The Truth About “Church Discipline”
Audio Link: The Truth About “Church Discipline”
Good evening and welcome to False Reformation blogtalk radio. I am your host, Paul Dohse. If you would like to join the discussion tonight and add to what we are learning, call 347-855-8317 and remember to mute the speakers on your laptop or PC. And by the way, the question or comment does not have to pertain to the subject at hand—it can be off-point. When I answer, I will say, “Hello, you are live on Blogtalk radio what is your comment or question?” Just start talking as identifying yourself is optional. Per the usual, we will check in with Susan towards the end of the episode to see if she has anything to add.
A Short Contemporary History of Church Discipline
With that said let’s get on with our subject tonight, “church discipline.” I am going to begin by describing how church discipline has evolved in the evangelical church within the past ten years. Prior to 1980, church discipline was all but completely unheard of. It started making a comeback in the early 80’s much to the delight of many evangelicals who were frustrated and confused by indifference to sin in the church.
Of course, this comeback was spawned by the Calvinist resurgence that started in 1970. Churches that began to practice church discipline were seen as fellowships that were serious about following God and dealing with sin. The manner of practice was pretty much what you would expect: if someone was practicing sin of the baser sort, they were confronted by someone. If the person would not listen, two or three witnesses would return and confront the person. Of course, this all comes from Matthew 18: 15-20. Let’s go ahead and read the passage:
Matthew 18:15 – “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
Even in the beginning of the discipline resurgence, there were problems with how church discipline was practiced. First, the Matthew 18 prism was, and still is, used for every situation in the church. In contrast, there are seven different applications for various situations within the church, and we will go over those tonight. Matthew 18 is only one of those situations; specifically, the resolving of conflict between Christians.
Secondly, rarely was the situation brought before the whole church before excommunication which Matthew 18:17 clearly calls us to do. The third step is usually an announcement to the congregation in regard to what the elders have decided to do. I think this is the strongest argument for home fellowships versus the institutional church model that there is: most institutional churches circumvent this step because of the impracticality of doing so because of size, numbers of people who don’t know the parties, and possible legal litigation.
Again, church discipline was rare and only practiced in situations where the sin was considered to be of the baser sort. All of that gradually changed. We began to see folks brought under church discipline for many different kinds of behavior. Most notably, lack of church attendance. This was first brought to light when Pastor Mark Dever, a well-known Neo-Calvinist, excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance.
This was followed by church discipline for non-tithing or lack of tithing. In regard to the biblical counseling movement that was growing at breakneck speed within the Reformed community, people began to show up at counseling appointments and finding unexpected additional persons present. Hence, the counselee suddenly found himself or herself in the second step of church discipline. Any attempt to vacate membership at that point would be considered an attempt to avoid dealing with the sin and excommunication more than likely the result.
Eventually, the cat was completely out of the bag; what was going on was the spread of something called “redemptive church discipline.” What was/is cause for church discipline? Sin; i.e., anything the elders deem sin and worthy of church discipline in their minds. What about the problem of people simply avoiding church membership? It is now generally accepted that any professing Christian is under the authority of any Reformed elder whether a formal member or not.
One might say, “They can pound salt—they don’t have that kind of authority over me.” True, but that doesn’t prevent them from announcing to the congregation that you are under church discipline WITHOUT naming your sin and thereby leaving the congregation to their imagination because in the minds of most Christians, church discipline is for sins like adultery or worse. Whether or not they truly have that authority over you—your reputation is ruined just the same.
Authority, and the Church Discipline Myth
Let’s look at another aspect of this: the supposed authority of elders to determine your salvation. We hear it all the time: church membership is synonymous with being joined to the body of Christ. If your membership has been revoked, guess what? It’s the same difference; church membership equals salvation.
Let’s address this, and also answer the question: is there really any such thing as church discipline?
In regard to actual excommunication, or expulsion from the body, the only account that we have, or cause for an expulsion from the assembly, is in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. This is the only passage were expulsion is not in doubt, and the reason is gross immorality of the sexual kind. Paul says in no uncertain terms: “Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” And, “Expel the wicked man from among you.”
