Creepy Sermon by Dr. Devon Berry Indicative of New Calvinist Cultism
This is a repost on the New Calvinist concept of how to listen to a sermon. I used an example of a sermon preached by Dr. Devon Berry, an elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. Berry is also an assistance professor of Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. This is creepy stuff, but nonetheless indicative of the kind of cultism being spawned across this country by New Calvinism.
How to listen to a sermon?
Not only is the GS / Sonship doctrine completely off the tracks theologically, it is inevitable that such doctrine will lead to many other things that followers “are not yet ready for.” However, as this hideous doctrine grows, for the most part, unchecked—proponents are now presenting teachings that would have been rejected out of hand a couple of years ago. In other words, probably surprised themselves by the lack of contention against their ridiculous doctrine—they are becoming more bold. For example, more and more, the GS concept of learning how to listen to a sermonis becoming more prevalent. Yesterday, a reader sent me two links.
First of all, the thesis itself is just plain creepy and should raise red flags all over the place. I became aware of it three years ago when I obtained a manuscript from a parishioner at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, a bastion of GS / Sonship teachings and a NANC training center. As I carried the manuscript from place to place while I was slowly absorbing it, whether in the waiting room of my auto mechanic, or waiting for food at the local diner—the title caught the attention of many, and the following was usually the result: “Huh?” “That’s just really strange,” etc. In fact, one proponent wrote in one of the links sent to me, “I was first alerted to this issue by Christopher Ash’s leaflet entitled ‘Listen Up’. In it he claims that there’s been nothing written on the issue in the last 200 years.” Yep, I’m not really surprised by that. Nor was any reference given as to who supposedly wrote about it even then—go figure.
So what’s behind this creepy concept? I will use the manuscript from Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC) because it was one of the first independent sovereign grace churches in this country to adopt the Sonship doctrine. Not only that, CCC is a well respected and noted church in the movement. Paul David Tripp (speaks there often), David Powlison, and John Piper have close association with CCC, and the Pastor prides himself as a follower of John Piper—dressing like him and speaking like him as well. As far back as 1994 or 96, when the movement was barley fifteen years old, one or two respected Sonshippers (of course, nobody at CCC was aware of the doctrine) in the CCC congregation were instrumental in having the likes of Jerry Brides and DA Carson invited to speak there. I sat in the congregation myself and heard Jerry Bridges say: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” The comment gave me pause, but I brushed it aside and continued to struggle to stay awake as I thought the guy would die standing there behind the pulpit at any moment. When the founding pastor moved to California, Russ Kennedy became pastor under false pretence—knowing grade-A-well that the vast majority of CCC parishioners would reject such a doctrine. In fact, Kennedy allowed me to be instrumental in his appointment while knowing that such a doctrine would cause me to jump in the river.
I will be writing a post in this series about CCC because it is a projected model of what churches will look like in the future who implement this doctrine. And it is also why I am using their model for this whole learning how to listen to a sermon concept which is eerily similar to Jack Hyle’s famous quote: “Now I want you to close your Bibles and listen to me.” Most of what I have written on this blog concerns the doctrine itself, but the subtle creepiness / cult-like elements of this movement is another story altogether. But without further ado, let us examine the GS / Sonship take on how to listen to a sermon. Actually, I have written on the crux of this concept before. What really drives this issue? Answer: elder authority. GS / Sonship has a very overemphasized view of elder authority and that is really at the heart of this concept. Devon Berry, the “elder” at CCC who delivered this message, is also one of the primary instructors for the NANC training center at CCC. The following is my critique of his message. I apologize for how difficult it is to unravel this clever twisting of God’s word. However, if you try to follow my argument thoughtfully, I think by the end it will come together for you. The title of his message was, How to Listen to a Sermon:
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from preaching and teaching, and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” “quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added in to mask the disturbing part of this statement: “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, IF I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
”As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that “it” in his statement refers to God’s word, not Paul’s preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes through the “preacher” first, before getting to the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion (emphasis mine):
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear every sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church (Chad Bresson) projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also said the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“—introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation (“cycle”) between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word for proper understanding. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process,” in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Sonship / GS theology.
paul
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 9; Let’s Just Get This Part Out of the Way Right Now
Lord willing, in following parts, I will further explain the movement that drives Jean Larroux’s theology and vision. I will clearly show that his doctrine was concocted by a Reformed Seventh-day Adventist who is now an atheist. The theology came out of the Progressive Adventism movement. By the way, it is doubtful, like in the case of many other New Calvinists, that Larroux knows the history and foundation of what he is following. I will also show that this doctrine has been known by other names such as Gospel Sanctification and Sonship theology. This information is the culmination of almost five years of research.
The founders of the doctrine believed they rediscovered the heart of the Reformation: The Centrality of the Objective Gospel. They began a crusade to save the church, seeing themselves as modern-day Reformers. The movement began in the early 70’s. This is what Southwood parishioners must come to grips with, Larroux thinks he is part of a movement that is saving the church from this present “subjective, synergistic Dark Age.”
