TGC Part 20: Directory May Give Clue Regarding What GS/S Churches “Look Like”
This will be the last part in this series concerning The Gospel Coalition. While looking into the possibility of posting a directory of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship churches—it quickly became evident that such a task would be too time consuming. Unfortunate, because many give testimony to the fact that the average lay person will spend two years figuring out that their leadership has adopted the GS/S doctrine. In all cases reported so far, the eldership of GS/S churches refused to come clean to the very end.
Therefore, the best course of action is to refer Christians to the TGC Network Church Directory: http://thegospelcoalition.org/network/church-directory/
On the list is a church in Springboro, Ohio named Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC). CCC, often referred to as “Clearcreek Cult,” and “Cloudy-Creek Chapel” by former members, is one of the most respected churches among the who’s who of GS/S. The church was founded by Dr. John Street, a prominent board member of the upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition which is intimately connected with TGC and T4G. DA Carson, Jerry Bridges, and Robert Jones have done conferences there (CCC), and Paul David Tripp speaks there often. CCC was one of the pilot churches that tested David Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change” before it was published as “How People Change” authored by Tripp and Timothy Lane. CCC is also a NANC training center.
Therefore, CCC, as one of the first independent Reformed churches to ascribe to the GS/S doctrine, could represent what churches who follow GS/S doctrine may look like in future years. For expediency, I will use an unpublished (until now) document that expresses concerns regarding CCC—and it also makes a good questionnaire for other churches that hold to this doctrine. The document was derived from actual events and testimonies from former members.
An Open Challenge To Clearcreek Chapel In Springboro, Ohio:
I. A primary hallmark of a cult is covert doctrine and church policy that is gradually assimilated into the thinking of its members incrementally. The organization “CultWatch” states the following: “…if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the ‘truth’ from you until they think you are ready to accept it.” Therefore, we challenge the Chapel elders to fully reveal what they believe about the following doctrine and policies to all present members, new members, and visitors:
A. Sanctification: Please inform them that you believe that sanctification is purely monergistic in the same way as it is in justification, and that participation by believers in the sanctification process is a false gospel.
B. The Word of God: Please inform them that you believe that every verse in the Bible is about justification only, and that the Holy Spirit is only active in sanctification when the Scriptures are used to that end only. Affirm or deny that Christians need salvation every day.
C. Church Discipline: Please inform them that you believe that any member can be placed into your church discipline process at any time, and for any reason, and without prior notice. Please inform them that a verbal repentance from the subject does not end the process, but that true repentance must be determined by elders over time. Please inform them that they are not free to leave the Chapel until they are released from this discipline process by the elders, and that any attempt to do otherwise will result in excommunication. Please inform them that all subjects who enter into formal, or informal counseling, are considered to be in the discipline process, and are not free to leave Clearcreek Chapel until they are released from counseling. Please inform them that you believe that you have the authority to place any individual into your church discipline process regardless of membership status, including those who have never been a member of Clearcreek Chapel in the past.
D. Divorce: Please inform all present members, new members, and visitors that you believe that your members are free to divorce any spouse that is unbelieving, or declared to be unbelieving by you because of a wide range of perceived failures as a spouse. Also, many of these perceived failures can be considered abandonment even if the spouse has not physically left or filed for divorce. Furthermore, in regard to an unbelieving husband, you believe that he has no authority in the home, but that his authority resides with you instead.
E. Elder Authority: Affirm or deny that God will honor any decision you make as long as it is according to the single law of love governed by your own conscience (as supposedly formed by reading the “gospel narrative” only), and to the exclusion of objective, biblical imperatives, and the authority thereof.
F. Church Membership: Affirm or deny that members need permission to leave the Chapel for another congregation. Affirm or deny that members can be brought under church discipline if the elders affirm that they are leaving for “unbiblical” reasons.
II. Cults propagate a strong exclusivism mentality among their members. Clearcreek Chapel members are characterized by a predominant attitude that the Chapel is the only truly relevant ministry within hundreds of miles. This mentality is clearly propagated by the elders of Clearcreek Chapel and would be necessary by default because of your belief that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel, which is far from what most churches consider orthodox.