This is the only place in the Bible where expulsion from fellowship is explicitly instructed. Also note: in all of the other sins confronted in the letter to the Corinthians, this is the only place that any kind of disciplinary action is commanded! I think this is a point well worth mentioning. Paul motivates them throughout the letter to obey because of God’s promise of reward, loss of reward, judgment, the coming resurrection, etc.; but chapter 5 is the only place where God’s people are commanded to take specific action to remove a parishioner from the fellowship. I believe this speaks volumes toward an argument that church discipline is reserved for sins of the baser sort, those “of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.”
Even in this one explicit case where we have a man expelled from the congregation, Paul does not declare him to be an unbeliever, but rather assumes the opposite: “When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” Bottom line: nowhere does the Bible say that a professing believer should ever be “declared” an unbeliever for any reason; to the contrary, Paul states the opposite by assuming that the expelled Corinthian was saved. It is also worth mentioning that Jesus assumes the lost sheep that stray from the flock are part of the flock and should be diligently sought after (Matt. 18:10-14). Perhaps the idea that we can do this (declare individuals to be unbelievers) is spawned by the belief that it is the church that actually does the disciplining when the term itself (“church discipline”) is a misnomer. In rare circumstance we expel, but it is the Lord that does the disciplining outside of the church: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” There is discipline by the Lord inside and outside of the church ( Hebrews 12:5-11, 1Cor. 11:30), and “self “ discipline by believers (1Cor. 11:31,32), but there is no “church discipline” practiced by elders or the church.
Now in regard to how this supposed church discipline works, let’s look at a couple of models:
Church Discipline and Counseling
In this model, the steps work the same as the traditional model. However, if the person repents, this begins the next phase of the church discipline “process.” The person is now required to enter counseling. This model integrates counseling and church discipline as one process. If the person refuses the counseling, he or she is not really repentant and the “process” goes to the next step. If the person enters formal counseling to “restore” him (Gal. 6:1,2) the discipline process ends when he/she is released from counseling. In other words, the person is “under” corrective church discipline until they are released from counseling.
The counseling is the correction part. Proponents of this model would scoff at the traditional view because “it does not deal with the person’s heart.” Only outward repentance is required with the traditional model. The person is supposedly only giving lip service to avoid public humiliation (as if the Lord wouldn’t use that to correct a person: 1Tim 5:20). Dropping the matter on the person’s verbal repentance alone is just “chopping off daisies,” and we don’t want the daisies popping back up tomorrow. We need to supposedly get to the “root” of the problem via counseling.
The supposed goal of church discipline is “real and lasting” change. On its face value, a very strong argument, if you approach the Scriptures using a heart theology hermeneutic, thus interpreting all of Scripture through that prism rather than drawing meaning from the plain sense of a particular text or combination of texts. The overall flavor of texts dealing with church discipline posits the idea that the matter is dropped upon verbal repentance (Luke 17:3,4).
I think proponents of this model see church discipline as one of the tools used to fine tune the church and therefore error concerning the truth. It reasons from the viewpoint of this model that all types of sin would be in play. In other words, you could be brought under church discipline for anything that is sin (just like counseling is for any kind of problem). If you carry that equation to various logical conclusions, the imagination goes wild, but this is in fact one of the tenants of this model.
Second Model of Redemptive Church Discipline
This model encompasses all of model two, except there is no confrontation because true repentance is determined by those who are spiritual (pastors, counselors, etc.) during the process. If it is observed that you are in sin, any sin, you can be placed in this process. You are “under” church discipline until it is determined by examining counselors or elders that you have repented. This is accomplished by examination and observation over time.
The steps are not confrontations to exhort repentance (like the traditional model), but warnings within the process that you are a step closer to disfellowship due to slackness or lack of change, or additional misbehaviors while in the process. Leaving the process without the blessings of church leaders who have not yet determined true repentance would usually result in disfellowship and treatment as an unbeliever.
A decision to place a person into this process by church elders is usually based on the testimony of others because mere verbal repentance on the part of the sinner is never acceptable. One is placed into the process without warning and for any reason seen fit by the elders; that is the primary difference in this model as opposed to the other two. Out of nowhere and without any warning, it is announced to the subject that they are in the discipline process.
The Terminology
No matter which model is practiced, and these are by no means comprehensive, the usual description for all models in constitutions and bylaws is the process of “corrective church discipline.” This description fits all three models and many more. Which one does your church practice? Are you sure?
What Does the Bible Really Say About Conflict or Sin Resolution Among God’s People?
Conflict resolution among God’s people always regards fellowship and not authority. No judgment is made in regard to the person’s salvation; it’s purely a fellowship issue. There is no church membership, you either fellowship with God’s people are you don’t. Our only judge is Christ, and our only authority is what God says in His word. By the way, the word “obey” in Hebrews 13:17, a verse often used to taut elder authority means to “persuade.”
The Bible is specific on how different situations are to be handled among God’s people.
1. Conflict Between Christians
Though Matthew 18:15-20 is often cited as the general template for the so-called church discipline “process”, I would argue that these are steps in regard to offenses between believers only. Verse 15 makes this abundantly clear: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” It is argued by some that the earlier manuscripts do not include “against you”, which allows the passage to address sin in general. Hence, the aforementioned one-size-fits-all approach. So, how do we know for sure what is correct? Are the earlier manuscripts the final word? I would say the context of both reveals the best interpretation. In all versions, forgiveness by the one who is to go to him alone is in view (Luke 17:3,4). Why would a brother who observed another in sin necessarily seek a personal apology (repentance)?
Peter, who was there to hear the lesson first hand, seemed to draw this conclusion as well when he asked this interpretive question to Jesus: “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’” (Matthew 18:21).
What we have here is the steps to reconcile two brothers / sisters and nothing more. Corrective measures in regard to other types of sins will be addressed later. What unfolds in the rest of this passage is a process that protects the confronted as well as the confronter. In the final step the whole congregation is called on to exhort the offending brother, but also giving opportunity, if applicable, for the offending brother to tell his side of the story to the whole congregation in order to hold the offended party and witnesses accountable. In any regard, this process is intended to exhaust all possibilities before one is to be treated LIKE an unbeliever.
If a Matthew 18 situation is petty, the hope is that the one or two witnesses brought into the situation could somehow rectify that reality.
2. False Teaching That Causes Division
1Timothy 6:3-5 – “If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”
2John:10,11 – “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.”
Titus 3:10 – “Warn a divisive [other translations: ”heretick”] person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.”
Romans 16:17,18 – “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.”
Note the procedure concerning heretics in the church that cause divisions: they are to be warned twice, then rejected. You can conclude from these verses that a divisive person is biblically synonymous with one who teaches false doctrine. This is a notably different procedure than Matthew 18. There is no exhortation, only warning.
3. Sinning Elders
I Timothy 5:19 – “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”
In regard to elders, we see a different procedure than Matthew 18. If it is established by two or three witnesses that an elder has sinned, he is to be rebuked before the congregation so that the other elders will fear.
4. Gross Immorality
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 – “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you.”
Though confrontation is not specified, verse 4 speaks concerning the necessity of involving the whole congregation in the casting out of the believer. This is absolutely critical. Confrontation beforehand and the liberty to apply some of the Matthew 18 process is not necessarily excluded and errors on the side of mercy.
5. Idleness
2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 – “6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. 9 It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. 11 For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. 12 Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
13 As for you, brothers, do not grow weary in doing good. 14 If anyone does not obey what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.”
Idleness falls under a category of confrontation apart from disfellowship. Verse 14 says not to keep company with him, but is followed by instruction to admonish him as a brother as opposed to treating him as a tax collector or heathen. This would certainly differ from Matthew 18. Verse 10 seems to indicate a refusal to help the brother until he starts working; fellowship would create a legal loophole for him to get monetary help through the back door, so-to-speak. The brother is to be ostracized within the church except for exhortation concerning work. This of course could include formal counseling.
6. Broken Fellowship Between Parishioners
At Phillipi, there was a situation where two parties refused to reconcile. Paul calls on them to agree while also calling on the congregation to help them. Since this was a public letter, the incentive for these women to quickly reconcile before the congregation got involved would have been greatly enhanced. The situation probably involved some sort of pettiness rather than overt sin.
