Spiritual and Sexual Abuse in the Church: I Can See Clearly Now
In preparation for the second volume of The Truth About New Calvinism and The Reformation Myth, I am reading a hefty amount of material written by Socrates and Plato. Though Socrates was obviously a very annoying person, reading his writings is a real eye-opener in regard to how the first philosophical academy of the western world shapes our present-day thinking from some twenty-five hundred years ago. His very same bases of thought, attitude, and communication techniques that can be seen today are eerily exact—not just similar—exact.
Volume one of TTANC focused on the roots and doctrine of the present-day New Calvinist movement. In preparation for volume two, I dined with church historian John Immel who pointed me to the fact that New Calvinists hold to true Reformation doctrine. Immel then suggested that I research the connections between the Reformers and Augustine, and then Augustine’s connections to Plato. He also provided some clues as to what he believes the connections are. Immel is not one who desires to put ideas in people’s minds; he is more or less a modern-day herald of the need for people to think for themselves.
Mark that. It’s an element that contributes greatly to spiritual and sexual abuse in the church. People – thinking for themselves = abuse. That’s the first part of the equation, we will add to it later. Lest you think that I am alone in seeing hefty significance and a direct relationship between the Soc./Plato Academy and modern-day behavior, consider what others say. In Harper Magazine’s endorsement of “The Wisdom And Ideas Of Plato” by Eugene Freeman and David Appel, they stated the following: “Now anybody can understand and appreciate the basic thoughts that support our modern life.” Though true, not everybody “appreciate[s]” them. Renowned philosopher Karl Popper blamed 20th century totalitarianism on Plato specifically:
Karl Popper blamed Plato for the rise of totalitarianism in the 20th century, seeing Plato’s philosopher kings, with their dreams of ‘social engineering’ and ‘idealism’, as leading directly to Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler (via Georg Wilhelm, Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx). In addition, Ayatollah Khomeini is said to have been inspired by the Platonic vision of the philosopher king while in Qum in the 1920s when he became interested in Islamic mysticism and Plato’s Republic. As such, it has been speculated that he was inspired by Plato’s philosopher king, and subsequently based elements of his Islamic Republic on it (Wikipedia: online source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king).
Volume 2 of TTANC will trace New Calvinism from its contemporary birth (the Australian Forum:1970), and back to its Reformed roots. It will also lightly survey the Reformation’s philosophical underpinnings that came from the Soc./Plato Academy. However, The Reformation Myth will address these same things in much deeper detail. Both books will address this from three perspectives: history; doctrine; and character.
Immel’s primary concern is spiritual tyranny, but an understanding of church history is critical to understanding what makes spiritual tyranny tick. In my research for TRM, the subject of abuse has become so entangled in the results that I have decided abuse will dominate the “Character” section of the book. The fact that Plato’s philosopher king concept dominates today’s church is inescapable—with the same results following that have always marked this philosophy’s existence throughout history.
Socrates believed that true knowledge could not be obtained through observation of the material. He also believed that truth was eternal, and immutable, and a higher good than the gods. One could only access truth through the mind, or ideas; ie, the nonmaterial. The mind was the conduit to the realm of truth which in essence was god, and like the real God, cannot be fully known. To Socrates, the first step to wisdom was realizing that definitive truth cannot be known, but yet, man had a duty to orchestrate life by the best truth that could be ascertained from the mind. In other words, truth was already in each person, and true education was a rediscovering of information already known. It is unclear to me at this point whether Socrates believed that truth indwells us all in the fullness of the truth cosmos, or indwells each of us to varying degrees.
The method for discovering the truth that is in us, according to Socratism, is to ask ourselves questions. When Socrates taught, the teaching began with a question concerning life, and through a lengthy dialogue of questions and answers, the best solution was drawn from the mind’s connection to pure truth. This entailed three things: hard, certified work; the recognition that we cannot know anything definitively; the belief that truth cannot be known through observation of solid matter; and the belief that the only measure of moralism was in regard to what best served the masses verses the few. His understudy, Plato, later identified these characteristics as belonging to philosopher kings, and believed such should rule over the masses for the betterment of society’s whole. In regard to the moral fitness (which cannot be definitively ascertained anyway) of the philosopher king, it was irrelevant because his knowledge was essential to the society as a whole and his personal life only affected him—not society. Hence, in societies that function by philosopher kings (knowingly [rare] unwittingly, or by default [most often]), the written law is not much more than a strong suggestion in most cases.
