Rampant New Calvinist Plagiarism, and the Real Reason Mark Driscoll is Upset with Janet Mefferd. Also, New Calvinists are Guilty of Double Plagiarism.
“A Calvinist believing in intellectual property is an oxymoron… that’s why plagiarism is rampant in the New Calvinist movement.”
The radio host Janet Mefferd confronted the New Calvinist Mark Driscoll on air regarding plagiarism in his latest book. I listened to the interview and was struck by the overall lack of education concerning this movement that presently owns American Christianity.
During the interview, Driscoll, like many, many New Calvinists, continued to promote the idea that New Calvinism is still an upstart movement representing the only pure remnant of American Christianity. That’s absurd. New Calvinism has completely owned American evangelicalism since 1999. The movement is about 43 years old, and it took them about 25 years to reach this point. The present-day tyranny in the church that New Calvinism is responsible for kicked in around 2000. This provoked the mass of discernment blogs that we see today.
Another thing that came up, and Driscoll played along with, was Mefferd’s idea of “intellectual property.” That is an Enlightenment era idea and absolutely despised by New Calvinists. Be sure of this: when Mefferd said that, it totally torqued Driscoll off. Here is what folks continue to miss historically: New Calvinism is a return to authentic European Reformed theology. This is the same theology that the Pilgrims brought with them from Europe.
So, originally, America was a European church state and the only thing that saved America from that was the American Revolution which was inspired by Enlightenment thinking. Furthermore, the Great Awakening during that time was expressed in churches, that’s true, but the fundamental inspiration for the Great Awakening was the Enlightenment idea that ALL men are created equal and free. This also inspired the Abolitionist movement.
Hence, the idea that any average Joe can have relevant ideas, and those ideas should be their intellectual property, is an Enlightenment idea, and the Enlightenment era has always been the archenemy of Calvinism. A Calvinist believing in intellectual property is an oxymoron. Calvinists having to play along with the idea of intellectual property is a classic cultural clash between Puritan tyranny and the Enlightenment gospel that inspired the American idea. Calvinists don’t take intellectual property seriously and that’s why plagiarism is rampant in the New Calvinist movement. If Driscoll was honest, he would have laughed in Mefferd’s face. Only the enlightened have relevant intellectual property, and even then, it comes from God and not man.
And, go figure, Mefferd found further evidence of Driscoll plagiarism. And, go figure, Tyndale House Publishers defended the un-defendable in this case. Like I said, New Calvinism owns Christianity, and that includes the publishers. This is why independent publishing companies like Presage and TANC are popping up—New Calvinism virtually controls what gets published and what doesn’t in evangelical circles.
In my own situation at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, I became aware that the present New Calvinist Pastor, Russ Kennedy, was fired from his prior pastorate for plagiarizing a John Piper sermon word for word. Imagine, he got up in front of the congregation and preached another man’s sermon while allowing the congregation to believe it came from his intellect. Also, Clearcreek is guilty of the same thing that many New Calvinist churches are guilty of, double plagiarism. What’s that? Well, the staff elders supply the lay elders with manuscripts and the lay elders pretend they put the lesson together. But in at least one instance, the plagiarized manuscript included plagiarized material from a pastor outside of Clearcreek Chapel.
This is sort of like a bank robber double dipping by robbing the teller and the customer both.
paul
Robert Jones Will Return to Clearcreek Chapel to Teach a Refresher Course on Controlling Parishioners
The New Calvinist movement is much attuned to its European Reformed roots. Though the New Calvinists deny a mentality of equal footing between orthodoxy and Scripture, their endearment to Reformed authority is evident. Though documents like the Westminster Confession and the Calvin Institutes are said to be “subordinate truth,” we must remember that these documents are, “orthodoxy,” and orthodoxy is synonymous with “truth” in Western culture. “Heterodox” is the opposite, and commonly refers to those who oppose the commonly accepted creeds and confessions of the Reformed church.[1]
The fact that these documents were drafted under the auspices of church states is a major consideration. For example, The Westminster Confession of Faith includes specific standards for the enforcement of orthodoxy by the state.[2] The most formidable result of the Enlightenment era, the United States of America, changed all of that. What we clearly have now is a desire to follow the dictates of 17th century Reformed orthodoxy in a post Christian era ruled by the separation of church and state. As an aside, it would be wrong to say the Enlightenment era was anti-Christian; in contrast, it championed freedom of Religion by insisting on the separation of faith and force.
