The James MacDonald White Paper: HBC Attempts to Expunge Infamous Church Discipline Video, Files Complaint Against PPT; Post 10 of 20
Harvest Bible Chapel has filed a complaint against PPT with YouTube claiming copyright infringement. The complaint concerns the infamous, and haughty video by James MacDonald and four of his elders. The Elephant’s Debt .com reported on the video here.
The validity of the complaint is very questionable, crippled PPT’s media operations yesterday (and continues to do so), and the information is being forwarded to our attorney. As far as we can ascertain at this time, the video was a public statement/announcement and not covered under copyright laws.
YouTube has a zero tolerance policy on filing false infringement complaints, but HBC uses Vimeo and would have little to lose in that regard. Furthermore, and also against civil law/You Tube policy, it would appear that the complaint was filed anonymously on behalf of HBC.
The video and the post have been pulled down from the HBC website. The complaint against PPT was filed after this took place, so it would appear that HBC wants to eliminate any documentation of the video. The question of whether or not an unpublished press release is covered under copyright laws will also be presented to our attorney. PPT has a standalone file of the video which slanders two former elders of HBC in a process that was blatantly unbiblical. Also, in the video, James MacDonald claims that the HBC elders speak for God Himself.
So, can that be copyrighted? How is that their own intellectual property? Legally, by James MacDonald’s own claims, can anything coming out of HBC be copyrighted? Are they not plainly stating that it is not their own intellectual property?
paul
The James MacDonald White Paper: Church Historian John Immel Weighs In on MacDonald’s “Vertical Church”; Post 9 of 20
I was recently asked to read James MacDonald’s book The Vertical Church to address his criticisms of Aristotle. I’ve known for a while that Christianity was in trouble, that the seven-headed beast of Mystic Despotism was waking from its long slumber, that the haunting moan of Medieval European Religion was desperately trying to crawl out of its bloody grave. MacDonald’s book only confirms my expectation and helps me adjust the time clock for its resurrection.
It took fifteen hundred years for men to slay the Platonist/Augustinian beast that ruled the Dark Ages, to crush the ideas that founded despotism, to unseat the handmaiden of Tyranny—the Church—from her oppressive throne. It took a thousand years for men to grasp the basics of liberty, and then another five hundred years to put those ideas into practice.
The champions of liberty were heroes that gave the world a gift. But the children that they handed unspeakable riches to have failed to understand the gift they have been given. The children were handed a wealth they did not earn, so they have treated it as a given, as a perpetual motion machine without cause as they squander the effect. But liberty is not a given, and liberty’s enemy—the seven-headed beast—was not dead, merely wounded . . . and waiting. Waiting for the day when those of weak mind and weak will would once again abandon themselves to Mystic Despots in sheep’s clothing.
The result?
The heirs of liberty are now committing treason against the ideas that set them free. They are selling their souls to modern day mystics preaching the oldest of all worldly doctrines: man’s mind, man’s ego, man’s self, man’s existence is the source of the world’s ills. For a couple of decades, American Christianity has been walking in this direction. But as their ideas started finding more converts, gaining social acceptance, the pace is turning into a sprint toward destruction with men like James MacDonald leading the charge off the cliff of existential annihilation.
Does that sound overly dramatic? Stick around and see if you think so in a minute.
I got through a few chapters of The Vertical Church and knew that MacDonald’s book needs a rebuttal, but he is probably safe from any corporate critique. Christians have shown themselves incompetent in their ability to condemn anything coming out of the Neo-Calvinist movement roaring through American Christianity, seeking whomever it may devour. It is doubtful that “national leaders” will offer an appreciable evaluation, so MacDonald will continue to speak ex cathedra as he sets himself up to rule the church like Cardinal Richelieu.
As for moi taking up the challenge . . . well . . . frankly, I’m already in the middle of two major writing projects: books due out in late 2013 (Dead Alone, J. Lorin) and early 2014 (Dead to Rights, J. Lorin). Plus, I’m working on super-secret project to acquire two or three titles for publication, so time is a bit limited. Maybe I’ll put a formal rebuttal on my Spiritual Tyranny to-do list, or maybe I won’t.
But what I will do is comment on what I was asked to address: The Vertical Church vs. Aristotle.
MacDonald’s book is not unique, nor is it timely, nor is it really about anything “vertical.” Lots of preachers have written books addressing the failures of the Christian Church, and all of them presume that the solution is “more God, less man.” The theological focus of MacDonald’s book has been written about many times from generations past: men named Tertullian, and Augustine, and Luther and many, many others. As for the vertical part, well, that is the part of the book that needs the rebuttal.