This movement plays for keeps, and most American parishioners would not be willing to engage in the kind of no holds barred combat that this bunch is willing to engage in. The faint of heart need not apply, and most parishioners know that they will be on their own if they take a stand. One of the repeated mistakes made by leaders and elders in the face of this movement is resigning in protest, allowing the insurgents to solidify their power base. Though elders who do not join with them suffer persecution, they must hold their ground. A mixture of sitting elders for/against is a great hindrance in regard to taking over a ministry. The problem is, the sitting elders against usually can’t figure out where in the world these guys are coming from. How do you contend against something you don’t understand? That’s where this ministry comes into play. Sitting elders who understand the movement’s history, doctrine, and character would be a gargantuan obstacle to the orchestrated takeover. Nevertheless, a good thing will take place here; Southwood parishioners will at least understand why the takeover happened which is rarely the case otherwise.
The leaders of this movement have no truth to stand on, so they must resort to neutralizing dissenters via character assignation and other means. The best information I have right now shows that the Southwood elders are at work digging up all the dirt on me they can find. According to what Larroux says on Southwood’s website, the bigger the sinner, the more Christ is glorified, but trust me, I will be the exception. This is the usual protocol for the movement, so let’s just get this part out of the way.
My run-in with New Calvinists happened at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. I had been a member there for about twenty years and was an elder for around five. I stepped aside as an elder because though my marriage had no serious problems, I did not believe it was a marriage that exemplified the high standards of eldership. It was my decision.
At some point, I began to realize something wasn’t right. This resulted in many, many, hours of discussion with the Clearcreek elders. Also, one elder, Chad Bresson, is a key person in the movement’s early developments. Bottom line: without the many hours of interaction with these elders I would not have been able to connect all of the dots. In fact, I know that for certain.
Though I had a few years to go before I got the full picture, I figured out enough while I was there to become a threat to their plan of feeding the congregation the New Calvinist elephant a bit at a time. No slander or behavior of any sort was withheld in order to neutralize me, including criminal activity. Remember, they are out to save the church at any cost. My missionary son-in-law and daughter stood with me. One church that belonged to the same fellowship of churches as Clearcreek threatened to destroy their ministry if they continued to stand with me. By the way, that church admitted that Clearcreek was wrong, but explained to me that I should be willing to sacrifice the truth for the sake of unity.
I will now share the following links to tell my side of the story.
For any and all additional disclosure, including court documents, email me at pmd@inbox.com
paul
I’m Not Kidding—That’s What He Said
A reader sent me a manuscript from the 2011 John Bunyan Conference in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Basically, the yearly event is a New Covenant Theology love-fest. This year’s conference had many of the who’s who of NCT including John Reisinger and Fred Zaspel. NCT is a tenet of Gospel Sanctification which was mothered by Sonship Theology. NCT, like GS’s other tenets, was developed to bolster Sonship. The two, GS and NCT, go hand in hand. Determined to hold fast to the concept of being sanctified by the same gospel that saves us, advocates have been hard at work since 1980 (approx.) to make the rest of the Bible fit with the aforementioned concept. The result is the following: NCT, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and a gospel-centered hermeneutic borrowed from Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics—invented by liberal theologian Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826).
The manuscript was the text of one of the speakers, Chad Bresson—radio personality and elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. Clearcreek Chapel considers themselves a NCT church (according to another elder there, Dale Evans), and their doctrine is the epitome of Gospel Sanctification. The reader who sent the manuscript referred to Bresson as the “Golden Boy of Gospel Sanctification” in central Ohio. Gagingly, I would have to agree. The opening line of the manuscript, a twenty-nine page linguistic drone, finally surpasses the outrageous absurdity of Bresson’s “Another Brick in the Wall,” in which he creepily / cultishly suggested that the original sin in the garden was not disobedience, but the sin of not submitting to the authority of teachers/ elders. But truly, his thesis and opening line on this one takes the cake:
“Stephen was killed for preaching New Covenant Theology.” I’m not kidding—that’s what he said. I can just see him opening his message (after a silent pause) with this, supposedly, profound capture. First of all, nobody denies that NCT is a recent creation. Richard Barcellos, in his excellent critique of NCT, “In Defense Of The Decalogue,” voiced concern in the book’s preface that the movement was still in its developmental stages, and therefore, difficult to evaluate. That was in 2001. Bresson’s thesis is therefore indicative of NCT’s extreme arrogance—they are supposedly the gatekeepers of this newfound truth some two-thousand years later, and I will give you three wild guesses as to who they think would stone them today. This is why an us against them mentality saturates many GS / Sonship / NCT churches.
After suffering through about twelve pages of the obituary-like document, a few statements begged attention that somehow fail to alarm Christians of our day. First, that the New Covenant abrogated the law, and that all former covenants were cancelled by the NC as well. Of course, as Barcellos points out in his book, the first point blatantly contradicts Jeremiah 31:33, Matthew 5:17, and Romans 3:31. As far as the second point that caught my attention like a penguin singing “I Just Gotta Be Me” in the midst of the flock, it blatantly contradicts Ephesians 2: 11,12 where Paul likens the unregenerate to those “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants [PLURAL NOT SINGULAR] of promise.” Furthermore, Paul then cites an excerpt from the Decalogue to make a point in Ephesians 6:1-3 making it clear that the “promise” thereof still applies to us today. All of the gallons of ink spilled by Bresson will not stand against these few verses of Scripture—truth does not bow to a myriad of words.
paul
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
20 comments