Philippians 4:2,3 – “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.”
7. Counseling and Restoration
Galatians 6:1 – “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.”
Those who interpret Matthew 18 in regard to general sins will now interpret this verse as a proof text that restoration is part of the steps in Matthew 18. However, Jesus clearly establishes the purpose of the second step in Matthew 18:16, that “every word may be established.” This does not seem consistent with restoring a fallen brother to spiritual health.
The Matthew 18 process is confrontational in nature. It seems to be primarily concerned with investigating a brother’s willingness to renounce his behavior and seek forgiveness from the one he offended. Furthermore, there is really no hint of “church discipline” in the context of Galatians 6:1. To attribute this verse to “church discipline” is assumptive at best. Discipline takes place outside of the church and is administered by God. We have specific instruction in the word for the purpose of ascertaining whether that should be done or not, and what types of situations should be applied. It is not discipline within the church by others and it is not counseling. However, correction from a wayward course and further instruction could, and often does result.
Conclusion
The repentant saint may seek additional help as a result of being confronted, but it is not a requirement to prevent further steps. A verbal commitment to cease the behavior is all that is required in most cases (“if he says” Luke 17:4). In all of the above verses, protracted counseling as a means of restoration to prevent further steps is nowhere to be found (as in redemptive church discipline). To further bolster this argument, keep in mind the qualifications for elders. They are not to be characterized by anger, excessive drinking, mishandling of finances or flirtations (1Tim. 3:1-12 Titus1:5-9). Paul says they can’t be elders, he doesn’t say to bring them up on “church discipline.” Obviously, consideration for eldership would be a moot point.
Ongoing struggles with besetting sins will always be among God’s people. Some sort of discipline process that will eradicate the need for daily forgiveness is not what the Scriptures call for. In 1 Thessalonians 5:14, the apostle Paul mentions several types of Christians and what they need, and it’s not a one size fits all “church discipline.”
Addendum
In the Holman Christian Standard Study Bible, yet another Neo-Calvinist translation in addition to the ESV, it states on page 1649 that there are “two categories of church discipline.” It frames all church teachings and examples set by the leaders as “formative discipline.” Everything modeled and taught to you is “preventative.” This overshadows all activities within the church with authority bolstered by preventative discipline or corrective discipline.
Example Letter for Elders Practicing Unbiblical “Church Discipline”
To the Elders of Anywhere Baptist Church, Ohio:
Regardless of what is stated in your Book of Faith and Order, or any covenant signed by me, The Ohio Revised Code states the following under chapter 2905: Kidnapping and Extortion, and 2905.12 specifically, “Coercion”:
(A) No person, with purpose to coerce another into taking or refraining from action concerning which the other person has a legal freedom of choice, shall do any of the following:
(2) Utter or threaten any calumny against any person;
3) Expose or threaten to expose any matter tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to damage any person’s personal or business repute, or to impair any person’s credit;
Please be advised that I have a “legal freedom of choice” to vacate my membership at Anywhere Baptist Church.
Signed,
Joe Grace
The James MacDonald White Paper
Post 1 The James MacDonald White Paper: “2 or 3 Elders in Christ’s Name”; Post 1 of 20
Post 2 The James MacDonald White Paper: “Why Not Name the 13 Accusations?” Post 2 of 20
Post 3 The James MacDonald White Paper: Repost from the Elephants Debt .com; Post 3 of 20
Post 4 The James MacDonald White Paper: “Why This White Paper?” Post 4 of 20
Post 5 The James MacDonald White Paper: AUTHORITY, and the New Testament Church Model; Post 5 of 20
Post 6 The James MacDonald White Paper: “MacDonald’s State of Mind”; Post 6 of 20
Post 7 The James MacDonald White Paper: “How Would Jesus Preach?” Post 7 of 20
Post 8 The James MacDonald White Paper: Cult 101; Post 8 of 20
Post 9 Church Historian John Immel Weighs In on MacDonald’s “Vertical Church”; Post 9 of 20
Post 10 HBC Attempts to Expunge Infamous Church Discipline Video, Files Complaint Against PPT, Post 10 of 20
Post 11 HBC Attempts to Expunge Infamous Church Discipline Video, Files Complaint Against PPT, Post 11 of 20
Post 12 The James MacDonald White Paper: Hypocrisy on Steroids; Post 12 of 20
Post 13 Finally! The Full Dope on Counter Notification: Followup on Posts 10 and 11; Post 13 of 20
Post 14 The James MacDonald White Paper: To HBC Parishioners, “Does This Sound Familiar?”; Post 14 of 20
Post 15 The James MacDonald White Paper: The “Vertical Church ‘Experience'”; Post 15 of 20
Post 16 The James MacDonald White Paper: The New Calvinist Big Fat Lie; Post 16 of 20
Post 17 The James MacDonald White Paper: James MacDonald is Just a Symptom; Post 17 of 20
Post 18 The James MacDonald White Paper: Why JMac, Like All Authentic Calvinists, is a Liar; Post 18 of 20
Post 19 The James MacDonald White Paper: Question and Answer; Post 19 of 20
Post 20 The Elephant’s Debt .com: MacDonald the Gambling Man; Post 20 of 20
Mark Dever: Church Membership is First Category of Church Discipline
Apparently, if you are in a Calvinist church, the pastor’s job-one is training you up in the way you should go so you won’t be brought up on church discipline. I have known for some time that Calvinists consider counseling the first step of church discipline, but must admit I was unaware that they also perceive church membership as a first phase of discipline.
According to Dever, all teaching is discipline, and seen as preventative medicine against “corrective” church discipline. So be advised: when you are sitting under the teaching of your local Calvinist pastor, listen carefully and take heed so he will not have to deal with you as a wayward adolescent in the future.
In the Holman Christian Standard Study Bible, yet another Neo-Calvinist translation in addition to the ESV, Dever states on page 1649 that there are “two categories of church discipline.”
Aside: there isn’t even one to begin with. Nowhere does the Bible teach a discipline carried out by the church that affects salvation status. For the seven biblical procedures to resolve conflict in the church download this free ebook.
Another aside: there isn’t a one size fits all “church discipline” procedure as practiced by Reformed churches. The commentary by Dever is adjacent to Matthew 18 in the study bible. Matthew 18 is treated as a protocol for handling every wayward situation when the Bible describes six other procedures for dealing with conflict within the church.
Dever frames all church teachings and examples set by the leaders as “formative discipline.” Think about how these guys perceive you! You are such a spiritual loser that the only thing that will keep you from getting excommunicated is training you up in the way you should go. You are not being taught as a fellow heir, you are perceived to be a petulant little sinner poised to wreak havoc on the church at any moment. Everything modeled and taught to you is “preventative.”
This is Dever’s attitude towards people who work like dogs to pay his salary. Unbelievable, but hardly uncommon among the Reformed.
paul
Indicative of What Ails the SBC: Johnny Hunt Denies the New Birth at Ohio Men’s Summit
“Hunt’s confusion concerning the new birth was further exemplified when he stated, ‘Christ died for all of your past, present, and future sins.’ This also unwittingly denies the new birth. Christ did not die for sins we committed after we were born again. This makes sin in justification the same thing as family sin in sanctification. Christ did not die to save us from sin that does not condemn us; this denies that the old us actually died with Christ and was ‘under law,’ and where there is no law there is no sin.”
Not that I get paid for it, but I will inform any SBC pastor who cares to know why the SBC is a dying unregenerate cesspool. You can hide the fact by squeezing out the smaller churches and pointing to the emotional orgies at the megachurches, but the numbers do not lie. And listen, the praise and worship format that is presently redistributing the sheep will eventually get old—this ministry is already seeing sharp declines in megachurch attendance.