Plato divided the ideal society into three parts: philosopher king, soldier, and producer. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out where this all ends up; the soldiers serve the king, and the producers do not understand the basic fundamentals of truth. All–knowing kings + soldiers = you had better know your place + keep your ideas to yourself because you don’t know that you don’t know.
Now enter St. Augustine. Patron saint of the Catholic Church, father of Reformation philosophy/doctrine, and a follower of Plato. Luther was a member of the Augustinian Order, and Calvin quoted him on every (on average) 2.5 pages of his institutes. Augustine was a dyed in the wool Catholic till the end, and revered as its “Doctor of Grace.” No less credit was given to him among the Reformers. Basic Platonist philosophy drawn from Augustine is really what made the Catholic Church and the Reformation tick, with the same results following. The Reformation was really a spat between Rome and the Reformers about who was going to control the ideas.
For all practical purposes, they were two different camps of philosopher kings at war for control of the producers. The primary crux of the argument, if any, was the idea that the Reformers were moral despot philosopher kings verses the decadence of the popish sort. At any rate, this side of the Reformation, the indifferent attitude towards justice, mercy, and freedom of thought is abundantly evident. By and large in today’s church, we don’t have pastors, we have philosopher kings. They are supposedly so paramount to the wellbeing of the church city-state, that concerns over their outrageous behavior should be overlooked for the Platonist good of the whole. Besides, morals, according to Socrates, are not definitive anyway.
Excellent studies that expound on how Augustine integrated Platonism into theology are not difficult to obtain. To cite just a few examples, Socrates’ “truth” became “gospel “; Plato’s two worlds became Spirit and flesh; and much later, Historicism, which was a product of Platonism, became the hermeneutic for interpretation. But in regard to human carnage, Popper’s complaint has become the same in the church. Whether a philosophy is dressed up in Bible verses or not, the results are the same.
In my mind, nothing else can explain the indifference among church leaders regarding the spiritual and sexual abuse now rampant in the church. And what better example than the ABWE/ Donn Ketchum scandal. The ABWE/GARB brain trust first covered for Ketchum for some twenty years and were part of a massive cover-up. Now the same men who perpetrated the cover-up and were directly responsible for putting additional children in harm’s way are honored continuously in GARB circles. One is being honored via a multi-million dollar athletic center that is being named after him. The infamous Jack Hyles was honored with a Bible college that bears his name. Even the formally laudable John MacArthur Jr. is covering for serial sheep abuser CJ Mahaney.
Why? Because they are the philosopher kings. Their higher knowledge leads us through the maze of what’s best for the church as a whole. After all, thousands of souls would be lost without them; so, best that the sexually abused go away quietly for the sake of the bigger picture. And besides, we are all “sinners saved by grace” anyway. In the Platonist vernacular: we are all those who “neither know nor think that [we] know” (Socrates: The Apology).
I’m convinced that the key to getting rid of sexual/spiritual abuse in the church is to totally rethink the organized church that is the breeding ground for the church’s philosopher kings. What is left that is good about the organized church will not stand up against the philosopher kings posing as pastors; so, who needs them?
And let me remind you of who really makes the organized church possible: the producers. I am confident that eventually the producers are going to figure out that they are paying the salaries of those who expect us to offer up our children to the sexual cravings of the philosopher kings.
I have to believe that the whole, “Who are you to judge? Put your money in the plate, buy our books, and keep your mouth shut” routine cannot go on for much longer.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Reading this reminded me of all the young Calvinist pastors I have run into on blogs and out in the world who really believe the Enlightenment was evil. They are teaching people that the Enlightenment elevated man over God.
What a ridiculous and myopic view of history. As with every movement there is good and bad. As if the “divine” kings were better? Ruling Popes were better? Illiteracy was better? State church was better?
I am astonished at how unthinking the Calvinist movement really is. We really need to take a much closer look at what the seminaries are teaching. It is drivel
LikeLike
Lydia,
There needs to be an exodus out of the formal church. MacArthur et al need to go get real jobs.
LikeLike
Thank you for this. I just came across your blog and read this, and I feel like you have just confirmed something I have suspected for a long time — the God of Calvinism is the God of Platonism. But I’ve never got around to studying Plato, so I couldn’t take my speculations very far.