The desire to follow in the footsteps of those who believed in the civil enforcement of orthodoxy poses unique problems for the Neo-Calvinist movement. This created a niche consulting market that specializes in teaching churches how to improvise in an open society. One of the first organizations to exploit this need was Peacemaker Ministries. Founded in 1982, the organization equips church leaders to control parishioners under the pretense of “peace making.”
The present-day New Calvinist movement was born in 1970, and from its beginning spawned massive church splits and conflict. By 1982, an emphasis on damage control would have been in high demand, especially in regard to lawsuits provoked by the heavy-handed leadership style of New Calvinists.
The organization strives to help churches “build a culture of peace.” One way of doing that is through “peacemaking teams.” Keep in mind, organizations like Peacemakers are supported by the institutional church and have no vested interest in obtaining a peaceful solution for individual concerns. Peacemaker Ministries routinely turns a blind eye to the out of control misuse of church discipline in Neo-Calvinist church culture. The excuse PM employs for not getting involved would be funny if not so dastardly: they cite the bogus church discipline itself as a reason to not get involved because they only get involved in controversies between Christians. And since the bogus church discipline has declared the offended party an unbeliever—all bets are off. Again, keep in mind who is paying PM.
On their website, it is stated that the purpose of peacemaking teams is to “serve their leaders and to advance their vision to build his church.” So, it is not true reconciliation that is in mind, or gaining brothers between brothers, but rather a team that diffuses controversy that hinders the leaders’ “vision.” This is just another tool in the repertoire of control infrastructures common in Neo-Calvinist churches. What these control structures look like is discussed here.
Once again, Robert Jones of Peacemaker Ministries will teach at the annual “Family Enrichment Conference” held at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. Jones is scheduled to teach at the 2014 conference. Clearcreek Chapel has a long history of unresolved conflict with many Christians, and is well known for its cult-like heavy-handed leadership style. Since the departure of the founding pastor, Clearcreek has consistently drifted from one conflict to another. The latest controversy involved complaints by parishioners that the Clearcreek elders were teaching “some kind of Christian mysticism.” The Chapel elders recently changed their titles to less controversial words like “overseer” as opposed to “pastor of spiritual formation” etc. In addition, the radical Christian mystic Chad Bresson is no longer on the board of elders, and is seemingly no longer a member there as well.
A Robert Jones tune-up may be well overdue.
paul
1. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language: World Publishers 1959.
2. William Marshall: The Principles of the Westminster Standards Persecuting ; D.D., Coupar – Angus. Edinburgh: William Oliphant & Co. 1873. Specific citations: Paul’s Passing Thoughts .com; Inseparable: The Reformation’s Principles of Persecution and its Gospel; Part One – August 31, 2013.
Clearcreek Chapel Gone Wild: Jesus Keeps the Clearcreek Covenant for You
My, my, how different Clearcreek Chapel of Springboro, Ohio is since a pack of New Calvinist wolves took it over shortly after the departure of the founding pastor. The victorious pack, led by Chad Bresson (who for some reason recently left the KoolAid paradise that he built at his former chapel with a creepy adoration for his supposed theological prowess), began infiltrating the flock a couple of weeks before Dr. John Street’s departure.
The undomesticated canine delegation he brought with him from a Baptist church in Dayton, Ohio seemed to be frustrated with their inability to devour at that location. Really old sheep produce a mutton that is tough to chew, and invariably leaves a bad aftertaste.
As far as the “friends” I knew back in that day, and their susceptibility to believe Bresson’s outrageous mythology, I never saw it coming.
Apparently, just about any place a thinking person pokes the Chapel these days produces something utterly bizarre. I say this because of what I accidently stumbled onto today. In a recent sermon by Chapel elder Devon Berry, who is a mental healthcare professional (yikes!), he stated that Jesus keeps the Chapel covenant for the “beloved” members. Let me share an excerpt:
Is the Chapel covenant a call to a certain kind of living in the Church? Yes, it is. But beloved, it is a call to much, much, much more than that and it can never be only that. It is a call to the living Christ, our righteousness, our sin-bearer, our life. When you read the Chapel Covenant, reflect on Christ first for it is meant to point us to him – not to ourselves and our own efforts. Then rejoice. He has obeyed for us. He has suffered and died for us. And, he has also enabled us by grace – something we’ve talked around this morning but not mentioned directly.