The present-day SBC Neo-Calvinist surge is the same movement that has come and gone exactly five times since the Protestant Reformation. My guess is that it will die again. Susan and I recently visited churches that were on the cutting edge of this movement back in the 80’s, and the deadness that we experienced was explained this way by our teenage son: “That place is just creepy.” The energy once associated with the format is waning because there is no underlying substance and the novelty is passing. Yet, the format continues without the energy which projects an almost surreal creepiness experienced by those who visit. For the longtime members it’s a slow leak going unnoticed, for visitors it’s a blowout.
Aside: Was all of the recent Mark Driscoll drama just cover for the fact that the Mars Hill campuses were in decline? I wonder.
Another aside: The Catholic Church has bought the defunct Crystal Cathedral. It would seem that the Catholic Church is the only institution with the money to buy defunct Protestant campuses. Why does the Catholic Church have so much money? Answer: because it has always been upfront about its salvation by institution gospel. Will the Neo-Calvinist movement begin to be more out-of-the-closet about that approach in order to save the movement? It already is. People will pay big bucks to be saved by merely giving at the office (see, “Roman Catholic Church”).
Johnny Hunt would deny that he is a Neo-Calvinist and that is probably fair, but what I heard him say at last night’s Men’s Summit at Urbancrest Baptist church in Lebanon, OH is indicative of the problem. If there is confusion among Southern Baptists regarding the role of the Holy Spirt in Christian living, and there clearly is, that should explain everything, and it does.
Look, I don’t have the mp3 yet, but a slight paraphrase of a particular sentence spoken at the summit by Hunt goes like this: “The righteousness of Christ is the only thing that gets us into heaven.” Here we have a former president of the SBC, and a premier SBC pastor for something like thirty years, and that statement is just really bad theology if not an outright false gospel.
I keep saying it and will continue to do so: the Bible never states that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us. Though you can take a leap from one logical point to another on a few verses, why the steroidal emphasis on Christ’s righteousness when the Bible clearly states that it is the righteousness of God the Father that we possess? Is this emphasis important? It is if the Bible emphasizes the righteousness of the Father, and it does. Why not emphasize what the Scriptures emphasize?
But the concern goes way beyond semantics. In his Friday sessions, Hunt peppered that concept with the often heard idea that we don’t possess a righteousness of our own. Come now, would any of us still be working if we had a dollar for every time we heard that in SBC circles? But what is it saying?
First, if we ONLY possess the righteousness of Christ, fire insurance is the only gift and not righteousness. Follow? When you receive a gift, you take possession of it…no? Is the idea that we possess no righteousness of “our own” a backdoor way of saying we have not been made righteous and possess no personal holiness? Yes, I think it is. And by the way, forget all of the fuss about election—that idea is Calvinism in a nutshell.
Secondly, while one properly concurs that our sins were imputed to Christ because the Bible states that specifically, is it correct to say that righteousness has been “imputed” to us? I contend that this is NOT correct, and in fact is a denial of the new birth. Why? Because righteousness is not imputed to us, we are MADE righteous through the new birth. The whole “our own” business is a red herring deliciously favored at the table of demons. We don’t tell people we have no life of our own because we were born of parents. That’s just plain silly. “I have no life of my own; it was imputed to me by my parents.” No, you are alive just like your parents because they gave birth to you. In the same way, we ARE righteous because we were given life by a righteous Father through the Holy Spirit.
Hunt’s confusion concerning the new birth was further exemplified when he stated, “Christ died for all of your past, present, and future sins.” This also unwittingly denies the new birth. Christ did not die for sins we committed after we were born again. This makes sin in justification the same thing as family sin in sanctification. Christ did not die to save us from sin that does not condemn us; this denies that the old us actually died with Christ and was “under law,” and where there is no law there is no sin.
The idea that Christ died for our sin post salvation, at the very least denies the death part of the Spirit’s baptism and keeps the “believer” under law (see Romans 7:1ff). In not sparing any confusion in his lame presentation of the gospel, Hunt concurred that God chastises us for sins we commit as Christians which means God chastises us for sins Christ already died for. Hence, why wouldn’t God also chastise us for sins committed before we were Christians?
Therefore, Hunt, like most SBC pastors, flirts with John Calvin’s double imputation. This is the idea that Christ died for our justification, and lived a perfect life to fulfil the law so that His perfect righteousness can also be imputed to our sanctification. This is exactly why the “righteousness of Christ” is so strongly emphasized. The Bible is clear: this is a justification by the law that leads to antinomian living (see “a typical life in the SBC”). Why? Because we only have the righteousness of Christ and no righteousness of our own which is nearly a verbatim quote by Calvin from his Institutes of the Christian Religion (3.14.11).
This is an outright denial of the new birth and keeps the “Christian” under law. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, even if the law was kept by Christ in our stead, it is not another seed that can give life (Galatians 3:15-21). We are like Christ because He is our brother by birth, righteousness was not imputed to us—we are MADE righteous by the new birth. We are literally new creatures, and ALL things are new.
But, if we have no ownership of righteousness through the new birth, if only our standing is exchanged and not our lives, Christ’s righteousness must be perpetually imputed to our “Christian” lives because we are still under law and not under grace. This would require a return to the same gospel that saved us in order to receive perpetual forgiveness for sins committed under the law, and this is exactly what is behind the viral mantra of “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” running amuck in the SBC. Forbid that we would lose our gratitude for salvation and only limit its remembrance to the Lord’s Table for we still supposedly need that forgiveness.
And this is exactly what John Calvin believed; that new sins committed as saints removes us from grace and perpetual forgiveness must be sought which can only be found in the institutional church where we continually “revisit the gospel afresh.” Yet, the who’s who of the SBC continually affirms that the issue with Calvinism in the SBC is a secondary issue unworthy of parting fellowship. It’s cluelessness on steroids. Calvin advocated the belief that necessarily goes hand in glove with progressive justification; and, sanctification is the Old Testament Sabbath rest. If we do any works on our sanctification Sabbath, it’s the eternal death penalty. As a result, Christ’s perfect obedience to the law must be imputed to us. This is where antinomianism and justification by law are the same thing; a perfect keeping of the law, which we of course can’t obtain so we must let Jesus obey for us lest we have a “righteousness of our own” becomes another seed other than Christ.
At the end of one session Hunt suggested that those who made a profession of faith follow up with the elders at Urbancrest concerning their “new relationship” with Christ. New relationship? Really? It’s not just a new relationship—it’s literal death and rebirth. We don’t just add Jesus to our still under the law lives for fire insurance or as Hunt put it, in essence, daily rescue. It’s not a daily rescue because we long for the one future rescue by Christ from this mortal body where sin still resides, but our inward man has been literally raised with Christ and free to love God and others through obedience to the same law that once condemned us.
It has been suggested to me that institutional religion and the new birth mix like oil and water: “Paul, if believers are truly born again and endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit, why would they need an evangelical industrial complex?” Indeed, that may well be the money question. I have been at two institutional church gatherings this week, and in both cases pastors were held up as upper strata of spiritual caste. At Urbancrest, the emphasis was totally over the top and downright shameful. Other than handing out freebies to the pastors who attended, the senior pastor at Urbancrest talked of a program of sorts through which parishioners could show their pastor that, “I have your back.”
So, is the new birth a threat to religious institutions? Can Holy Spirit empowered ministries thrive in an institutional setting? We will not know until pastors stop denying the new birth. But nevertheless, this is a gut check for every SBC pastor and Hunt in particular. What would be the result of a poll in most churches where the following question is asked?
“Are you only positionally holy in Christ, or are you a holy person?” I fear most would answer, “I am only positionally holy because I still sin.” Yet, pastors who continually wax eloquent about Christians not having any righteousness of their own somehow expect decent behavior from their parishioners.
To his credit, Hunt did advocate obedience, but anyone who was listening closely would have found that confusing. Hunt also emphasized “finishing strong.” He even said that all of his accomplishments in ministry would be worthless if he didn’t finish well. Here is what pastors need to understand: finishing well may mean you end up pastoring a church of 25 people because you stood for the truth. It is high time that pastors draw a line in the sand and definitively define the new birth in no uncertain terms. Please tell your parishioners who they are—are they positionally holy, or are they personally holy?
Did they exchange one “standing before God” for another one, or did they exchange their old life for a new one through the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
8 comments