But what MacDonald’s book does offer is a splendid game of theological three card monte. Picture a street hustler with his cardboard box and three bent cards shouting “Follow the queen! Follow the queen! Follow the queen!” as he starts mixing the cards. But if you don’t understand the game, you will never notice that he takes the queen off the box in the first chapter. And by chapter two, he will brazenly defy you to show him any cards anywhere in existence.
This is all by design.
Mystic Despots have always understood that Aristotle was THE greatest threat to their power. The Catholic Church knew this and condemned Aristotle. They condemned Saint Thomas Aquinas because of his efforts to integrate Aristotelian thought with Christianity in 1250. Luther knew it and condemned Aristotle because he knew it destroyed his ability to demagogue the definition of Grace Alone. Calvin knew it because Aristotle makes it impossible to set up a despotic theocracy. The Lutheran theologians of the Weimar Republic knew because Aristotle undermined National Socialism and the rise of the Reich Church. Karl Marx knew it because Aristotle destroys Dialectic Materialism. Hegel knew it because it destroys his political ideal: the State as Prime Consciousness. John Dewey knew it because Aristotelian thought destroys the roots of Pragmatism.
And the list of tyrants who knew it and sought to destroy Aristotle and his achievement goes on and on and on. And since James MacDonald is desperately trying to resurrect the philosophy of the Dark Ages, he must go after Aristotle from the beginning of The Vertical Church.
The first reference that I found to Aristotle comes in the first chapter under the sub heading “Rationalism Versus Transcendence”:
A further description of transcendence is that which is higher or beyond the widely accepted range of human experience cataloged in Aristotle’s ten categories. Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle created a “map” that attempted to encompass the full range of human experience into one or more of ten rational categories. Somehow Aristotle suppressed the eternity in his own heart, because his system includes only what can be proven by rational means. Sadly, his thinking forms the foundation of rationalism that continues to control the mind-set of the Western World. While postmodernism may have replaced rationalism as the philosophy of choice on a given college campus, rationalism is still the prevailing presupposition that dictates expectation among churches and their leaders. Rationalism says if you can’t quantify it, if you can’t prove it, if you can’t show it to me, then it does not exist. Rationalism teaches us to deny the eternity that God has placed in our hearts. And church leaders raised on rationalism lead ministries where the supernatural, the vertical, is suppressed and where God himself is at best an observer and certainly seldom, if ever, an obvious participant in church.
One of Aristotle’s more recent offspring who wrestled with the limits of rationalism was Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804). Kant proposed a “Copernican Revolution” in philosophy, saying, “up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but . . . let us once try whether we do not get farther … by assuming that objects must conform to our cognition.”
In other words, sometimes we know that we know something, even though we are helpless to prove it rationally. Maybe the greatest rationality of all is the recognition that rationality itself is incomplete as a way of knowing.
The only true-ish part of these paragraphs is that Aristotle is the foundation of Western thought (more on this in a minute), but pretty much everything else is just wrong.
Here is a brief rebuttal: Aristotle did not reject “transcendence,” which is a MacDonald synonym for “eternity,” which in MacDonald speak means rejecting God. Like all good Platonists, Aristotle believed in God though his theology would not have been of the Christian variety. But how could it? Christianity postdates Aristotle by almost four hundred years. Leibniz was the leading advocate for Rationalism (of the Rationalism vs. Empiricism debate in the 17th century), and Rationalism is not to be confused with Aristotelian metaphysics and epistemology. Postmodernism is not a philosophy. . . . it is a symptom of intellectual and philosophical bankruptcy in western philosophy. (In the college context most readily observed as the logical conclusion to John Dewey’s Pragmatism because Dewey’s ideas dominate modern American education . . . including Christian education) And the father of Western thought bankruptcy: the leading destroyer of western philosophy is Immanuel Kant. Kant and his categorical imperatives are the antipode of Aristotelian epistemology, not his “offspring.” Kant is really Plato’s bastard son who sought to reinvigorate Calvin’s metastasized theology and then added an evil twist.
Of course most Christians are ignorant of the evolution of Western thought because preachers make it a priority to run thinkers out of their congregations the moment they hear a word that is bigger than their vocabulary. Not that it is the preacher’s fault. Pew-sitting Joe Screwdriver (Thanks, James.) got what he wanted. Joe listens to the intellectual vacant preachers because he does not want the responsibility for the content of his own mind. He doesn’t want a complex anything, so he certainly doesn’t want a complex Christianity. Therefore, the outcome is inevitable. Pew-sitting Joe Screwdriver is unequipped to identify James MacDonald’s theological shell game. Joe Screwdriver is unable to detect the “rational” atrocity committed in the name of all that is Good and Holy. The result is James MacDonald’s critique of Aristotle, and that dastardly thing called “rationalism” is accepted as the truth. And Joe Screwdriver has no clue that the Aristotelian shtick is merely bait on the hook that will make it impossible to escape James MacDonald’s “reasoning.” Once pew-sitting Joe Screwdriver accepts the premise that being “rational” is somehow incomplete . . . somehow inferior . . . somehow spiritually seditious . . . then the hook is set in his mouth like a fish. From that point forward, MacDonald can pretend that he is merely a humble fisher of men and drag Joe and his screwdrivers into philosophical disaster.