III. Cults inflict fear through character assassination and inimidation. Character assassination in regard to those who have left the Chapel is rampant, and the elders stand by and give approval by participating or refusing to stop this activity, regardless of the pleadings from those who have left. This is a well documented fact. CultWatch says the following in regard to this third element: “Character Assassination is a sure sign of a cult,” Also, “Cult leadership is feared. To disagree with leadership is the same as disagreeing with God.” Fear of leadership at the Chapel is very prevalent and easy to ascertain.
IV. Information control is a sure sign of a cult. The Chapel elders have specifically told parishioners that observing a particular website critical of the Chapel is “sin.” Because any sin is cause for church discipline at the Chapel; in essence, you are clearly threatening church discipline for anyone who observes the site. A member was instructed by the Chapel elders, in writing, not to study doctrine or attempt to ascertain an understanding concerning your hermeneutics. One elder told the same member not to be concerned with the Chapel’s doctrine for “at least two years.” The following is another quote from CultWatch: “If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult.” Also, “legitimate groups have nothing to fear from their members reading critical information about them.” We therefore challenge the Chapel elders to encourage the congregation to read material critical of Chapel doctrine and elder behavior, and also assure them that there will be no retribution for doing so.
V. Love Bombing and relationship control are also signs of a cult. Love bombing is a Clearcreek staple. When an elder was caught having an inappropriate, divisive conversation with a Chapel spouse, he offered “love” as a defense in plain contradiction to biblical instruction. The motivation of supposed love is license to do what is right in your own eyes at the Chapel, regardless of Scriptural guidelines. This also speaks to your antinomian doctrine. The Chapel elders seek to drive a wedge between spouses when one spouse challenges your doctrine. This is well documented, and is a staple mode of operation used by Jehovah Witnesses. A constant, and unbalanced emphasis on love also replaces concern for sound doctrine in dramatic fashion at the Chapel, and is a distinctive mark of a cult. Also, on numerous occasions, members who have left the Chapel have been instructed not to associate with present members, and have been threatened with church discipline accordingly. Chapel members have also been instructed not to ever speak to specific members, and others who have left the Chapel. Weekly flock meetings are used to disparage individuals who have left the Chapel and to set the table against possible conversations that may take place at a later date. CultWatch says the following: “Beware of a group that tells you who you can and cannot see.”
VI. Cults will usually have reporting structures. Elders are placed in strategic relationships with people who are perceived as individuals who may question doctrine. Elders will often invite parishioners or visitors to weekly breakfast meetings for the purpose of keeping tabs on what they perceive at the Chapel. A members wife was recruited to feed the elders private information concerning who her husband was associating with and other private information. The elders also recruited a member to be an “encourager” to him during a time when they were concerned that he would confide in others. CultWatch says the following: “Is information you expect to be kept confidential reported to the leadership? If so, then it’s a cult.”
VII. Cults practice high pressure coercion. To say that members who leave the Chapel to join other churches are made to feel uncomfortable, and threatened, would be an understatement. For members to leave the Chapel without some kind of tension is often a balancing act. In fact, at least one member was held there under threat of excommunication for unbiblical reasons, and against his own wishes, for almost four months.
VIII. Cults practice time control. The idea is to keep subjects preoccupied with constant events to prevent contemplation in regard to doctrine, personal involvement, or involvement with those outside of the organization.
IX. Cult leadership is not accountable to outside organizations or the congregation. We challenge the Chapel elders to repeal changes they have made to Chapel polity in order to implement plenary elder rule.
X. Cults seek to control their subjects through coercion and fear in regard to finances. We challenge the Chapel elders to repent of teaching the congregation that God curses all of those who do not tithe ten percent of all financial increase to the Chapel.
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 13: Dr. John Street Joins the Noun Coalition
Just yesterday, when I was introduced to the new gospel upstart organization in our everything gospel church culture, I was verbless. Somebody sent me a link to the upstart’s Facebook page (the “Biblical Counseling Coalition”) which posted this statement: “Sanctification is the art of getting used to our full salvation: justification, regeneration, redemption, reconciliation.”