Let me close by contradicting myself. Earlier I said that you could not keep the Chapel Covenant. I will end by saying that you can keep the Chapel Covenant. Grace, the enabling power given by God because we are at peace with him through the work of the cross, provides all that we need to obey and overcome sin. Hence, the Chapel Covenant is a call to live in the reality of who we are as believers. There is no better place you could live, no more joyful place you could abide, no more beautiful place you could dwell than in the life-transforming reality of the gospel. Believer, be who you are for Christ has given you all that you need.
Clearly, Berry is putting the Chapel covenant on par with the Scriptures. He states that it is more than a standard; it is a “call to the living Christ.” And, the ability to keep the covenant requires the enabling grace of Christ? This is beyond creepy. Moreover, if 2+2=4, Berry makes living by the Chapel covenant via the grace of Christ synonymous with dwelling in the “life-transforming reality of the gospel.” And according to Berry, there is not a place in the world where they could have more joy.
Sorry I am missing all the fun.
paul
A Frank Discussion About Homosexuality, Church Membership, and Joy Wickholm Bennett Tyranny
“This post isn’t so much about her, it is about the fact that she exemplifies a very important distinction in the realm of philosophical politics; that of the individualist versus the collectivist….That’s what we need to know about New Calvinists beyond the fact that they hold to a false gospel. They are collectivists.”
Tyranny always introduces itself with a kind understanding hand. Tyrants always feel your pain until the day that they inflict it. As a matter of necessity they also pose themselves as people who care about right and wrong. No, the only “right” is their collectivist doctrine. You can say sin is the cause for every drop of blood spilled on the earth, but past that, the question of the individual versus “the group” is the arena where that blood is spilled.
Until God Himself comes to rule the earth, two basic philosophies prevail about what is the best way to order society until that happens: confidence in the ability of the individual and a government that creates an environment where that can flourish, or confidence in an elite few who must rule over the incompetent, unenlightened masses. The elite few have always been those who claim access to a faraway enlightenment that is too difficult for the unenlightened masses to access. Plato, the undisputed psyche of Western culture, believed that only an elite few were willing to invest in the study necessary to obtain that enlightenment, and their ability to do so was predetermined within their particular pedigree. Plato, being a mentoree of the Hindus, believed that man’s soul reflected the ideal society, and each person was born a producer, a soldier, or a philosopher (spiritual or secular caste).
Moses and the apostle John disagreed on faraway enlightenment that needed to be mined by the spiritual or philosophical elite. Moses told the Israelites that no one needed to go up to heaven and bring the word down. He said it was very near to them and they were able to understand it. John said we have no need for anyone to teach us. John in particular was refuting the Gnosticism that was wreaking havoc on the early church, the same Gnosticism that has its origins in Plato.
Individualism is the arch enemy of collectivism. In collectivism, it is never about right or wrong, it is about being obedient to what’s best for “the group.” And don’t miss this: there is only one thing that is bad for the group; INDIVIDUALISM. This is the crux of the little tiff I had with blogger Joy Wickholm Bennett this week. I assume her and hubby Scott Bennett are still members of a…. or the…. New Calvinist church I last heard about. Her edgy public writing is no problem there because she is like many New Calvinists: they are allowed to play in their sandbox of ideas as long as they don’t do anything that unsettles the herd. And not keeping me on a short leash in regard to what “the group” did to me could jeopardize the freedom granted her at this time. We see this as a constant pattern in the testimonies we receive at TANC. It goes like this:
We were in marriage counseling and my spouse was being fingered for being the problem in our marriage. Then I started asking questions about doctrine. At the very next counseling session, I was all of a sudden the problem and not my spouse.
And let me throw my very own testimony on that heap. But the point here is the very valuable lesson I learned in regard to the fray. New Calvinists can play in their antinomian sandboxes as specified by their New Calvinist masters. They can be anything they want to pretend to be, just so it doesn’t reveal where any bodies are buried. While Bennett sells herself as a freethinking hipster, she is ultimately enslaved to the group and their tyranny. She is the personification of the SGM mentality.
Nevertheless, like so many of her liberal types, she accuses individualists of being “mandatory” in their thinking. The subject was homosexuality. This post isn’t so much about her, it is about the fact that she exemplifies a very important distinction in the realm of philosophical politics; that of the individualist versus the collectivist.
As a Biblicist, I am on a journey right now. How should separatism be defined? In the real world. As a Christian, if I have a boss that is gay, it is mandatory that you respect that boss. That’s the Bible. And by the way, homosexuals can be very good bosses. I doubt many care whether you are a Christian or not, there primary concern, if they are smart and many are, is how you make them look to their superiors. So, venue considerations are huge here. Moreover, I strongly contend that the Bible would teach a winning over by job performance alone in that venue.