Make no mistake: James MacDonald’s singular goal is to disarm his readers by separating them from their mind and their mind from reality. And any man who exists as such a creature is by definition . . . insane.
So what did Aristotle do?
That conversation is vast because to appreciate what Aristotle did, in context to the evolution of human thought, would require a short course on the history of Philosophy. And then it would require a further discussion of metaphysics and epistemology. (I did this in the 2013 TANC conference in a six-hour lecture, but I didn’t cover Aristotle’s contribution. You can Google it.) But let me give you, dear readers, a sense of proportion. Here is James MacDonald’s summation: “Sadly, [Aristotle’s] thinking forms the foundation of rationalism that continues to control the mind-set of the Western World.”
Okay, describing Aristotle’s achievement like this is like saying: “Sadly, Copernicus forms the foundation of looking at the stars. Sadly, Louis Pasteur forms the foundation of boiling milk. Sadly, Isaac Newton taught men to watch falling apples. Sadly, Albert Einstein controls how to tell time. Sadly, Jonas Salk controlled the mindset of people on crutches. Sadly, Alexander Fleming forms the foundation of penicillin that continues to control how the Western world defies God by combating infection.”
Yeah . . . uh . . . no.
In a world of total chaos, the world of Heraclitean flux, the world of Plato’s mystic other-worldly Forms, the world of Sophist and Cynic condemnation of the sum of human existence, Aristotle stood alone.
Aristotle was the first man to formulate the essentials of human thought. Not just some good ideas, not just a school of philosophy, but THE axioms of human existence in three laws: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. The law of identity is the axiom, and the next two laws are the subsequent corollaries. It is from this foundation that EVERY cognitive human success originates, including the one or two cognitive successes James MacDonald captured in his book.
The law of identity says that Man can’t be man and NOT man, that a horse cannot be a horse and NOT horse; A cannot be A and NOT A.
In Aristotle’s words:
“If, however, [a definition .e.g. Man, Horse, A] were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; . . .”
The law of Non Contradiction says:
“It is impossible, then, that ‘being a man’ should mean precisely not being a man, [ . . .] And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, [. . . ] but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact.”
The law of the excluded middle says:
“But on the other hand there cannot be an intermediate between contradictories, but of one subject we must either affirm or deny any one predicate. This is clear, in the first place, if we define what the true and the false are.”
And this is exactly right. The identity of A must in fact be the identity of A. The particulars of A must never contradict. For A to maintain its identity, there can be no middle compromise on something Not A.
It is from this point that all effective human cognition flows: all laws of logic, all of man’s conceptual capacity, all of man’s reason, and—most importantly—man’s capacity to grasp the world in which he lives.
And why is this a threat to despots the world over? Why has every oppressive ideology sought to unseat Aristotle? Why do tyrants cling to Aristotle’s shoulders while trying to cut off his head?
Because Aristotelian thought means that existence is knowable, understandable, and practicable; that all men have the means to arrive at truth; that knowledge is available for all who will use the laws and the rules of logic to obtain it.
This foundational concept was revolutionary. It was the original Copernican shift from the “transcendent” world of Plato’s Forms. Indeed, without Aristotle’s foundation, Copernicus is not possible, and neither is any other advance of human knowledge possible.
And herein is Aristotle’s impact on Western thought:
When using the laws of thought, the mind of man is effective to understand man’s existence. An existence that is identifiable is an existence that is understandable. An existence that is understandable is an existence that is explorable. An existence that is explorable is an existence that is controllable. An existence that is controllable is an existence that man can master.
It took almost two thousand years for man to come to this conclusion, start to roll back the mysteries of the world, and raise his standard of living. And then came the Age of Enlightenment (inspired by Aquinas’ rediscovery of Aristotle) and man finally started to throw off the chains of tyranny. The logical conclusion of Aristotle’s implied rational equality translated into political liberty. Men like John Locke began to challenge the age-old institutions of oppression: the government bulwark of the Church. His ideas were then taken up by men named Jefferson and Franklin and Adam and Washington. For the first time in world history, individuals committed to their own reason in possession of their own liberty were empowered to live their own lives by the greatest political document ever crafted. The consequence is that the Western world has elevated the standard of human living across the globe—eliminating disease, poverty, and suffering—more than any other culture in any other time in the history of the world. . . . EVER.