Rush Limbaugh often says “Words mean things,” but [do] they really? After all, I did some investigation and this new coalition is overseen by the spiritual brain-trust of our day. So, when the apostle Paul described sanctification as “abstain[ing]” (1Thess 4:3), “running” by obedience (Gal 5:7), also through obedience: “work[ing] out….with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), beating our bodies into subjection, discipline, running a race, and for a prize (1Cor 9:24-27); surely, we peasants of this contemporary dark age must be misunderstanding him because that’s a lot of verb-iage. Since Michael Horton says the purpose of corporate worship is for reviving our valley of dead bones by contemplating the gospel, should we forget all that stuff in Hebrews about encouraging each other unto good works? Should we rather relax and say, “Hey bro, how are you coming along in the art of getting use to you salvation?”
Inquiring minds, what’s left of them, want to know. Because one of the board members of this coalition is David Powlison, we could have a clue. In an interview with Nine Marks, Powlison said that the church forgets stuff, but when it is rediscovered by CCEF’s Research and Development Dept., it has to be reevaluated in a contemporary historical context. Hmmmm. Powlison also believes that a thorough search must be made of all past and present philosophies, literature, history, etc., just in case God has shown other people stuff that he hasn’t shown the church, or has shown the church in the past, but was forgotten, because the church forgets stuff. At this years TGC (The Gospel Coalition) 2011 conference, Powlison will be conducting a seminar on “Recent Advancements in Biblical Counseling.” So, for all of you that draw propositional truth from interpreting the verb, noun, subject, preposition, etc. structure of sentences in the Bible, you may not want to miss that seminar if you really want to able to take the word and help people.
Yet another clue may come from another board member of the BCC, Paul David Tripp. He believes that biblical verbs must be seen in their “gospel context.” In other words, all verbs in the Bible pertain to Jesus. In “How People Change,” Tripp says that the art of getting use to our sanctification is “resting and feeding” on Christ. In the same book, Tripp also writes, like Michael Horton in “Christless Christianity” (or, “Verbal Christianity”), that Christians are dead, and as Tripp states it in HPC: “When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” Tripp also mentions in the same book that Christ is not a cognitive concept that we apply to life, but he is a “person.” Got that? No cognitive concepts, just the personal pronoun.
But another board member that caught my eye on the list was Dr. John D. Street who has actually counseled me in the past. I have been reluctant to write in regard to him previously because I am privy to the fact that he used to employ lots of verbs in counseling that applied to the counselee, and I didn’t want to get him into trouble. In fact, I was a perfect candidate for this new form of counseling when I came to him many years ago. I remember coming to one of our appointments and proudly proclaiming: “I have read my Bible and prayed for—four hours!” Now how do you like that for contemplative spirituality?! His answer? “I’m not going to tell you not to do that, but the power is in the doing.” Ouch! I can just imagine the look of horrific angst on Powlison’s face.
Back then, I think Street might have got this idea from the old way of interpreting the Bible. “But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.” “But” is a coordinating conjunction which indicates contrast in this sentance; so being interpreted, don’t do the previous verses—hearing only, and not doing. But that exact contrast that James warns us of is the mantra of the new biblical counseling movement. I was recently sent a webinar conducted by a NANC Fellow who was clearly propagating a hearing only model of change that left the results up to being “amazed by the gospel.” Apparently, James didn’t get the memo. He presents hearing and doing as two components that work together to bring about—at the very least, blessings. The blessings occur where? Well, if we answer that question by finding the preposition, the blessings are “in” the “doing.” Also note that James does not present the gospel as the primary motivator, but rather blessings.