Let me be clear here: I have friends and relatives who are homosexuals. Let me also be clear on this as well, they know where I stand on the issue. In these relationships, I think venue and mutual respect is the key here. Neither position is in the closet, nor is either thrown in the face of the other. They know that if they want a debate or counsel on the issue, they can readily find it with me. My duty is twofold: that my position is known, and that I then live out the substance of that position.
But there is also another angle here, collectivist versus individualist. In some collectivist societies not tempered by the American Constitution, homosexuals are executed. As Christians, are we up with that? Look, please, be a Biblicist like me, just don’t be an idiot about it. In regard to the upstart Potter’s House, would we allow homosexuals to be members? No, but on the other hand, The Potter’s House is a movement away from Protestant tradition, so we are still working through what true biblical membership really is to begin with. There are many, many unnecessary debates in the church because of Protestant tradition.
Would we allow a homosexual to attend our fellowship to hear our ideas while respecting our venue? Well, I look forward to hashing these things out as we grow, but right now, I would say, “yes.” But stop right now and put this in neon lights:
In collectivist societies, depending on the stripe, and there are many, what is deemed best for the group, is DICTATED by the few via civil law. And that may very well be homosexuality. In other words, the day may come when it would be against the law for the formal church to exclude, or include, homosexuality. And keep in mind, let me repeat that, “keep in mind,” an individualistic homosexual would be against mandatory inclusion.
The question is, how much tradition throws churches into this fray unnecessarily? And second, should Christians be more involved with social morality or the political philosophy that will dictate it to begin with? How we approach a problem is often smarter than a narrow focus on not compromising beliefs. Here is the danger, and please put this in neon lights as well:
“Moral” friends are often collectivists. And if they are put in power, that is something that has NEVER turned out well in all of human history.
Now, this brings me to the dangers of fleeing to those who share our same opinions. And worst yet, wanting them to have power. Are they collectivists, or are they individualists? One will allow you to have your own beliefs under reasonable constructs while being concerned for your wellbeing; the other will not tolerate a differing opinion because they believe it is a threat to society as a whole. Enforcing orthodoxy by the sword is a matter concerning the survival of mankind in their minds.
That’s what we need to know about New Calvinists beyond the fact that they hold to a false gospel. They are collectivists. And there is nothing “new” about it, Calvin was a collectivist extraordinaire. And that’s Joy Wickholm Bennett. She is the epitome of a collectivist. She lost the argument, so instead of being persuaded by the argument, she censored me. Siding with the collectivists that committed a criminal act against me was merely par. I was on a short leash for that reason to begin with. Her reaction was the result of two factors: one, she lost the argument; two, her sandbox was being threatened. Hence, we have a definition of collectivism:
Collectivism will not lose an argument or learn from it because it possesses an elitist knowledge that will save the world from itself.
And let’s look at her argument. In regard to homosexuals, deterministic. Go figure. Homosexuals are born with the desires that they have and have no control over those desires. Nobody chooses their desires, they are born with them. During our little tiff, she asked me when I chose to lust after women. My argument was that no Christian is enslaved to any desire save those that please God. I specifically argued that her determinist view was ironically making the homosexual the judge over a pedophile. Both have a desire, but she was judging deterministic desires as having different moral values. One should change, the other can’t?
Don’t misconstrue my point: at issue is the ability to change if one so desires. At issue is the rejection of determinism. At issue is choice.
Game over. Bennett, like all collectivists, will not lose an argument. And if she has the authority, she will have you burned at the stake just like her Great Uncle Calvin. Liberals don’t worry me, collectivist liberals worry me. Bennett is a collectivist liberal Calvinist. I like conservatives better, but a collectivist conservative is no less a danger. And don’t miss the way her collectivist determinism transcends liberalism and conservatism.
Hope lies in individualistic Biblicism. It also sees any kind of individualism as offering more hope than any of Plato’s relatives. That is a legacy punctuated with fire and death. It is a philosophy that always comes selling itself as freedom that results in bondage. Like Bennett, it whispers to many that it was predetermined that they are that way, and in their elite wisdom happy hopelessness can be found.
paul
Some of the following are screen shots of what Bennett deleted. Other aforementioned arguments were deleted before I could screenshot them.