The contrasting ideological picture is dismal at best. Every other culture dominated by Plato’s mysticism, Augustine’s transcendence, Calvin’s determinism, or Kant’s noumenal world have lived in darkness, barbarity, war, and tyranny.
There is no such thing as rational equality with those who chant transcendence like an incantation against reason. Augustine made a claim to Plato’s Forms and started chanting transcendence when he wanted to wipe out the Donatists. The Catholic Church chanted transcendence while persecuting Copernicus and Galileo. They chanted transcendence to condemn serfs to generations of servitude. They chanted transcendence while war waged across the face of Europe and the Inquisition wrecked Spain. Calvin chanted transcendence while ruling Geneva with bonfires. The kings of England and France, assuming the Divine Right of Kings, chanted transcendence and wrecked their countries with wars and famines and destruction. Puritan Oliver Cromwell chanted transcendence while beheading the king, abolishing Parliament, and ruling England with an iron hand. Puritans in Salem chanted transcendence as they burnt witches at the stake. The Presbyterian Church (read Calvinist Church) in the South chanted transcendence and insisted that the black man was condemned by God to slavery. Immanuel Kant chanted “noumenal world,” and it didn’t take long for people to realize that was a synonym for transcendence. The Lutheran National Socialists chanted noumenal world all the way to the gas chamber. Karl Marx heard noumenal world and came up with Dialectic Materialism. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel heard noumenal world and created the Primacy of the State. Mussolini used his ideas to justify Fascist Italy. Trotsky and Lenin heard them both and chanted transcendence in the name of the workers’ paradise until he turned Russia into a slaughterhouse. The Muslims chant transcendence and have been waging war almost nonstop since 650 AD and are determined to wage war until Allah reigns supreme.
And the list goes on and on and on.
Mystics, shamans, witch doctors, imams, preachers, and oracles have been chanting transcendence for millennia because this is how they rule men. If knowledge—True Knowledge—is reserved for some ineffable, other-worldly realm that “transcends” human reason, then no one can challenge their conclusions: They possess the revelation of the transcendent truth, so they own the definition of truth. And they NEVER have to justify ANY rational conclusion or the subsequent actions inspired by the conclusion.
And this is the real goal of James MacDonald’s book The Vertical Church. Behind all the lofty language, behind all the appeals to God’s glory, behind the invitations to meet God in a new and unique way, just like the mystic despots of old, he is really laying the foundations of religious tyranny.
If you abandon your mind to men like him . . . you will get what you deserve
The James MacDonald White Paper: Cult 101; Post 8 of 20
Authentic Reformed theology is always destined to bear the fruit of cultism to some degree. Ideology doesn’t always play itself out to its full potential in every person or organization, but the possibility is always there.
Moses addressed the core issue with the Israelites more than 3000 years ago:
Deuteronomy 29:29 – “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
Ancient paganism was founded on the idea that the masses were unenlightened in regard to understanding reality. Only an elite few are supposedly capable of gaining true knowledge. And of course, therefore, the unenlightened should follow the elite accordingly for the betterment of mankind as a whole. This approach can be seen clearly in some of the oldest religions known to man like Hinduism which has a defined caste system. However, some variation of that caste system permeates the vast majority of religions and evangelical denominations.
Moses stated plainly that some knowledge is in fact secret, but God holds mankind responsible for a body of knowledge that is revealed. Every person born into the world is personally responsible for that knowledge. This really isn’t the norm in religion which posits the idea that EVERYTHING is secret and unknowable to the masses (Gnosis: secret knowledge). Hence, the masses need to follow the orthodoxy of the enlightened ones which is separate from the reality/truth they are unable to understand. The elite understand—we never will, so we need to trust orthodoxy. For years I could not understand my experience as a Southern Baptist until I understood this concept. A blind person can see the mentality in that denomination that the pastorate understands things that the majority of congregants will never understand.
But Moses stated….
Deuteronomy 30:11 – “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
The definition of a cult usually pertains to a charismatic leader exercising control over a group of people. Obviously, this follows the logic of spiritual elitism, and control follows the logic of orthodoxy. Every behavior pattern coming out of the New Calvinism movement is directly driven by this construct. The examples are too numerous to even catalog, but the most glaring is the idea that no matter how crazy things get, the parishioners need to “trust the elders who are responsible before God for your souls.”
Cultism is behavior. It is the fruit, not the root. The root is spiritual caste, what Moses preached against. The tree is orthodoxy, the fruit is cultism. That’s why Harvest Bible Chapel follows the insanity of James MacDonald. That is why I get emails about MacDonald’s infamous “5 Things….” sermon like, “No words,” and “Wha, wha, wha?”
Much of the present-day American church is built on spiritual caste, and the resulting cultism is leading to a mass exodus, but those fleeing must remember that we are still responsible for what God has revealed. Nobody has to obtain that knowledge for us, it is near us, and in us. All bets are not off because the spiritual elitists have failed.
It is our duty to build something new out of the rubble. We are still accountable before God.
paul
The James MacDonald White Paper: “How Would Jesus Preach?” Post 7 of 20
Though New Calvinists mock the question, what would Jesus do? they really should ask themselves that question more often. The following sermon by James MacDonald will undoubtedly go down in church history as THE crybaby sermon of the ages. Would Jesus preach a sermon like this one? Five things he wanted us to know about how much of a burden ministry was to Him? Instructions on how to approach Him and when? Really? What words could explain how unlike Christ this sermon is? What is in the water in Illinois?
Voice file and transcript download are found in bottom right side panel.
We don’t have a ton of time here, and so let me kind of jump into this. I’m starting here, five things your pastor wants you to know but can’t tell you. About as serious as I can be about this, I really, really doubt that a single pastor here would come and say, “Wow, you missed that.”
Here they are, five things your pastor wants you to know but can’t tell you. Number 1, or number 5, I’ll count it down. Number 5, preaching well is a crushing weight, and you’ll never really understand, and you can’t help me. I tried to write about this in the book Vertical Church, and I just really – the closest thing I’ve ever come to it is if you remember exam week in college, but imagine instead that the most important people in the world are coming to hear you answer the questions on the exam, and it’s gonna be a different exam every week, and none of them have to take the test; they just have to listen to you take the test. It’s only a bit like what it’s like. Then you introduce the whole element of spiritual warfare and the things that come crashing down on your house on Friday and Saturday almost every week. And if you’re one of those preachers, and I hope you are, who can’t get up in the pulpit unless things are right in his heart, in his family, in his life as much as we can make it with others, I mean, it’s just a crushing weight.
And then what makes it worse is we live in a society where consumers quickly become critics. So everybody goes to a restaurant, they have 50 thoughts on how this restaurant could do this better. All you do is eat food, man. You can’t make pancakes, and you have all these thoughts about what makes a good restaurant. It’s just that much more so in a church. Everyone receives the sermon. So after you’ve heard a couple hundred sermons, you kind of think you know a good one; you know a bad one. That’s probably true, but you couldn’t fix it. How about you’re up next week? No, no, no, I don’t want that. Or the guy who does want that is not able to maybe even understand how to do that. I just think it would create a lot of compassion for your preacher if you would just embrace preaching well as a crushing weight and you’ll never understand and you can’t really help me. Preachers can’t help preachers. But people who don’t actually make, and honestly, some of the things they say to try to be helpful are not that helpful. And it’s way, way easier said than done.
And we’re doing all weekend to help our – I’ll tell you what helps me. Encouragement helps me. Hearing some practical application of how my best effort affected your life for the good, that helps me. Praying for me helps me immensely. But if we would kind of turn down our sense of – and then it’s worth it. Listen all these guys on the radio, I hate the radio preachers. So then they’re always compared to the other guy and – I think enough said on that.
Five things your pastor would tell you, wants you to know but can’t tell you. Number 4, I’m not puffed up needing accountability. I’m way down needing support. I’m not inflated and puffed up needing accountability. I’m way down needing support. I can’t tell you how many times through the years, especially in the last ten years, I’ll get finally a conversation when someone has been attending our church for a while and they’ll say, “I’m really praying for you that you don’t get a big head.” That is such a smack down, and it shows such a completely fundamental misunderstanding of what it’s like to pastor a church. It’s related to seeing things but not feeling the weight of things.
So I walk into a worship center exactly like this on a Sunday morning like I’ll do this weekend and I feel too many heads turn and see me. I see a visitor lean to somebody and elbow them and point to him or have that crazy experience of insane people with phone cameras wanting their picture of you. That’s a – by the way, I’ve done that this week happily. That’s a complete loss, okay? I hate having my picture taken. And it goes even worse if you don’t do it. Ooh, can’t have your picture taken. Whoa, aren’t you big time. There’s just no way out of that hallway, okay? Just no way. I’d love to. Thank you. And then of course I don’t know why everyone has a camera now, but they don’t work like they used to because we’re up here like forever going like this, and the thing the pastor has to think about is not the generally wonderfully kind innocent people that want the picture taken. It’s the hundreds of people around the room that they’re oblivious to that are watching you get your picture taken and forming assumptions about your motive that couldn’t be further from reality. You watch it and you see and you think things that aren’t true.
I can just tell you from myself, and then I believe this would be true of your pastor, of course, I battle pride like everyone does. But I have found ministry and preaching to be a crushing weight driving that out of my life, not certainly some massive inflation. It never occurs to me to come to my church or to come to Harvest Bible fellowship, I’ve never had the look what I have done thought. I never have that thought. I have how much longer can I do this? This is a massive weight of responsibility to bear. I will account to Jesus Christ for all of this. As Paul said, I’ll read what Paul said. He said, “And besides all this, the care of the churches, and who is sufficient for these things?” So I think it’s hard sometimes to get that through to your own elders, and I want to be helpful on accountability. I do believe that elders should hold the senior pastor accountable. I believe that. Turn to your neighbors and say he believes that.
But elders that walk around with the capital A heavy-duty, ,”I’m there to hold you accountable, accountable, make you accountable, all right?” That’s a control move, all right? That’s a control move, and it’s rooted in pride, okay? And it’s not the senior pastor’s job. I’m sorry that you’re not happy with your career, but it’s not my job to make you feel significant by folding my full-time ministry under your ten-hour week volunteer opportunity, okay? That’s not my job. I love you and thankful for you. It goes well when we work together. And I’m willing, this is our elder board. Every month we have this book that comes out, and it says on the front, “Accounting to the Elders.” So we – let me tell you something. We account for the elders about everything that’s going on in this church, and I believe in it. I believe in it. But the pastor doesn’t need this constant referencing of we hold them accountable.
Teach the church to love the pastor and support the pastor and pray for the pastor. And like any good couple would do, one of the things that I love about my wife, Kathy, and there are many things – let me tell you something. My family knows it. Publicly, I mean, Kathy is little house on the prairie. Privately, she is a force to reckon with, okay? And my family is going, “For real. For real. For real.” That’s a great model for wives, for elders. Privately, you can lay it down as much as it’s needed, to protect him, to help him. But publicly, you don’t need to inflate your role and flex your accountability muscles in any public way of your doing your job. You can do that in private. And it’s needed. Everyone say it’s needed. But focus on the support and the encouragement and the affirmation. I was the biggest problem in this church. I did not know Kent was gonna graciously encourage and honor me in that way. But I will just say that for probably the first 15 years of our church, I led poorly. I was more concerned about the harsh person who would resent public appreciation that I was able to see that we all needed to be appreciated. Turn to your neighbor and say, “I need it.” Okay. We all needed that.
And the Scripture is very clear that the elder is worthy of honor or a double honor in the case of the one who works hard at preaching and teaching. And how many churches in America today find their pastors struggling, even failing in some regards but are not aware of how they have failed to honor him and support him and encourage him and pray for him. It isn’t just that the pastor makes the church, and he does. The pastor makes the church, but the church makes the pastor. You understand that? You are making your man of God in your church. You are making him. He is your project, to love and encourage and forebear and stand with and pray for the wisdom to mix the ingredients that are needed to keep him in balance and not so much tossed up needing accountability, as I’m weighed down needing support spiritually, emotionally, physically, financially.
Five things your pastor wants you to know but can’t tell you. Number 3, I’m not perfect. I need pastoring. But timing is everything. And loving on my wife and kids is loving me. Okay. I’m not perfect, and I do need pastoring. But timing is everything. I got home to my house last night after a second 14-hour day marathon in a row. My brother David is here. He came into my office. I was in a coma. He was like, “Hey, hey, how are you doing?” I was like, “Ugh?” He said, “Well, let’s go and talk about ministry. Tell me how you’re doing personally.” “Ugh.” I barely remember the conversation. I asked him this morning, “Did I curse at you?” I was just exhausted, and of course a good night’s sleep and the Lord is gracious.
Timing is everything. So often people burden the pastor with their needs to give him something, and they’re not sensitive to the timing, and the giving becomes another burden. Don’t talk to your preacher between his office and his first sermon of the weekend. Do not speak to him. He has to cram for a final exam. His head is about to explode. If you bump him, he’ll lose half of it, and he’s already afraid. Do not talk to him. Am I telling the truth? Here are those pastors who say amen. Furthermore, if there’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Not Friday, not Saturday, for sure not Sunday, and worse of all Monday, right? Mondays are the days that pastors once or twice a month write their resignation and pray for the courage to crumple it up. All right? Okay. Mondays are good days to send flowers to his wife, mail a gift card that will arrive that day when – read the life of Elijah. When you have poured it out and have nothing left, you need recovery time. And Satan will put nonsense in the head of a well-meaning elder and church member, and the poor thing, “Monday he’s got a whole week to get this figured out. Monday is the perfect day to talk to him.” Wow. That’s really, really not good thinking. And I’m trying to be – what was my word? I hope that’s helpful.
Loving on my wife and kids is loving me. And I’m so thankful that my three children and my two children-in-love, I would say. I have a son-in-love and a daughter-in-love and all five our kids love us and love the Lord. And humanly speaking, I would attribute that kindness to a loving church family. You are loving your pastor when you love his family. That’s a really, really – a great, great blessing.