I will be very eager to buy some copies of your book when it comes out — I know a couple of other people who will find this very interesting
LikeLike
Paul,
This is right on. And I can second the notion that Calvinists speak of the Enlightenment as being “against God”, just in the few conversations I have had with old SGM friends. (They are utterly devoted, Paul…a mass exodus will be slower than it needs to be, by the way.) But all you really need to do is study the doctrine to understand that Calvinists would quite naturally be opposed to Enlightenment ideas; and predisposed to gnosticism. This is where the argument ALWAYS boils down: do the pastors (philosopher kings) really need to stand in the stead or do they not? If you are a Calvinist, you must say yes. If you disagree, then you cannot be a Calvinist…at most, you accept perhaps some of their ideas. The idea of Total Depravity is the lynchpin issue. If one truly believes in the concept of TD as the Calvinists preach it, then one must accept that a pastor must stand in the stead to be his/her rational mind FOR him/her. If you cannot believe freely that God is good and that you can act (of your own volition) to accept his free gift of grace, then you cannot recognize ANY good, on your own, either before or after salvation. The Holy Spirit must act for you (thus, really, the Holy Spirit is merely acting through you, on His own behalf, which is ludicrous and contradictory…but, by doctrinal definition, Calvinists have zero problem with the sum of their doctrine being nothing but a pile of big fat contradictions), and in the areas where a human “leader” is called for in scripture, as the Calvinists interpret it, a “divinely enlightened” pastor (philosopher king) is appointed tell you what to think and do.
So, the pastors are the philosopher kings. I wonder when we will see the manifestation of the “soldiers” in the true sense of the words. [shudder] I guess when they start collecting wood for the bonfires, or when they begin to paint a giant scarlet A (for Arminian) on the windows of those who oppose their doctrine. The poster Randy accused me of being an Arminian I think in his second or third response to me on the Calvinism Part I thread. Which is funny, because I’ve actually NEVER read any Arminian literature. All of the conclusions I’ve come up with and subsequently written about in my posts I came up with on my own, after studying ONLY Calvinist “sound” doctrine. So, if determining that Calvinism really doesn’t work, and I can back that up with hundreds of years of European Christian mysticism and bloodshed, as well as countless stories on half a dozen web sites devoted to the revealing and healing the grotesque abuses of SGM Calvinist pastors standing in the stead makes me an Arminian…well then, bring on the scarlet paint and the brushes.
I’m finishing up Edwards’ “Freedom of the Will”. A diatribe of folded-over, steam pressed, hyper-literal conclusions devoid of any real discussion of the two very things that make desire ultimately free: circumstance and reason (and I would add regret,too). I’m getting the impression that the goal of Edwards wasn’t to prove his Calvinist presupposition of “inability”, but to make the issue so utterly confusing that detractors either passively aggressively admit that indeed they aren’t rational enough to understand nonsense, or to drop the issue altogether…or both.
Next, I’m moving on to selected conversations of St. Augustine.
LikeLike
Argy,
Getting close to setting aside time to read stuff people have sent me, and your file is on the stack–I am really sorry it is taking so long. And….the “soldiers” for now, are bogus church discipline, character assassination, and law suits.
LikeLike
….but they are working on the ‘soldiers” part. At next year’s conference, we hope to have a few folks that are experts on the covert organizations that Piper et al are members of that are trying to get in bed with the government. Leadership Forum is getting cozy with the who’s who of politics that can get them an audience with the big boys. I have been receiving emails on this stuff forever, but need to stay focused on the themes of TTANC and TRM. However, both books will mention the issue. Obviously, Auggie and Johnny both were very sold on church and state being the same thing. So, most definitely, “monkey see–monkey do” will follow.
LikeLike
I have to say Paul- Amen!! to this post. Every Christian needs to get back to thinking these things through instead of taking the word of the pastor today. As sad as that sounds that we CANNOT trust a pastor today we MUST always look to the TRUTH and that is Gods Word (sorry to the Pastor who does preach His Word do not be offended, but there are more that don’t then do). He promises us that we can know His truth; He promises us that we do have a Counselor who will guide us in ALL truth. I can rest on that. You do not know how freeing it is to know I have responsibility- not for my salvation, because I know He is the One who saved me from death and I am eternally secure in Him; but the responsibility that I have as a believer to walk in Him. When one is given responsibility, one takes OWNERSHIP. It is the same as with the welfare system today- When one takes from the government, one will then give up responsibility and that is where the government then has power to take ownership away. In turn the welfare recipient stops caring about himself and family and depends on the government for everything. You will never find a (long term) welfare recipient happy, productive, or content in their circumstances. You will usually find despair, depression, irresponsibility, and crime in those who continually rely on the government. The same in the church, when the pastor takes responsibility away in the church and preaches that EVERYTHING is dependent on Gods Sovereignty; there is no response or action on your part, you take away OWNERSHIP. And as in the welfare case, you will have sin run rampant in the church, because too much power is given to the “Popes” and responsibility is taken away from the congregants.
Now those who do believe in free will and a responsibility on the part of the Christian, we know that this walk has nothing to do with our salvation, but everything to do with our right relationship with Jesus Christ. We will be rewarded because of this right relationship with Christ here and in eternity. The Bible is clear about that. This not only excites me, but shows me that having that responsibility gives me access to the Savior at all times. He desires for us to have that communication and walk with Him. In Scripture, the Bible is also clear that we are CO-LABORERS with Christ. We are to work WITH Him and FOR Him. This is not a “Christ is outside of us” picture. We are encouraged and told to come to the High Priest at all times in our time of need. The more we tap into the Word and study it the more our walk with Christ will be strengthened. The more we are walking out on faith to do His Will we are maturing. This is responsibility and an active participatory process. The Bible is full of heros of the faith ACTING out their faith- we must take the responsibility to do the same.
LikeLike
And that starts by not being dumb sheep and thinking things through.
LikeLike
Gang,
As you study this stuff–you begin to see it everywhere in the Bible. The type of king that Israel asked God for was probably of the philosopher king type that would have been par for the surrounding nations. God warned them that such a king would tyrannize/abuse them. But where you really see it big time is in the New Testament. It really opens up your mind to what the Apostles were contending against.
LikeLike
Paul…no, no, really, please do take your time. I’m a reader, and I want to be careful not to insert myself into your time unless it is convenient for you; and that’s your decision. You are the worker, I’m the recipient. I made the mistake one time of, I think, making some presumptions as to when someone would get back to me on something and that didn’t work out too well. So, I want to be careful here not to assume that you can, or should look at what i sent you…and if and when you do, it can certainly be at your own convenience, even if that happens to be a good deal later. NOT a problem.
See…my greatest desire changed by circumstance. I used to expect things sooner, but now I desire to expect them later, and I’m able to do that. But…according to Edwards regret or circumstance can’t change desire, all your choices depend on whatever nature you happen to be born with, so if you are once born a jerk you can’t decide you want to NOT be a jerk. Hmmm….yeah, he didn’t explain that part to well.
LikeLike
“Now those who do believe in free will and a responsibility on the part of the Christian, we know that this walk has nothing to do with our salvation, but everything to do with our right relationship with Jesus Christ. We will be rewarded because of this right relationship with Christ here and in eternity. The Bible is clear about that. This not only excites me, but shows me that having that responsibility gives me access to the Savior at all times. He desires for us to have that communication and walk with Him. In Scripture, the Bible is also clear that we are CO-LABORERS with Christ. We are to work WITH Him and FOR Him. This is not a “Christ is outside of us” picture. We are encouraged and told to come to the High Priest at all times in our time of need. The more we tap into the Word and study it the more our walk with Christ will be strengthened. The more we are walking out on faith to do His Will we are maturing. This is responsibility and an active participatory process. The Bible is full of heros of the faith ACTING out their faith- we must take the responsibility to do the same.”
Trust4himonly…very well said. And I agree, if you study scripture, which is ultimately where all the answers are to be found, the argument comes out very well for the Arminians, or whatever other “free will” types like me there are. One would think that if none of us were actually able to choose to do something, the Bible wouldn’t spend so much time telling us what a good idea it is to do that something.
Was reading Romans 4 today. What is clear is that faith is NOT works, so choosing Christ is not “works” salvation. And whose faith? MAN’s faith. Whose belief? MAN”s belief. And what he gets in reward? God’s imputed GRACE. GRACE is the reward of faith; and the faith is not works. It stems from our belief, which comes from our rational mind which has been designed with the inherent ability to CHOOSE good by recognizing it for what it is, through reason, so that “all men are without excuse”.
LikeLike
I love the book of Romans. Believe it or not, it was the first Bible study I did after I was saved. Once a week for six months sitting together with a few others and a pastor — free to ask questions! Later in my Christian life I realized that studying through Romans was like a mini study of the entire Bible. Getting a grasp on law, grace, and faith was really helpful. I was also reading John (love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) at the same time. Those are fond memories and, looking at it now, it had some balance to it. It wasn’t all about the Epistles for years on end.
LikeLike
Great convo guys. Paul, when I am listening to their heirarchical drivel, I always think back to the Jews begging for a king like the pagans had. God was angry they wanted such a king because He was their king.
Some things never change.
Argo, if the Calvinists can convince people that “faith” can only come from God and is a work if it comes from man, think of the implications of that. Gives me chills. Think of what that means for someone who is a spiritual abuser and convinced of their salvation. We see this all the time. They really believe it, too. Think of Calvin and how his beliefs drove his behavior and we see the result.
LikeLike