No Joy, as you know, they held me hostage to membership at CCC after I left biblically by letter under threat of ruining my reputation for months. That’s not a feud, it’s a criminal act. And that is ok with you because you are a tyrant just like they are.
The Joy Bennett Gospel: Salvation by a Confused, Doubtful Journey and the Conversation on Censorship Continues
“But journeys don’t save; a love for the truth saves (2THESS 2:10). Bennett isn’t looking for truth; she’s looking for more questions. But the greatest disappointment was her excuse for censoring me.”
As PPT readers know, I am on a journey of sorts to determine what I want to do about those of differing beliefs that comment on PPT. I had decided to just censor them, but then I was talked out of that by some folks I respect. Then I was almost talked into reversing my position by others that I also respect, until today. Now I want to think this through more because today I was on the other end of some really nasty censorship.
How do I perceive the person who censored me? Well, we will get to that, but for now, let’s just say it’s not how I want my message to be evaluated; i.e., it can’t withstand a fight in the arena of ideas.
That’s the rub. I put a different value on ideas than I normally would because America is so dumbed down in both secular and religious realms. That is the argument that is winning the day with me right now; folks don’t even know where to start looking for truth much less figuring it out. For certain, the Bible is no longer the authority that it once was, but I find that it produces arguments that are irrefutable.
Why has the blogosphere exploded among Christians? Because censorship is rampant in the church. The Neo-Calvinist movement has majority rule right now, and Calvin’s power of the keys come with it. The comment I hear most from church exiles are: “They don’t take challenges to what they teach well.” Or, “Geez, all I did was ask a question!” Couple that with the fact that Neo-Calvinist teachings produce massive confusion. It’s the eternal long car trip for the young child. This is why I am hesitant to censor PPT comments. It just smacks of tyranny. However, in order to turn challenges into the lemonade of persuasion I would have to be available to moderate most of the day, and that’s a huge problem. Unanswered ideas can reflect agreement.
All of that aside, we will now discuss Joy Bennett. Bennett is a blogger that enjoys widespread success as a writer on the blogosphere. She censored me on her Facebook page with a rude finality. Uh, Joy, I am a blogger too, so that’s not the way it works with me. I will now answer you publically and expose you for the rank hypocrite that you are. And Joy, as a rule when I comment, I do screenshots. You didn’t censor anything; I am going to publish the stream in massive fashion with plenty of tags.
Joy Bennett is married to the rabid New Calvinist Scott Bennett who is also a blogger. Hence, knowing that she was in those circles, I sympathized with her (until today) “journey of doubt.” She is a new breed of shock blogger that emphasizes writing about “real life.” She also postures herself as an advocate for the abused and downtrodden. Her self-aggrandizing “transparency” seems to be a gospel among her types. Apparently, God will smile on the journey of doubt because of sincerity. However, that pesky intruder named “truth” is found unwelcome.
Today, answers seemed to irritate Bennett because she exemplifies a gargantuan problem with the present-day blogosphere: answers are bad for business. The more answers, the shorter the journey. It’s really all about, “Joy in This Journey.” But journeys don’t save; a love for the truth saves (2THESS 2:10). Bennett isn’t looking for truth; she’s looking for more questions. But the greatest disappointment was her excuse for censoring me. I challenged the comments of someone in the stream that both of us used to attend church with. As many know, my 20-year membership there did not end well. Though my initial comments were left posted, she deleted them when I posed a certain argument regarding the subject at hand. Then came the disappointment:
Feud? So disappointing. While Bennett postures herself as an advocate for the downtrodden, she referred to the criminal act committed against me by Clearcreek Chapel as a tiff of some sort. She is indicative of the many in church today who are utterly indifferent to what is right and what is wrong. One of the many reasons for Christ’s return will be to display God’s justice among the nations. Bennett has no such love for justice while calling herself a “bleeding heart liberal.” She will discuss male erections, used tampon sandwiches (not a typo), and other such edgy subjects on her blog, but not my comments regarding the specific post by the former member (which was on topic and said NOTHING of the “feud” at all). So much for the blogger who writes, “naked” according to her.
For the first time, I saw Bennett for what she really is: just another run-of-the-mill New Calvinist tyrant. I don’t like censorship for that reason: it smells like tyranny and the anemic ideas that always come with it. Therefore, debate must be averted by silencing its enemies.
The journey for me continues on this issue, but all of life is not a journey of doubt. And ignorance of the truth is a choice. God is not in the hide and seek business.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments