms review of HPC. Faith and “deep repentance” leads to “new obedience,” ie., Christ obeys for us. Horton said it straight-up in “Christless Chrsitianity”–like unbelievers, Christians only receive life when we visit the gospel “afresh.”
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
OK I read Arms’ review. If the statements he cited are saying in context what they seem to be saying then we can just safely ignore what they said. May such crazy things have been written. We don’t have to get our shorts in a knot every time someone says or writes something stupid. So far, all I have seen from your statements is guilt by association. I need to see a statement from a leading NC theologian or from MacArthur, Piper, etc. affirming some of the stuff you have alleged. I have spoken on the same platform over the years with many people with whom I disagreed. That doesn’t mean I agreed with them. Show me a statement in which Reisinger, Long, Zens, Zaspel or some other leading light in the NCT movement says we don’t need to obey Christ in the process of sanctification and I will begin to get concerned.
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
Have to go for now–but I will visit your blog and read these other responses as well. I am interested in what your take is on the Arms article. I liked your four clarification questions.
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
You might be interested in this post I made where I show John Calvin rejected “Double Imputation” (i.e. Imputation of Christ’s Active Obediene). Here is the link. I welcome any comments.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Paul's Passing Thoughts.
LikeLike