Number 2, I secretly wish that these two verses were my elders’ favorite verses. They’re not my life verse, but I wish that my elders had these two verses for their favorites. One’s from the pastoral epistles where it says, “Reject a factious man after the second admonition.” I wish that that was my elders’ life verse. How much heartache is caused in a church by elders that forebear for the sake of friendship with a factious man. Reject the factious man after the second admonition. Now reject him doesn’t mean he has to sit halfway back, okay? Rejecting means you can’t come here anymore. Well, I’m sorry. Okay, that means you get to go to a different church. Reject. Do I need to spell that out? Why? Why? Why? That’s so cold. It’s so wise. How much heartache I could have saved our church over the last two decades if I had lowered my expectation, of my ability to change the behavior of others and raise my expectation that people will be as they have been? A factious man is danger to the church and you are released by Scripture to release him. And I’m releasing you to take a small portion of your church’s budget, build a catapult, put it in the church parking lot, and load it regularly. I think we can shoot this one right out of our county. All right?
Five things your pastor wants you to know but can’t tell you. I wish that my elders’ life verse was reject the factious man after the second admonition, and I wish their other life’s verse from Proverbs was “Cast out your scoffer and strife will cease.” I wish my elders loved that verse. How often I have been in the position of having to cast out the scoffer? How often I’ve had to come to staff members and say, “You haven’t dealt with this yet?” and have to push them to do the thing that should have been done earlier when less damage and collateral impact and confusion even to the person. Sometimes mercy creates a gap between the failure and the catapult and causes confusion in the heart of the person as to why they’re flying out of the church, okay? Sooner, sooner consensus among the elders, not next Thursday, today. Go over now. You can’t be here anymore. I’m sorry. You can’t be here anymore. I don’t owe you a why, but I can read a couple of verses to you that recently I attended a conference where these verses became my favorites.
I love our pastors. Amen? I love our pastors, and I want them supported and encouraged and surrounded. You make your pastor. And one of the ways that you will make him everything that God wants him to be is don’t let him waste his time and energy on draining difficult, harsh, never satisfied scoffers, factious men.
Five things your pastor wants you to know but can’t tell you. Number 1, enduring commitment and assurance – or maybe a better way to say it, assurance of enduring commitment brings peace of mind. In John chapter 6, Jesus was teaching them about this and said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” Of course you know what that means. That wasn’t easy for them to hear. “This is the bread that comes down from heaven,” he said. Interesting. When many of us disciples heard it, they said – this is when many of us disciples heard it, they were actual disciples of his, not the crowd. When do we get that food again, disciples? When many of us disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?” But Jesus knowing in himself the disciples were grumbling about this and he kind of interacts with them, then the Scripture tells us that they – after this many of us disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.
How many people had to happen in your church where something that needed to happen happened and people were upset about it? Put your hand up if that’s happened in your church. Right. Some of you just, what? Tired with the arm? Tired… tired ….? How many people had that happen in their church? All right. If you’ve ever wondered what your pastor’s thinking in that moment when Bill and Sheila, they don’t come to the church anymore, or did you hear about the Cartwrights, they’re not in our church anymore? Did you hear about that? Did you hear about how they left and moved back to the Ponderosa or wherever they’re from? Did you hear about how they’re gone now? Gilligan and his friends are back on the island and they’re gone. How does the pastor feel about that when that happens? Well, look at how Jesus felt after this many disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?”
The thing that keeps the pastor awake is not ultimately the people who left but how they’re gonna affect the people who have stayed and will they be leaving too. That’s what the pastor fears. We tried to do the right thing. We didn’t do it perfectly. We’re not Jesus. We did the best we could. Yeah, I do some things differently, but we’re learning and now some people just gave up on us and they left. What keeps him awake is the knowledge that they’re still talking to people in our church. I don’t have a relationship with them anymore, but you all seem to be able to socialize with them. I’m really the only person who’s out. Are you gonna leave too? Are you gonna leave too? We lost a couple of churches from our fellowship. I met with some of the key pastors here. Because as sad as that is, I needed to be assured that the many, many, many good men in our fellowship are still with me, are still with us. That’s what I needed to hear. I really encourage you to jot a little note to your pastor and say, “I am with you. I am with you. I’m with you heart and soul. You can count on me. We’re not going anywhere. We love you. We believe in what God’s doing in your heart.” He will become the person that you’re praying he will be through your encouragement to be that person. How many people here can honestly say the transforming influence in my life has been the people who hated me? Man, if God had just put more hateful people in my life I could have learned so much. We learn from people that love us. Sometimes they have to love us enough to tell us the truth. That’s all good. But it’s in the context of you can count on me, I’m with you, I’m not going anywhere, we’re in this together.