There is no misunderstanding about how this false approach to counseling fleshes itself out in real life. I was a longtime member and former elder at Clearcreek Chapel, the church John Street founded in Springboro, Ohio. The church is presently endorsed by both CCEF and NANC, and is a NANC training center. Two members on the upstart BCC board, Robert Jones and Paul Tripp, speak there often. My information regarding this doctrine includes hundreds of hours of discussion with the Clearcreek elders, who again, are highly respected in GS / Sonship circles. The pastor of the church, Russ Kennedy, has said, “Any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination.” Obviously, this can only leave sanctification by justification as the dynamic for change. This can also be seen in the statement regarding sanctification as something we “get used to” as opposed to what the apostle Paul taught. Though the movement is hideously covert, if one pays attention, their noun-iage exposes them from time to time.
The former Clearcreek elder who was in charge of counseling at Clearcreek once announced from the pulpit (at Clearcreek) that he learned to read his Bible in “a whole new way” from Chad Bresson, Clearcreek elder and author of “Vossed World,” a blog that promotes the belief that the Spirit only illuminates the word of God in a gospel context. Bresson also believes the postmodern concept that because truth is in a person, it cannot be propositional or cognitive / objective, which is why the Bible is strictly a narrative and not for instruction. Presumably, this is why Dan Turner, another elder / counselor at Clearcreek, sometimes (if not all the time) draws diagrams of people’s lives and shows them where they are at in the diagram / picture / gospel narrative as a way of avoiding an instructive paradigm. I once heard Turner explain how a marriage was miraculously transformed before his eyes after showing them the glory of the gospel from the Scriptures. Turner also told me that I was like the Pharisees because I believed that Scripture should often be used to determine objective truth. No surprise then that the elders at Clearcreek were never heard (while I was there) saying, “How do we do that?” But were rather heard saying—often, “What does that look like.” In fact, we were taught that the “how” word was indicative of a heart problem, and the use of that word in a question to an elder resulted in a repeating of the word (how) back to the inquisitor in question form to correct the parishioner.
Will the BBC be able to help people with a counseling model based solely on nouns? I doubt it. Will John Street get kicked-off the BCC board for taking James literally? Or has he repented of such Phariseeism? Perhaps he now says: “I’m not going to tell you not to obey, but the power is in the contemplation.” I hope he hasn’t, but if not, what does that look like? “[Run] John, [run]!”
paul
Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
Teenage Rebellion and Paul Tripp’s Broken-Down House
As some know, this blog has turned into, primarily, an apology against Gospel Sanctification which is the spawn of Sonship Theology. To hear many tell it, we are in days that hearken back to the reign of Josiah when the lost book of the Covenant was found in the temple. Though we haven’t lost the Bible per se, they claim the true gospel has been lost in the temple of our minds via Pharisaic teaching that we are supposed to exert our own effort in the spiritual growth process. Yes, the great sin of our day is “serving God in our own efforts,” not serving God in our own way. In fact, our own way is ok, “as long as our motive is love.” As Francis Chan says: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.” Don’t you know, Christ came to fulfill the law for us and active obedience is imputed to us like justification. As John Piper says, biblical commands should be seen as works that Christ has done for us, and thereby instilling thankfulness in our hearts with joy and praise following (“How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
I have never read “Age of Opportunity” by Paul David Tripp. He is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification (GS) and I have always assumed it was a GS application on teenage parenting. But lately, events in my life have driven home how scary that is. I presently have the opportunity to counsel a rebellious teenager. We will call him “Freddy,” and we will call his dad “Ken.” Look, I am just a lowly pilgrim trying to make my way in God’s kingdom like everyone else, and will tell you that I am no expert on teenage rebellion. So here I am, prayerfully trying to work my way through all of this. Why would I get involved? Simple: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” ( James 1:5). Other reasons will be stated later in this post.
I don’t like the hefty problems of life like severe “mental illness” and such. Why? Because it casts doubt on hope, and our God is the God of great hope. There is always hope when my great God is on the throne. In the Old Testament we have a picture of life’s problems in the person of Goliath. There he was; huge, ugly, very frightening, and mocking God. That made David angry. In the same way, the huge problems in our life seem to be mocking God by softly whispering in our ears, “hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.” Situations with rebellious teens can seem hopeless because they (teens) are formidable warriors. They will even fight to the death. As a means of revenge against parents, they will often commit suicide, knowing that the fallout will more than likely destroy their parent’s marriage, and leave the household devastated / guilt ridden. How do I know this? That’s what teenagers who have been interviewed say:
“Most teens who attempt suicide report a rich fantasy around the event, a fantasy that includes being noticed after death by those who have ignored them, causing regret among those they feel have wronged them and teaching a lesson to those who have harmed them. When teens think of suicide they often feel that they will be able to watch what happens after their death. This fantasy is an example of how weak a grasp suicidal teens have on the reality of the situation. Far too many suicidal teens do not ever stop to consider the finality of the act of suicide. Because suicidal thoughts are often part of a recognition/revenge fantasy it is all too easy for the immature teen psyche to play down the severity of suicide” (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/aa120502c.htm).
Besides this, many parents fear their rebellious teenagers to the point of removing all weapons from the house and installing deadbolts on their bedroom doors to prevent ambushes in the middle of the night. Teenage rebellion subjects a household to constant darkness and turmoil. Often, there is only peace in the home when the rebellious teen is appeased.
Let me share what I have learned so far. I am strongly drawn to Ephesians 6:1-4 in all of this because it seems to be a rare and definitive statement in the Bible on child rearing:
“1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 ‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.’ 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
An incident between Freddy and Ken brings verse 4A to life. Ken became frustrated with Freddy, and the reasons were far from trite (among many, serious disrespect towards the mother / wife by Freddy), but Ken’s intentions were to deliberately provoke Freddy to anger and even threatened him physically.
Ken was angry about the situation but Freddy’s attitude was flippant and he displayed no shame for the things he had done, so Ken provoked him. A father is the pastor of the home. Could you imagine going to church and seeing your pastor provoking a parishioner in the hallway? You would be horrified, as Ken was afterward in regard to his own behavior, and many tears were shed over this lapse. What should Ken have done instead? “Bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
I am totally amazed by this verse of Scripture. You can hear all of the “yes, but what about___?” But it seems like this verse keeps answering back: “two things; discipline and instruction.” Let me further explain. In working on this counseling situation, I did some research on military schools. But then I began to think: “Most of these schools are Christian schools, and the parents are dropping their teenager off because, ‘we can’t handle him / her anymore.’ Then, you read all of the wonderful testimonies about how parents get there children back fixed and remodeled. But the Christian boarding schools have the same Bible that the parents have!” Something just didn’t smell right, so I dug deeper. Apparently, the “secret” to the success of these boarding schools is the belief that teens thrive and find happiness in a structured, balanced environment. But that’s “discipline!” There just doing what Ephesians 6:4 says to do!
Of course, there are a lot of biblical principles that fall under discipline and instruction, but the child’s role and the parent’s role are plainly stated. A biblical counselor once told me that all of his counseling with teens is based on verses 1-3. He also told me that according to his experience, 90% of teen problems are related to their relationship with parents. It’s simple, honoring parents is the gateway to blessings, as these verses plainly state. According to him, all teen counseling must focus on honoring the parents, and the rest will usually fall into place. However, it seems to me that any counseling in regard to this subject must include the parents and the teenager so both understand how this works together. This point brings me to the second reason I am taking on this task; most teen counseling involves meetings with the teenager alone. This is ill-advised because even if the rebellious teen tells the whole truth, they are not usually mature enough to assess the issues of life; it is impossible to effectively counsel someone without a truthful and accurate assessment of their life.
Back to Ken and Freddy. I clearly see what Ken did in 4A, and I also see what Ken isn’t doing in 4B. This is so huge in this situation that you can’t miss it. Freddy has no structure in his life other than school. He is not required to do any chores. He gets home from school and just does whatever he feels like doing. Other than school and some sports, his whole life is texting, gaming, watching TV, surfing the web, listening to heavy metal music, etc. He leaves messes everywhere he goes in the house and refuses to pickup after himself. His room is always a mess, and he contributes nothing to the household. Can one call this the “discipline of the Lord?” I’m thinking, “no.” If this is absent via Ken’s failure, could it be connected to the rebellion? I’m thinking, “yes.” Are rebellious teens, well, undisciplined ? Now, Ken does the “instruction” part well (4C). Freddy gets a steady flow of solid theology, but in the home, there is no application thereof. Hence, Christ’s dynamic of practical application that concludes the sermon on the mount in Matthew 7 is not in place; there is instruction, but no discipline:
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Ken must lead his family differently; Freddy’s house is broken-down.
Since Freddy does whatever he wants at home, it would stand to reason that he would also begin to do whatever he wants in regard to school, and that’s what happened the other day. He announced to Ken that he wasn’t going to school because he didn’t feel like it. This has happened before, but this time, a course of action had already been established. Ken calmly asked Freddy to get ready for school several times. Upon continual refusal, Ken advised Freddy that the police would be called, but to no avail, so they were summoned. At this point, Freddy feigned a nervous breakdown which was an impressive display complete with convulsions. This was also anticipated, and Ken informed Freddy that he wasn’t buying the act. When the police arrived, Freddy was told that if he didn’t go to school he would be taken to a juvenile detention center. Freddy went to school.
The next morning, a peculiar thing happened. When Freddy was awakened for school, he immediately got up and dressed. For the first time in ten days, he ate breakfast. Actually, he devoured it like he was starved. Not only that, his demeanor was cheerful. Ken called a family meeting that night and presented a family contract based on Ephesians 6:1-4. Ken confessed his sin to Freddy concerning his failure to lead the home in the discipline of the Lord. He explained that “discipline” doesn’t just mean rules and punishment, it also includes entertainment ( as Tony Evans says: “We are free to play football because of its rules) and structure; in essence, balance. He explained the awesome concept of self-discipline not making the negative aspect of the Lord’s discipline necessary ( 1Corinthians 11: 30-32) as well as many other dynamics and elements of skillfully applying God’s word to life and the blessings that result (James 1:25). Ken also presented some instruction on how our conscience works with faith. In fact, Ken pointed out how happy Freddy was that morning, even after being forced to do the right thing! Freddy sheepishly agreed.
Oh yes, I can now hear the cat-cries from the peanut gallery. Ken is just making Freddy into a Pharisee. Ken is just teaching Freddy to clean the outside of the cup, etc., etc., add nausea. Only one problem. Ken attends a church where “the gospel” is heavily emphasized as an instrument of change. One of the favorite teachers propagated by the church is Francis Chan, who teaches that people will have a pure, deep desire to follow Christ if you simply show how great He is. Hence, all obedience will flow from being wowed by Christ, and thankfulness for His incomprehensible sacrifice. And if we sin when we don’t have that desire, oh well, we’re not saved by works anyway. In fact, it’s good when we sin because it “makes us more dependent on Christ.” Making an effort to obey supposedly produces “self-righteousness” or as Paul Tripp states it: “Christless activism.” At any rate, my apologies to the peanut gallery, a gospel-centered approach isn’t working here.
And this is probably the reason why: the disciples were with Christ face to face for three years. Did Christ continually wow them? I think you know the answer to that. When Christ confronted Peter in His resurrected body, do you really think he told Peter to display his love for Him through obedience so he would fail and be more dependent on Him? I think you know the answer to that as well. Christ spent forty days teaching the disciples before he ascended. What did He teach them and what did they come away with? Answer: “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” And, “Then they gathered around him and asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’” Throughout the Scriptures, as here, the opportunity to correct the disciples on the supposed crux of discipleship is passed over. There are just too many times, in fact, hundreds, where some other word should be replaced with “gospel.” Such as:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and [continually showing forth the gospel] teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”(Matthew 28).
I have a question. Teaching the wisdom of God and demonstrating how it brings peace to ones life whether they are saved or not isn’t the gospel? If God’s wisdom can’t produce a peaceful household, how can it save a soul? God’s wisdom clearly demonstrates the way of life and the way of death, and Moses pleaded with the children of Israel to “Choose life.” Clearly, the apostle Peter emphasized this fact in his first letter (3:1, 15,16).
This now brings me to Tripp’s book which doesn’t mention Ephesians 6:1-4 at all. This is most striking; a book on rearing children, whether teenagers or otherwise, that doesn’t mention this passage. Why would that be? First, the passage turns Tripp’s theology completely upside down by offering reward / incentive for doing what is right. This blows away the whole concept of all change being at “the heart level.” It is an outward enticement to encourage the heart to do what is right. Also, the apostle Paul emphasizes the point by quoting Moses. Ouch! This indicates that this principle has been in place since the beginning.
Secondly, GS depends heavily on the idea that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant completely by ushering in a modified Law or new Law. But Ephesians 2:12 makes being unregenerate synonymous with being alienated from the “covenants” (plural) of promise.” Then Paul connects this thought by making OT law applicable to sanctification. Therefore, the NC didn’t replace the old, but rather the NC, though better and different, has important OC elements built into it that are essential to spiritual growth. This is devastating to GS theology.
On page 76, Tripp writes that the Bible doesn’t convey wisdom in regard to raising teenagers, which is blatantly false as it is obvious that the word “children” in Ephesians 6:1 would include any unemancipated children or youth within the home. Therefore, Ephesians 6:1-3 applies directly to teens with priceless wisdom needed to rear them. In fact, efficacious, but nowhere to be found in “Age of Opportunity,” at least not by me after reading through the book twice.
Also, throughout the book, Tripp redefines “heart” to be something else other than what the Bible says it is. For the most part, in the Scriptures, “heart” is the mind, and the Bible defines it as the primary turf of our warfare with sin. I go into this in some detail here: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/doctrine/
Tripp doesn’t like that because if the mind is the primary turf of our warfare, objective application that could be construed as work, or efforts by us are made possible. Tripp believes that any effort by us to replace unbiblical thinking with biblical thinking is a denial of the gospel (How People Change, p.27).
Instead, Tripp presents the heart as a nebulous territory with various idols running about trying to hide from x-ray questions. Nebulous theology makes his theory of change possible.
Unless I missed this also, another biblical concept missing in AOO is corporal punishment. “Spare the rod, hate the child.” I am close friends with a couple who was counseled by a disciple of Paul Tripp. They informed me that whenever the subject was brought up in regard to their young children (not teenagers), the counselor became evasive. They also complained that there was a heavy emphasis on parental responsibility while insinuating that the actions of the children were only relevant from the perspective of the gospel (this is also heavily indicative of AOO). They eventually discontinued the counseling. Again, the idea that an outward application could facilitate inside change is an affront to Tripp’s theology. Neither is Tripp phased by the brazen contradictions to Scripture that follow. Because of what the Scriptures say about the importance of corporal punishment, its relationship to rearing teens is vitally important, especially in regard to thirteen-year-old’s who haven’t been reared in a Christian home.
Furthermore, AOO doesn’t address the fact that raising teens can be a life and death warfare. The book seems more suited for suburban Christianity than real life. I have to believe that parents dwelling in the turmoil and darkness of this warfare would find the book trite.
Paul Tripp proffers a child rearing that is gospel instruction only, and excludes “the discipline of the Lord.” Throughout the book, he chides discipline and promotes a “speaking to the heart.” Therefore, it is a hearing of the gospel, but a treatise against putting what is heard “into practice.” Therefore, his followers will not find the blessings of James 1:25, and their houses will be like the ones built upon the sand; broken – down.
paul
An Open Letter to Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.
Dr. Mohler,
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Paul Dohse and I am a member of a Southern Baptist church in the Dayton, Ohio area. I also have the privilege of serving there as director of men’s ministry.
The purpose of this letter is the following: to request that you withdraw your association with Together for the Gospel (T4G) because the organization promotes a particular false doctrine. This letter will be posted on my blog as an open letter because several such letters to individuals and organizations have been ignored. In addition, it will make the continuance of my grievance to others within the Convention expedient as I am a layman with many other responsibilities.
I have no problem with Calvinism, but I cannot express in words how disappointed I am with you and others for turning a blind eye to grievous error from any individual who claims to be a Calvinist. Apparently, Calvinist nomenclature is a license to teach anything that one sees fit. As I continue to research this doctrine (not Calvinism) that is sweeping through Southern Baptist circles, at times it seems surreal that this ridiculous doctrine is being propagated in broad daylight, while you and others lend it your credibility. Because you are President over the “Flagship Seminary” of the SBC, I also fear that you have embraced this doctrine personally.
When I was a student at the WA Criswell Institute of Biblical Studies in the early eighties, we were taught to be leery of any doctrine that had a short history. Such is the case with the “gospel-driven life,” or Gospel Sanctification as some call it. In fact, my research indicates that this whole movement, as we know it today, was conceived by a professor of practical theology (Dr. Jack Miller) at Westminster Seminary, probably around 1980, and dubbed “Sonship Theology.” Yet, CJ Mahaney, John Piper, DA Carson, Tim Keller, and many others promote the idea that this doctrine has been the true gospel from the beginning, and God is using the “New Calvinism” movement to reveal the “unadjusted gospel” in our day.
Many teaching this doctrine today were mentored by Jack Miller; such as, Tim Keller and David Powlison. Jack Miller is the one who coined the phrase, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” In any case, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship are identical. Dr. Jay E. Adams wrote a book to protest the doctrine in 1999. I would like to use quotes from that book as a way to describe the basics of the doctrine:
“This teaching that appeals to Christians who are failing to live as they ought maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.”
“It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news.”
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Adams also said the following in another publication: “Aberrations of the faith found in such movements as Sonship should be pointed out and rejected. These movements – both large and small – constantly plague the church” (Jay E. Adams, “Hope for the New Millenium,” Timeless Texts, Woodruff, SC, 2000, p.44).
A cursory observation of statements made at the 2010 T4G conference would easily identify Gospel Sanctification (the supposed “unadjusted gospel”) with Sonship Theology. Furthermore, many should be wary of the “unadjusted” gospel’s unorthodox phraseology: repentance is now “deep repentance”; obedience is now “new obedience”; church discipline is now “redemptive church discipline”; and progressive sanctification is really “progressive justification.”
There is a controversy concerning the influx of Calvinism into the SBC, and rightfully so because the soundness of a doctrine is often determined by where it ends up, and in this case, “New Calvinism.” New Calvinist seem to be in a contest to see who can devise the newest / profound angle on this doctrine. Recently, Tim Keller suggested that a sound profession of faith must include “repentance from good works.” Constantly insinuated by others aforementioned, but specifically stated by Paul David Tripp, is the idea of the total depravity of the saints. He plainly states in How People Change that Christians remain spiritually dead. And, ”When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” John Piper has stated that he went on his recent sabbatical to eliminate several different “species of idols” that he discovered in his heart, and mentioned Tim Keller and Paul Tripp as being knowledgeable about these things. In How People Change, Tripp states that these idols of the heart can be discovered by asking ourselves “x-ray questions.”
Dr. Mohler, is this what Southern Baptist believe? That we grow spiritually by reciting the gospel to ourselves everyday? That every verse in the Bible is about justification? That Christians are totally depraved? That we should go idol hunting in our hearts using x-ray questions? That sanctification is by faith alone? And not previously mentioned: that colaboring with God in sanctification is a false gospel because “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination”? Like Tullian Tchividjian, should we endeavor to be accused of teaching antinomianism for the purpose of accreditation regarding the “true gospel”? Should we practice redemptive church discipline which often results in the excommunication of Christians for non-attendance and not tithing?
I tell you the truth Dr. Mohler, at times I wake up in the morning and wonder if this is all a dream. After all, you are, according to some, the “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S.” So, obviously, it’s difficult for me to believe all of this is going on. I know some say that the SBC is on life support, but Dr. Kevorkian in the form of New Calvinism is not the answer. I am asking you to stand for the truth, or publicly state that you believe this doctrine without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17),
Paul M. Dohse
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment