Paul's Passing Thoughts

Spiritual and Sexual Abuse in the Church: I Can See Clearly Now

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 23, 2012

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

31 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 25, 2012 at 8:29 AM

    The goal of Calvinism is to convince men and women that they have no rational mind…no capacity to reason. If you cannot reason, you cannot really see anything for what it is, good or bad; and if you cannot see, you cannot judge, and if you cannot judge, you cannot choose, and if you cannot choose, you are as a beast in the field.

    If you cannot see good or evil, then you can desire neither good or evil…see how this works? The issue isn’t whether or not you can save yourself, the issue is whether you can even desire to be saved. In Genesis, after the Fall, though, God explains that man and woman have become “like” God, knowing good and evil.

    But a question for the Calvinists is how is it possible to see good and evil and not desire? If you cannot desire good, how can you really recognize good? (You can’t…is their point, which is NOT what the Bible says.) It makes no logical sense to say that one can see this or that, but they can NEVER desire it. If you cannot ever desire it, then you cannot really define it. Before you can ONLY choose evil, EVERYTHING must BECOME evil in your sight as a matter of utter depraved nature, so that it can be said that EVERYTHING you do is ultimately in service to your desire to do evil (Calvinism 101…CJ taught this ad nauseaum), even when it LOOKS like you are doing good things (so that even after salvation, say, feeding the poor or working in a prison ministry is “shot through with sin”, and not really obedience because of your regeneration; any GOOD in that act isn’t you at all, it’s God…obeying Himself, in service to Himself…uuuh, okay…and how is this not heretical?) So when the Calvinists say that men cannot desire God, they contradict the Biblical understanding of man’s mind. The argument isn’t whether or not men and women can save themselves…they can’t. The argument is really whether or not man has any capacity to reason. The Calvinists say no, because to imply otherwise means that man can see that God is good, and can desire Him…it’s not the doing that we question, its the desiring.

    However, at every turn the Bible confirms man’s ability to reason, right down to the Ten Commandments (think about it; if you can’t define the good and bad that God has enlightened you to, how can you be held responsible to it?)…this is why the Enlightenment was so important. It was a comprehensive, logical defense of man’s ability to reason…to KNOW, and to draw conclusions that were objective.

    This goes against everything the Calvinists want you to think; so naturally they condemn the Enlightenment as being anti-God.

    There is only one reason anyone would purposefully create a theology designed to systematically dismantle man’s claim to his rational mind: power.

    Calvinists love proof texting verses, out of context (by definition) and then claiming that each one is an utter affirmation of the DOCTRINE of election. That is, the definition of that verse couldn’t possibly be anything other than in absolute service to the Calvinist preconceived premise. So when they quote “only those whom the Father draws can come to me”, they can only see “election”, when in reality that may be the furthest thing from the point. When they quote Peter “Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble..”, they only see inability and total depravity, and never once stop to ask themselves why Peter would exhort people to “do things” and to contribute to “making (their) election sure”, if, by definition, the doctrine of predestination/election as the Calvinists teach it makes man DOING anything both impossible and pointless.

    Like

  2. Lydia's avatar Lydia said, on July 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM

    “The Calvinists say no, because to imply otherwise means that man can see that God is good, and can desire Him…it’s not the doing that we question, its the desiring. ”

    This might be a strange thing to bring up but your statement above made me think of it. I learned from a lot of study that Gen 3 is a very bad translation about Eve. The word Teshuqa was translated as “turning” UNITL a monk named Pagnini in the 1300’s changed it to desire. Think about this. Eve had a choice to turn to God or to Adam. She chose Adam and because she did,he ruled over here. This was after the fall. God did not dictate this at all. He predicted it. And what do we do? We change the interpretation and turn a sin (turning away from God to man) into a virtue.

    Paul, I am convinced that there are very few institutional churches where people can really come to know Jesus intimately. In spirutal abuse exit counseling, we tell people to read the Gospels ONLY for 3 years every day. KNOW Jesus. What He did, what He said, etc, etc. Only then can they understand Paul. We tell them to pray for understanding and to remove the filters they have been taught with. And only then will they spot not only error but what is totally unChristlike behavior from the pastors and celebrities. It is amazing what reading only Christ will do to change a perspective. He was God in the Flesh!

    Like

  3. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM

    Paul,

    Perhaps it would be helpful if you would distinguish between soteriological Calvinism and all inclusive Calvinism. I think there is little question the Reformers continued to exhibit the sacral mindset that had characterized the RC “Church.” Even now, Reformed Churches continue to embrace this concept that all in a given locality are embraced in the Church, in this case, believers and their unbelieving children are considered part of the covenant Community. I would recommend to your “gang” that they read “The Reformers and Their Step Children by Leonard Verduin. This book is still available used from a number of sources. I would not recommend it to a non-serious student since it can be a bit tedious at times,

    This is why New Covenant Theology is so important and has been referred to as a “Baptist Theology.” True Baptists understand the true meaning of the separation of church and state. We also understand the true nature of Church membership. For this reason we are only “Calvinists” in the soteriological sense of the word.

    Like

  4. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

    Argo,

    One of your comments made me wonder if you think Christians are good to go independently of the Holy Spirit. It would be my view that it is only the new covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit that keeps us from being totally helpless in the matter of sanctification. Paul wrote that we don’t even know what we should pray for as we ought, BUT THE SPIRIT. . . Our job is to continually follow and depend on the Spirit as he has revealed God’s will in the NT Scriptures..

    Like

  5. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 28, 2012 at 6:51 PM

    Do you people always speak in prodigious generalities? I happen to be a Calvinists in the soteriological sense of that term, yet, I believe very few of the ideas you so freely attribute to Calvinists. It would be great if we could seriously discuss some non straw-man issues.

    Like

  6. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 28, 2012 at 6:54 PM

    Argo,

    I am still waiting on you to give me a quote from a Calvinist who denies the sinner’s ability to reason.

    Like

  7. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM

    It is not predestination/election that makes “DOING anything both impossible and pointless”, it is the sinner’s sinful nature and guilt before God.

    Like

  8. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 28, 2012 at 7:05 PM

    Argo,

    I assume that since you speak so confidently about Peter’s statements, you must be a student of the Greek language. If so, you understand that Peter used the middle voice when he spoke of making your election sure. That means he was saying “make sure for yourselves that you are called and chosen.” Since election is God’s eternal decree, we can’t make it more certain. We can make sure for ourselves that we belong to that number by obedience to God’s revealed truth.

    Like

  9. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 29, 2012 at 4:48 PM

    Randy,
    I don’t see how the use of grammatical voice has changes the contradiction in the least. If election is election, then by definition it doesn’t matter one way or another if someone makes their election “sure”. Thus, election as you see it makes Peter’s exhortation moot. Election is sure regardless of what man does or not, no? Isn’t that the point? Isn’t that unconditional election? Isn’t that perserverence of the saints?

    Like

  10. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 29, 2012 at 4:50 PM

    Randy,
    Can you tell me why anyone should care whether they are elected or not? In light of “election” what difference does it make?

    Like


Leave a reply to gracewriterrandy Cancel reply