Five things your pastor wants you to know but can’t tell you. Number 1, assurance of enduring commitment gives the gift of peace of mind. And if you think your pastor’s not wondering about you during a tough season, trust me, he is. I hope that’s helpful.
[END OF TRANSCRIPT]
The James MacDonald White Paper: “MacDonald’s State of Mind”; Post 6 of 20
“And the results? Consider the following quote by ‘Pastor’ James MacDonald:”
Correction: The quotation is from Donn Arms, an associate of Jay Adams at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (INS).
This is a post I wrote this morning, and I think it is very applicable to the folks at Harvest Bible Chapel:
I have received some significant pushback for posting the following quote by Jay Adams:
Folks let’s get this straight. The mind is not a physical organ. It cannot have a disease or illness except in a metaphorical sense as in a sick economy or a sick joke.
Typhoid fever — disease
Spring fever — not a disease
Scarlet fever — disease
Bieber fever — not a disease
Most of the pushback pertains to a rejection of the idea that the brain is not an organ, but Adams isn’t saying that the brain isn’t an organ; he is saying that the mind isn’t an organ.
I haven’t done a lot of study in this area, but I have done enough to know that some solid conclusions can be drawn from such a study because the Bible, as well as medical professionals make a distinction between the mind and the brain.
Everyone agrees that the mind, unlike the brain, is not observable; hence, the field of Psychology. This is a whole different matter than brain malfunctions that are physical. The fact that there are at least 200 different Psychology theories should speak to the fact that this enters into the realm of theory. One may also note that the most popular theory, Freudian Depth Psychology, perceives the human conscience in a very negative way. And that is very dangerous.
Here we have yet another area of wisdom where Christians are far too ignorant. It is also another fusion debate; in this case, the fusion of medical science and psychology. In other words, the fusion of science and theory. Psychology is mostly theory; psychologists barely agree on anything.
I am not going to preach out of school here, but Christians need to think carefully in regard to the idea that the mind can be sick. Certainly, the mind can be hindered by the brain, but is the mind susceptible to sickness like physical organs? Can the mind catch a cold? The reason we need to think carefully about this is because the Bible explains the mind as that part of the Christian that is redeemed.
Not only is this an area that is biblically defined with many dots that can be connected, it is a paramount consideration with vast implications for the Christian. Another huge elephant in the sanctuary is whether or not the Christian mind is actually redeemed. Our Protestant fathers said, “no.” 90% of all biblical counseling in our day is predicated on the idea that the mind cannot be renewed. Therefore, actions that please God cannot flow from the inner self to outward action.* Many pastors, while not understanding these trends and issues, attempt to counsel parishioners from a contrary mindset. The pastor speaks, and the parishioner hears something totally different because of indoctrination by parachurch organizations like NANC and CCEF with secular psychology as science to boot. Any pastor who doesn’t deem these issues worthy of focus and understanding is functioning in ineptness.
The Bible in fact states that the “mind” of the Christian is regenerated and is the engine behind new creaturehood. Christians are promised that with proper cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the mind can be “renewed.” This is not only a biblical promise; we are commanded to renew our minds with the study and application of Scripture. If the medical model regarding the mind is true, all bets are off—every vestige of spiritual growth is now ambiguous. And look at the contemporary church if you want to see the results of biblical ambiguity.
Christians error woefully by letting the theories of “experts” inform their lives on this issue. And the church owes Adams an immense debt of gratitude for bringing this issue to the forefront.
paul
*The fundamental thesis is that faith can only look outward to goodness outside of us, resulting in experiencing the obedience of Christ imputed to us while not being a participant in goodness that pleases God. This formula enables the Christian to live by faith alone—the same faith that saved us. So, faith is like an eye, it can only look outward to what isn’t inside of us. Any inward look is the dreaded, “existentialism” that is the unpardonable sin in our day.
And the results? Consider the following quote by “Pastor” James MacDonald:
“Why spend your life doing something neither required by the Lord, nor welcomed by others? Frankly, I gave up the job a while back, but felt constrained to make my decision known to all who read this blog. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t see me at my post, I am really done this time. Yes, for me it’s over. No more fixing people—I resign ” (James MacDonald: My Resignation; April 30, 2013, The Vertical Church blog. Online source, http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/my-resignation/).
MacDonald then goes on to explain, in essence, that it is his job to primarily show forth more Jesus, and as folks gaze on that, Christ will either change them or not change them according to His sovereign will. Like the vast majority of pastors in our day, MacDonald has merely returned to Luther’s radical construct that often brought the charge of antinomianism from his contemporaries (Martin Luther wrote down the following disturbing sentence in one of his letters to Melancthon in 1521: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.”).
NOTE FILE SHARING WIDGET FOR THIS SERIES ON BOTTOM RIGHT SIDE PANEL
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
20 comments