Lou Priolo, Neo-Evangelicalism, and the Sonship Tsunami
Lou Priolo is an elder at Eastwood Presbyterian Church in Montgomery Alabama. Eastwood’s website, at one time, had a posted statement against Sonship Theology. The statement was pulled down and the church no longer retains a copy of it. I was told by a staffer that the former statement closely paralleled Terry Johnson’s treatise against the doctrine.
The well-known motto of the movement was, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” The very slogan was coined by the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. This doctrine fundamentally drives 90% of all the biblical counseling in our day. In fact, David Powlison, the most notable and influential figure of the Christian Counseling & Education Foundation, has noted the primary fundamental difference between “first generation” biblical counseling and the second generation: Sonship’s assertion that the cross is for sanctification as much as it is for justification. According to Powlison, Dr. Miller was his “mentor.”
CCEF, through co-relationships and duplicity of board members, has effectively transformed the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, formally what Powlison considered “first generation biblical counseling,” into a bastion for the same antinomian Sonship theology that drives CCEF. The stated goal of the upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition (which is controlled by CCEF and NANC cronies) is to network the entire Christian counseling community. “Infiltrate” is really the better word. Powlison, like all New Calvinists, thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new Reformation that is saving the church from the present dark age of synergistic sanctification.
Today, an article written by Priolo as a guest writer, entitled, “On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself” was posted on the website for The Institute for Nouthetic Studies, the only biblical counseling organization left that has not been consumed by Sonship Theology. “On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself”? That’s like writing on the dangers of the pen-sized igniters used in nuclear missiles. But I will pause here to lay some groundwork for the thesis of this article.
In the 50’s and 60’s, well-known spiritual leaders begged the Christian community to repent of what was known as Neo-evangelicalism. In a nutshell, it rejected separation to maintain doctrinal purity. Neo-evangelicalism was spawned by Neo-orthodoxy which sought to find middle ground between Modernism (liberal theology) and Fundamentalism. The combination of these two movements (Neo-E./Neo-O.) has culminated into the massive ecumenical mentality of our day. The warnings were not heeded, and the church has all but completely given up its will to discern truth and protect it. Priolo, and his article posted on the INS site is a prime example of what these historical realities have given birth to.
Priolo is deeply involved in all three of the aforementioned counseling organizations (CCEF, NANC, BCC), and his article posted by INS is the epitome of Neo-orthodox fencepost theology. The article is clearly written to appease both second generation counselors and what’s left of the so-called first generation. The post makes some brilliant points that would solidify a contention against the doctrine behind the article’s subject, but the Sonship nomenclature is conspicuously missing by design. Bottom line: to mess with the Sonship label is to mess with David Powlison and a host of others. It seems that Priolo wants to keep friends. Priolo’s article is like writing on the mantra, “I’m lovin’ it” without mentioning McDonalds.
Unfortunately, Priolo begins the article with a fundamental theological flaw and then contradicts himself in the latter parts of the article.
Flip
To my way of thinking, the place of the doctrine of justification in the believer’s life is much like the operating system on a computer…. Windows is always up and running, but most of the time, it runs in the background. I don’t see it…. Occasionally, I have to go to the control panel to troubleshoot a problem, make some minor adjustments, or defrag my hard drive, but I don’t give it another thought because I have faith that it is doing what it is supposed to do. So it is with my justification. It is always up and running. Though I am not always consciously thinking about it, everything I do flows from it. Indeed, I could do nothing without it [emphasis mine].
Stop right there. Everything flowing from justification is the crux of the issue. An ongoing work of justification (“running” in the background) is the other bookend of what makes Sonship Theology run on all cylinders. In the beginning of the article, he subscribes to the basic tenets of the doctrine he is supposedly refuting! In Present Truth Magazine, volume 16, article 3, The Australian Forum wrote the following in the article intitled, “Sanctiifcation—Its Mainspring”:
Unless sanctification is rooted in justification and constantly returns to justification, it cannot escape the poisonous miasma of subjectivism, moralism, or Pharisaism.”
All in all, as we shall see, Priolo agrees with the basic tenet of Sonship Theology—he only disagrees with how often we need to apply it. This only seems to circumvent the contemplation aspect of the theology except on a as needed basis. To further this point, note what Priolo states next:
Flop
But there are many other things I am called to do (there are many other responsibilities God calls me to fulfill) on which I must diligently focus my attention. Although I am very grateful for it, I cannot allow myself to be distracted by checking the stability of my operating system of justification every five minutes.
This solidifies my point that at issue with Priolo is not the primary tenet of Sonship doctrine, but the frequency in which we check the “operating system of justification.” But that’s not orthodoxy which asserts that justification is a FINISHED work, and a legal declaration that results in the full righteousness of God being accredited to our account. A FINISHED work doesn’t continue to RUN. In the first statement, Priolo wrote that “Indeed, I could do nothing without it [salvation/justification]” which is true in that we cannot have any sanctification without being saved first. But if words mean things, that’s not what he’s saying.
Flip
But what about the growing number of those who say that we must (or should or ought to) “preach the Gospel to ourselves every day?” If by Gospel they mean the entire ordo-salutis: effectual calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification—the whole enchilada—there is not a problem (other than the fact that the Bible doesn’t exactly command us to do this). But if, like so many seem to be espousing today, they take a reductionist view of the Gospel—reducing it to justification (or to adoption) alone—there is a problem.
This is a good point—though in our day one wonders if we should not look closer at the idea of everything being “the Gospel” instead of making a distinction between the “ministry of the word” and the “ministry of reconciliation.” Priolo properly asserts here that even if that were true (preaching both sanct./just. to ourselves everyday), the Scriptures never tell us to do so. Well, amen to that!
Flop
If a new or immature believer does not yet have the faith to believe once and for all that God has truly justified him, he would do well to “preach the Gospel of justification to himself every day” until his faith is mature.
Not so. This is toeing the Sonship line and contradicts Peter’s specific remedy (2Peter, chapter 1) for what Priolo describes.
Flip
But to require me to “preach that gospel to myself daily” is to relegate me to the “O ye of little faith” society (which membership I would be only too happy to acknowledge if I thought it were true in regard to my justification). But the truth is that I believe God. I took Him at his Word when He said that He justified me. By and large, I walk around 24/7 with a righteousness consciousness that flows from my faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. Even in the midst of my sin, I fully believe that I stand righteous and clean before my Lord (that I am still a son who is loved and accepted by my Heavenly Father) because I have been once and for all justified by faith in His blood. Indeed, my absolutely favorite Bible verse is Romans 4:8, “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not take into account.”
Again, this reiterates my point that Priolo’s argument seems to only deal with the frequency issue when he is not contradicting himself with orthodoxy
Flop
Consequently, I have little desire to spend precious moments every day laying anew a foundation that has already been laid for me. Nor do I think that the foundation on which I am building my life somehow needs daily reinforcement. My foundation is firm! I would rather (and I believe the bulk of Scripture directs me to) spend my time building upon that foundation by growing in love, in holiness, and in good works. (I don’t believe we should have a reductionist view of the concept of grace either—grace is more than unmerited favor—it is the supernatural ability and desire that God gives His adopted sons and daughters to obey Him.).
Amen! I agree wholeheartedly! But we have gone from a foundation to a computer program running in the background, and back to a foundation. Which is it?
Flip
And yes, of course, I realize that I can do none of this apart from the Spirit’s enabling power, and that my motivation for working so diligently on my sanctification is out of a heart filled with gratitude for what Christ has done by justifying me (not to mention thanksgiving for a myriad of other mercies with which He has blessed me).
And no, of course this is dead wrong, and right out of the Sonship/Gospel Sanctification/ New Calvinism/ NCT playbook. The Bible clearly states that God uses many other motivations to help us in sanctification; namely, threats, rewards, and many others.
Flop
This is not to say that there aren’t moments in my life when, because I am overwhelmed with the guilt of a particular sin, I have to take a bath in Psalm 32, 103, and Romans 3–5 for a few days in order to personally appropriate that justification which I forensically know is mine but that seems to have eluded me experientially. Nevertheless, these moments of weakness (concerning my faith) thankfully for me have been the rare exception rather than the rule.
Of course, there are many other exceptions that could be cited of people who may rightly be encouraged to take a daily booster shot of the Good News of justification. Perfectionistic people, for example, or legalistic individuals, or those who struggle with certain eating disorders are typically those who don’t comprehend justification and its implications on their lives and therefore would do well to review (indoctrinate themselves with) that part of the Gospel until they are fully assured that what God has promised He is able to perform.
Again, this is in blatant contradiction to 2Peter, chapter 1 which states that building on the foundation of justification makes our calling and election “sure.” We are to “make every effort” to “add” to our faith. Priolo erroneously teaches in this article that meditation on justification doctrine leads to assurance. No, we forget that we have been forgiven when we are not making every effort to add to the foundation of our faith.
Flip
So, this is certainly not to imply that there is something wrong with meditating on Christ and what He has done in regard to one’s justification. Indeed, such meditation serves as our greatest motivation for cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the progressive sanctification process. Thus, it is certainly a good thing to do. But, it is the insistence by some that we are all obligated to do this daily that has prompted me to speak out about what I believe amounts to an unbiblical approach to sanctification.
Once again, Priolo’s only objection to the hideous doctrine that he deliberately avoids mentioning is frequency. Whenever needed, not every day, while excluding any mention of what Scripture specifically prescribes.
Flop
Meditating on what Christ has done by justifying us is not, from the human perspective, what brings about our progressive sanctification (it is not the scriptural modus operandi for or the practical key to it). Obeying Christ’s commandments (in the power of the Spirit and from a heart that is properly motivated) is what does. Understanding justification (and being appreciative for it) is our primary motivation for sanctification, not a principal means of it.
So again, for those whose faith is weak (momentarily or chronically), or who do not understand or properly value the precious doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, or for those who are so proud as to believe that they can obey the Bible in their own power, I believe they should by all means proclaim the doctrine of justification to themselves as often as necessary until their faith is strengthened or until they come to grips with their own depravity. And for the rest of us, meditating on our justification and being thankful to God for it is a fine and proper thing to do.
This paragraph contains thoughts that are eerily similar to Sonship/GS/NC/NCT tenets:
…. for those who are so proud as to believe that they can obey the Bible in their own power, I believe they should by all means proclaim the doctrine of justification to themselves as often as necessary until their faith is strengthened or until they come to grips with their own depravity.
How would a Christian know (in the midst of “making every effort”) if his/her obedience is in their “own power” or that of the Spirit’s? It seems to leave an either/or ultimatum: either all us, or all of the Spirit. Sonship teaches that it is all of the Spirit. Priolo also seems to indicate that Christians should, “….come to grips with their own depravity.” The total depravity of the saints is a Sonship staple.
Flip
But for one Christian who struggles with (or is weak in) his faith to tell those of us who don’t that we are obligated to daily do what his lack of faith or knowledge (or perhaps lack of humility) impels him to do is presumptuous, if not legalistic. And for teachers and preachers of the Word who want to encourage others to meditate on the blessedness of being justified more regularly than perhaps they do in order to be properly motivated to obey God, for such teachers to not clearly delineate the biblical distinctions between justification and sanctification and thereby synchronize them in the minds of their hearers, is to put a stumbling block before those saints whom they are wanting to help walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. The Gospel is more—much more—than justification by faith alone.
Priolo is indicative of the huge problem that we have today with leaders who are in high demand. Their ambiguous teachings are designed to appease all venues or cover for what they really believe. They all contribute to the present-day Sonship tsunami. Clearly, as the pastors who stood against Neo-evangelicalism exhorted, separation is the only answer. Until other leaders say, “enough is enough” and break fellowship with the likes of Priolo until he finds a true love for the truth, the tsunami will continue.
paul
NANC’s Salvation by Working at Doing Nothing
Thanks to the reader who sent me a recent article by “counselor” Rick Thomas—a Fellow with the annexed National Association of Nouthetic Counseling. The article utilizes a wide body of New Calvinist theology and thought which originated with a Seventh-day Adventist who is now an atheist (the doctrine is presently known as “New Calvinism”). NANC, which is now an embodiment of false doctrine, and unfortunately under the auspices of counseling, continues to thrive on the neo-evangelicalism that godly pastors warned the church about in the latter sixties. Neo-evangelicalism is an attitude/philosophy promoted by neo-orthodoxy for purposes of promoting itself.
It goes something like this: “You can’t change something unless you remain a part of it.” “The way to bring about change is through infiltration.” “Be careful what you judge: all truth is God’s truth.” Neo-evangelicalism rejects the biblical concept of protecting the church by separation and cutting off provisions. CCEF used the neo-evangelicalism mentality to take over NANC, and today NANC thrives as a sinister network where pastors unwittingly send flock members to be slaughtered by ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Henceforth, this article by Thomas is an excellent insight into the black heart of NANC counseling, and a firsthand look at how NANC counseling points thousands of sheep down a road of slow spiritual death on a daily basis. But not only that , this post will explain how we got here.
Thomas begins his article (I’m not kidding: “The Danger of Trying to Please God”) with a description of “Sandra’s” problem:
Sandra has struggled all her life with people pleasing.
She said she could not remember a time when she was free from thinking about what others thought about her.
The way she dresses, the car she drives, the technology she carries, and the house she owns are all controlled to some degree by what others think of her.
A peek into her life
- She is fanatical about working out because of her keen awareness of what a “nice looking body” should look like.
- On a few occasions she has caught herself stretching the truth. She says she spins her stories because the real story doesn’t seem as interesting.
- She is fearful of bringing a bag lunch to the office because everyone else goes out to a local restaurant to eat. She’d rather go into debt than feeling like the odd man out.
- She has a low-grade anger toward her boyfriend because he pressured her to have sex with him. She believed he would leave her if she didn’t have sex. She needs to be loved by someone. Having a boyfriend is one of her ways of feeling significant.
Her biblical counselor quickly discerned that her problem was fear of man (Proverbs 29:25). The counselor told her she needed to be more concerned with pleasing God rather than others.
From there, the counselor laid out a plan of prayer, Bible study, and service oriented activities in order for her to practice a lifestyle of pleasing God.
The mistake the counselor made was not carefully unpacking what pleasing God meant to an idolater like Sandra. Sandra is an idolater who has been living a performance-driven, people pleasing lifestyle.
When she was told that she needed to be more willing to please God than man, it was not a difficult thing for her to do. People pleasing was what she knew best. Unfortunately, she was not told what pleases God so she did what she has always done–she ratcheted up her obedience.
First, Thomas sets the table with the whole first generation/second generation of biblical counseling motif. Supposedly, first generation NANC counselors solve every counseling situation by whipping out a legal pad and giving the counselee a list of do’s and don’ts. Well, I was counseled by the President of NANC, Dr. (unfortunately, the “Dr.” part came from CCEF’s version of Sonship Theology which is banned in many Presbyterian churches) John Street in the late 80’s and at the time he was definitely “first generation.” And trust me, that was NOT his approach. Presently, I do not know if John is a neo-evangelical, or a New Calvinist. Obviously, I would prefer the prior. But as President of the NANC monstrosity, he is at least that on steroids.
Thomas, aside from setting up a false scenario for interpretation, plays a card often exploited by New Calvinist counselors: First generation counseling solved a problem that was extremely prevalent in the church before Jay Adams came along. I call it, “stupid obedience.” Christians were trying to function on biblical generalities which led to the sheep not getting help for real problems. This led to the church turning to the world to get answers. The Adams reformation brought what I call “intelligent obedience” to the table, and the results speak for themselves. It also gave the counselee hope as opposed to, “There is nothing we can do for this patient but pray for a miracle.” We don’t like to hear that from a doctor, do we? Second generation counselors were not smart enough to figure that out, but nevertheless think they are the saviors of the contemporary church.
But specifically, what they do is to assign the problem that first generation counseling solved, to first generation counseling, and that’s a lie. Here, Thomas refers to it as “ratcheting up obedience.” What it really is—is more stupid obedience on top of stupid obedience. He exploits this misconception throughout his article, and in the end, Sandra thinks the poor counseling she got (if it was genuinely presented to begin with, which I doubt) is first generation, rather than what first generation solved. And of course, stupid obedience is still prevalent in the church today because CCEF interfered with the first generation reformation while aided by the mentality of neo-evangelicalism.
Let us now take a trip back into history to find out how we got here, and then we will deal with Mr. Thomas. The vast majority of today’s “biblical counseling” is based on a doctrine known as the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Thomas’ article is a mini treatise on that doctrine. As Susan and I continue to research how this all came about, we are continually amazed. In volume one of The Truth About New Calvinism, we focused on the basics of the doctrine and conceded to a second volume in favor of more research. Granted, the really big picture is drawn on the fact that antinomianism will be an ever-increasing reality as the Lord’s return grows closer. That was heavily emphasized in the first volume, but there is also a contemporary dynamic that is part of the picture.
For hundreds of years, theologians have sought to solidify a doctrine that is a middle ground between philosophy and fundamentalism. Or, if you will, “a happy medium between dogma and appreciation of human experience.” Or, between literal interpretation and interpretation that lends itself to other possibilities. You get the picture.
First, neo-orthodoxy sought to do that. Hence, it has always been a hybrid of orthodoxy and liberalism. That is why most of its tenets contain orthodox terminology with unorthodox ideas. This has always been the major accusation and complaint against neo-orthodoxy: it’s very subtle and resides in the mainstream. It’s an inside job.
At some point, neo-orthodoxy created a masterpiece called “Biblical Theology.” This is a hermeneutic (method of biblical interpretation) that is “truth as myth.” It promotes a truth as revealed in history, ie., the whole Bible is a historical narrative that contains the truth of salvation and reveals the works of redemption via that narrative. While that truth is literal dogma (appeals to fundamentalism), it doesn’t necessitate a literal interpretation for the purposes of dogmatic instruction (appeals to liberals). Whether or not the details of the story are to be taken literally or not, and whether or not the Bible is perfectly inerrant or not, is not the point—the truth that the passage conveys about the truth is the point.
Somewhat like Jesus’ parables. Is the purpose of those parables to convey truth? Absolutely. Are all of those stories necessarily actual events that really happened? No. That’s not the point, the truth conveyed by the parable is the point. And the crux of that truth is the gospel. Can the whole Bible really be a meta-narrative about redemption? Well, as the reasoning goes, would the Bible have been written if sin had not entered the world? No. Then for what other reason would it have been written? One must admit, it’s clever, and you can see how it caters to those who are concerned about literal truth as well as those who want to maintain the intellectual freedom of the individual. But in essence, you have them both agreeing on the gospel! Supposedly. And as a result, discussion on how to interpret gospel truth through that narrative is a huge playground where everyone can play nicely together; after all, we are all after the same gospel truth, right? Look, just go to any website dedicated to Redemptive Historical hermeneutics and these ideas are stated throughout. One example is Vossed World, a blog authored by an elder at one of the most well-known NANC training centers in the country.
But neo-orthodoxy, despite its masterpiece of unity, has always been fragmented and has experienced up and down success. In the US, it experienced a surge in the 40’s and 50’s, and then was nearly snuffed out in the early 60’s by doctrinal apologists. Therefore, there has always been an effort to discover the specific weakness that has plagued neo-orthodoxy from the beginning.
And the prize goes to Robert Brinsmead. He was the product of debate that came from a longstanding theological journey within the realm of Seventh-day Adventism. The crux of the debate within Adventism was justification, and first surfaced at their 1888 convention, then again in 1952. Brinsmead blew the whole debate wide open with his first theological frame that gave birth to the “Awakening” movement which turned Adventism on its head.
This led to a second theological frame invented by Brinsmead that answered contentions presented by E. Heppenstall and Desmond Ford. That theological frame was the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us which had a huge appeal for Reformed theologians enamored by various philosophies. Brinsmead, an Anglican named Geoffrey Paxton, and a Biblical Theology buff named Graeme Goldsworthy went to work in 1970 to develop Brinsmead’s doctrine into a consistent theological system that would stand the test of time. The project was called the Australian Forum, and it launched neo-orthodoxy into outer space. Neo-orthodoxy and its bosom buddy, Redemptive Historical hermeneutics, now had a skeleton to hold the flesh on: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Hold on and don’t think ahead too far. Let me explain this a step at a time.
This doctrine is hard to get your mind around, but for the most part, it took the justification concept of the gospel’s alien righteousness completely separate from us and applied it to sanctification. Therefore, the doctrine denied the significance of the new birth (as do many New Calvinsts). But it had a basic flaw in its premise that forms the basis of understanding for the rest of what I am about to explain. I will get to how this doctrine works itself out as we progress.
The basic flaw is the fusion of justification and sanctification. Adventist debate always tried to work this problem out from that standpoint. Sanctification was seen as something that completes justification until we arrive at glorification. In other words, sanctification is not seen as something totally separate from justification that happens in a space of time between justification and glorification, but rather a connecting road between the two. That’s a huge problem. If sanctification is the “growing part of salvation,” (I have said this myself) then what is our part? But salvation (justification) does not grow! It is a finished act by God that takes place before creation! This was the Adventist dilemma: what can we do to maintain our just standing before God in order to be ready for the judgment? I triple-emphasize “just standing before God” for a reason. Don’t lose sight of that phrase.
Please note: 99% of all false doctrine is based on this misconception. The Adventists primary model stated that we are declared righteous at the point of our salvation, and all of our past sins are forgiven, but with the help of the Holy Spirit, and the fact that we are born again as new creatures, we could obtain perfectionism and therefore be ready to stand righteous before God in the judgment. Of course, with all doctrines that are founded on the fusion of justification and sanctification, it is believed that you can lose your salvation. If you can lose your salvation, what do you have to do to keep it? The necessity of the question itself reveals a salvation by works. However, this is why many false religions dumb-down the law and mix it with the traditions of men, or reduce it to mere ritual—it makes its keeping for salvation plausible. The fact that Adventists stood on the authority of Scripture didn’t make that Catholic-like option possible.
When you begin with the fusion of justification and sanctification which is completed with glorification, you can only have two results: forgiveness for all past sins and a role for us in maintaining a righteousness that will stand in the judgment (Christ plus works/ritual), or the maintaining of our just standing before God without our participation (antinomianism/let go and let God). Brinsmead opted for the second approach. But though these two options have been stated, really, as we shall see, BOTH are really works salvation. In real Christianity, our justification is a settled matter. We can do NOTHING in sanctification to add to our justification or take away from it. Sanctification is concerned with kingdom living and our walk with God. The concern that what we do in sanctification could unwittingly affect the “grounds of our justification” is an oxymoron using a red herring to mislead a straw man. That’s my way of trying to say that it is ridiculous times three.
So, Brinsmead’s doctrine stated that all righteousness for justification and sanctification was completely outside of us. He had to concede that we can have no role in the maintaining of justification. One of the primarily tenets of the doctrine also held that any work done by God inside of us was the infusion of grace within us, “making sanctification the grounds for our justification.” The Australian Forum also taught that if God did any kind of work inside of us—that was imputing His righteousness within us and involving us in the maintaining of justification. They believed that this was a fundamental error that was at the root of all false doctrine and was the very crux of the Reformation. They believed that this was the fundamental error of Romanism—that righteousness was imputed to us via the new birth and that Christ worked in us. Again, this supposedly infused grace within us and made us a part of the justification process. For salvation to be by grace alone, all righteousness and grace had to remain outside of us.
This is key because it enables justification and sanctification to be fused without the possibility of losing your salvation because you don’t have anything to lose. No righteousness was ever imparted to you to begin with, it’s salvation by faith alone in the strictest sense of the meaning—faith and absolutely nothing else. Hence, it is the imputed righteousness of Christ that maintains our justification in sanctification, not our own, and a righteousness that is also outside of us. Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to us personally, it is imputed to our sanctification.
So by now you are certainly incredulous, and want to ask the following: so what in the world do we do? Answer: live by faith. According to New Calvinism, sanctification is to be lived by faith alone. How in the world do we do that? Answer: by offering the perfect works of Christ by faith. Let me repeat that: by offering the perfect works of Christ by faith. That is the New Calvinist definition of faith.
How do we do that? Answer: gospel contemplationism. This is where neo-orthodoxy and it’s intimate lover, Biblical Theology come together with the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Though there are aberrations and slight variations, we partake in ‘beholding as a way of becoming.” Therefore, the Bible is a historical narrative that enables us to meditate on the works of Christ in redemptive history—a tool for gospel contemplationism—not to be taken literally for instruction purposes. All of the obedience that occurs as a result is the ”active obedience of Christ” and not our own. And this work is not taking place inside of us, it is “spiritual formation” or a “manifestation of Christ.” These manifestations are validated by effortless obedience accompanied by joy. Though variations of how this works with the central doctrine is allowable, all that is required is to stay faithful to the “Reformation” doctrine of the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us—anything else that fits with the primary frame is fair game and acceptable, and a virtual neo-orthodoxy love-fest.
With all that in mind, let’s now revisit Rick Thomas’ counsel to Sandra where we left it and see if we detect any parallels.
Who can please God?
And a voice came from heaven, You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. – Mark 1:11 (ESV)
Christ pleases God. Anything the Son does pleases the Father. Jesus came to do the will of the Father and He completed that task perfectly. The Father received the finished work of the Son and now a way has been made for us to please the Father by accepting the Son’s work.
Without faith it is impossible to please him. – Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)
A Christian, who is living by faith in the works of the Son, is pleasing God. Pleasing God is not about what we do, but about believing in the only One who could authentically please the Father. Even on our best day, with our best works, we would not be acceptable to God.
We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. – Isaiah 64:6 (ESV)
Sandra is a Christian. However, she is not seeking to please God by trusting (faith) in Him. She is still performing, but this time she is performing for the Father, hoping to get a good grade.
Rather than accepting what is pleasing to God–the works of the Son, she tries to please Him by her obedience.
Here, we see clearly the Australian Forum’s doctrine of offering the works of Christ in sanctification as a definition of living by faith alone. Also, “Who can please God?” is a rhetorical question. This is the Forum’s position that we have no righteousness within us that can affect actions that please God. It must be done with the works of Christ offered by faith.
What about obedience?
Obedience is obviously hugely important to any Christian. However, the key is to make sure that your obedience is not an effort to please God, but a response to your faith in God. This is the context when Paul told the Corinthians that:
We make it our aim to please him. – 2 Corinthians 5:9 (ESV)
Paul was trying to get the Corinthians to understand that pleasing God was a walk by faith rather than by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The context for the passage was Paul’s appeal to get them to trust Christ rather than the things that they could see. (See 2 Corinthians 4:16-18)
If the Corinthians were trusting Christ in the way that Paul was outlining, then they would be pleasing God too. Pleasing God is about faith. Obedience is another matter. Obedience is the biblical response from a person who is trusting Christ.
Don’t you think it pleases God when you trust (faith) Him? And because you trust Him, you obey Him. The logic would flow like this:
- I trust God.
- God is pleased that I trust Him.
- Because I trust Him, I obey Him.
Sandra needs to start over. She needs to understand what pleasing God means. It means to trust Him, which she is not doing. If she trusted Him she would not be trying to please Him. Contrariwise, she is trusting her works and if her works are satisfactory, according to her estimation, then God is pleased with her.
God has a good opinion of her if she is trusting His Son for salvation. This truth must be inculcated into her brain. Because she is a Christian she is in Christ and she cannot be any more in Christ.
Being more obedient does not make her more in Christ. When she was regenerated God was pleased with her and His pleasure in her does not ebb and flow.
She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God. For Sandra this is amazingly huge. She is an insecure, people pleasing, co-dependent, performance-driven person.
Warning: If you are not daily affected by Christ’s finished work on the cross you can subtly slip into an obedience lifestyle thinking that what you do pleases God as though there is some kind of merit you can achieve through your obedience.
Other than restating the previous point of what faith in sanctification is, this excerpt is pregnant with the Forum’s fusion of justification and sanctification, and the idea that any effort in sanctification by way of obedience is an attempt to participate in ones STANDING before God: “She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God.” And again: “Sandra was relieved and encouraged to know that she did not have to please God to gain His good opinion. She began to understand that her standing before God was as secure today as it was when He first acted upon her.
Also notice the emphasis that any effort in sanctification is an attempt to be MORE IN CHRSIT which is a justification/salvation concern:
God has a good opinion of her if she is trusting His Son for salvation. This truth must be inculcated into her brain. Because she is a Christian she is in Christ and she cannot be any more in Christ.
Being more obedient does not make her more in Christ. When she was regenerated God was pleased with her and His pleasure in her does not ebb and flow.
She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God.
Regarding what Thomas says about obedience—this is disingenuous; obviously, if we cannot please God as he plainly states prior to this, it is obviously not our obedience. Remember, he quotes Isaiah 64:6 to make that point, which by the way is a verse that concerns justification. But if not our obedience, whose obedience is it? He says right in the same post: “Rather than accepting what is pleasing to God–the works of the Son, she tries to please Him by her obedience.”
How Thomas thinks Sandra should read her Bible is also evident towards the end of the post and aligns with the whole idea of using the Bible as a tool for gospel contemplationism:
For the first time in Sandra’s life she was beginning to make Gospel-connections to her practical life. She was understanding that the Gospel was not just for salvation (Justification), but the Gospel was the power she needed to live for Christ (Sanctification).
Today, she reads her Bible with a new pair of glasses as she recently said. Sometimes she gets frustrated when she thinks of all the years of cross-less Bible reading and cross-less living, but she quickly recovers by reorienting her heart back to the finished work of Christ. Sandra is free in Christ!
My last comment is for Sandra. Sandra, don’t count your chickens before they are hatched. Thomas has led you to believe that justification and sanctification are the same thing. You must continually (as the Forum stated it) “offer the perfect works of Christ to the Father by faith” so that the works of Christ can maintain your just standing before God. But that’s still works salvation. It’s working at maintaining your justification by doing nothing. Did Thomas not state in this post:
Warning: If you are not daily affected by Christ’s finished work on the cross you can subtly slip into an obedience lifestyle thinking that what you do pleases God as though there is some kind of merit you can achieve through your obedience.
And because justification and sanctification are fused, that merit would have to be for justification purposes. Slipping back into an “obedience lifestyle” circumvents the “finished works of Christ” that powers your sanctification. Gee Sandra, how often can this happen before you lose your salvation? Once? Twice? Are you maintaining your justification by faith alone? How many times are you allowed to offer your own faithless works instead of the works of Christ by faith? Are you actually in a works salvation by faith alone? When you are in a situation that requires obedience as a duty, will that cost you your salvation?
Maybe you better give Rick a call and ask him. I would actually like to know the answer to that myself.
paul
My Plea: Support a Light in the Midst of Counseling Darkness
“INS is now a true light of God’s truth in this dark age of New Calvinism.”
I don’t like to talk about it, much less write about it. In, or about 1989, I sought counseling from a biblical counselor for serious depression. Though stunned that it could happen to a Christian, I knew better than to go to the psychiatric community that was never much help to me or others I knew that suffered from depression before I was a Christian.
Funny, back then, I would have scoffed at the idea that I believed in let go and let God theology, but the depression, when confronted with real truth, revealed that I functioned that way in life:
“Hi Paul, did you get your homework done?”
‘Sure did, and I also read Scripture and prayed all day on my day off!’
“Paul, I’m not going to tell you not to do those things, but the power is in the doing.”
‘Wha, what do you mean? You mean doing things will get me out of this mess?’
“Paul, your goal isn’t to ‘get out of this mess,’ your goal is to please God. That’s your new goal Paul. Also, according to the book of James, you are to work with God to let this trial do its perfect work.”
‘[Speechless, though a pastor at the time].’
“Look, I’m not saying that obedience isn’t curative, it is, that just can’t be your primary goal. Your primary goal is to please God and let the chips fall where they may.”
As I was driving home, this revelation filled me with hope. I knew medication wasn’t the answer, so when my mind was racing, I could put that energy to work to please God, and only take medication if I absolutely had to. I went to work to please God with a new perspective spoken by the apostle Paul: “We make it our goal to please Him.” I immediately started taking half of whatever my medical doctor told me to take.
With the help of that counselor who modeled his ministry after the counseling taught by Dr. Jay E. Adams, I learned more in that one year about the Christian life than I had in the five years I had been saved. And Frankly, I don’t think I have ever learned that much, that fast, since.
And today, my wife tells me that she has learned more about being a Christian in the year that we have been married than the fifty years that she’s been a Christian. By the way, it’s because we have been studying through the INS correspondence course authored by Adams. Not only that, Susan and I held hands and walked into what was perceived to be an impossible mixed family situation. Pastors and Christians looked at Susan like she was nuts when she told them what direction we were taking in our situation from what we had learned, but the results speak for themselves.
INS is now a true light of God’s truth in this dark age of New Calvinism. CCEF, NANC, and the upstart, “Biblical Counseling Coalition” are all based on Sonship Theology. Don’t deny it, unless you want to deny that David Powlison is the major figure behind CCEF, which infiltrated NANC, and then started BCC. Unless you want to deny what Powlison said himself concerning who his “mentor” was (Dr. John Miller, the undisputed father of Sonship theology). Unless you want to deny what Powlison said himself concerning the fundamental differences between him and Jay Adams. Gospel differences. See chapter 9 of TTANC.
Every day, while thousands are referred to gurus of Gospel Contempaltionism masquerading as biblical counselors for their real problems, few seem interested in maintaining Dr. Adams’ legacy, except Donn Arms. Many others who have seen the results of what Adams says the Bible teaches about life problems are strangely silent lest they lose a few friends and some speaking invitations. New Calvinists reward their cowardly Koolaid drinking yes-men well.
Think about it. Please, think about. We are talking about how real Christians get real help for real problems. We are talking about the blessed truth of God’s word. I will now share the opportunity INS has before them, and I plead with everyone who may read this: be a part of something that really helps our precious brothers and sisters in Christ. It will help more people in more ways than you will ever realize this side of home.
THE OPPORTUNITY LINK: Click on this link to help God’s people.
Because only truth sanctifies,
paul
How Paul’s Passing Thoughts Came About
There is no doubt that much of my Christian life will be defined by my stand against New Calvinism. Not long after I became a Christian, my life was providentially moving toward the establishment of this ministry.
Saved in late 1983 in Dallas, Texas, and baptized in the Southern Baptist church in 1984, I began to see serious contradictions between God’s word and what was going on in church. My perception did not come from a limited view; in my early years as a Christian, I went to a major seminary and taught in various types of ministries.
In 1989, I moved back to my hometown in Dayton, Ohio with my family, and living the Christian life according to biblical generalities had taken its toll. In 1990, and by God’s providence, I was led to Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio (a suburb of Dayton). Pastor John Street had implemented NANC (National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) counseling at the Chapel, and that counseling turned my life around. The Chapel also became a NANC counseling center for pastors. In 1994, I was asked to serve as an elder and accepted. I served as an elder for five years. At that time, elders were reconfirmed by a congregational vote every three years. I was confirmed by the congregation twice.
In 1997/98(?), “pastor” Russ Kennedy returned to the Chapel after leaving in controversy for a pastorate in Illinois. That was in the early 90’s, and he returned to the Chapel after (unknown to most at the Chapel) being dismissed from his post in Illinois. According to a family member and close friend of Kennedy, he was dismissed for plagiarizing a John Piper sermon. During the time of his return, DA Carson and Jerry Bridges were invited to speak at our church. I realize now that he was probably behind that. I was out of town when Carson spoke, but remember thinking that the following statement from Bridges was rather odd: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Though I thought the statement was odd, I brushed it aside and thought no more of it. Little did I know how much that little phrase would one day change my life!
Russ Kennedy was considered for eldership in 1999. In preparation for a forum to consider his appointment, he produced a sixteen-page booklet that outlined his doctrinal beliefs and philosophy of ministry. It is now evident, twelve years later, that he had totally bought into Gospel Sanctification, Sonship Theology, and New Covenant Theology at that time. Reading the booklet presently, I can only shake my head in disbelief as I read what he stated on page six concerning sanctification: “I believe that every believer is sanctified (set apart) unto God by justification….” There it is: sanctification by justification—if it was a snake it would have bit me. He also stated that this sanctification is known as “progressive sanctification” which is the usual deceptive term used by New Calvinists to describe the unorthodox concept of progressive justification.
Kennedy was affirmed, and right away things started getting weird. In the first elder’s meeting he attended, I was immediately taken aback by his heavy-handed style of leadership. I had to insist that a softer approach be taken concerning a miscommunication between Chapel elders and some students we were supporting at Master’s Seminary; specifically, a phone call for clarification verses a formal letter of rebuke from the elders. Shortly thereafter, I stepped aside as an elder for personal reasons (1/10/1999), but continued to teach at the Chapel. During this same time, a group of men from Emmanuel Baptist church in Dayton, Ohio started showing up. Dale Evans, Chad Bresson, Greg Cook, and Tom Watkins. This also coincided with the announcement by John Street that he was leaving the Chapel for a ministry in California.
I am unaware of how Kennedy knew this group of men who came over from Emmanuel, but they were all of New Covenant Theology persuasion and followers of Chad Bresson. All of this group except for Watkins ended up being elders at the Chapel after John Street departed (2000). We should pause here and examine their mindset that set the table for events following. This is an excerpt from this ministry’s book, “The Truth About New Calvinism” page 131:
This whole Reformation motif was started by the Forum which taught that all doctrines either fall into the objective gospel or subjective experience. Subjective spirituality was supposedly spawned by Rome and resulted in a reversal of justification and sanctification. Therefore, the Reformers rediscovered the objective gospel which ignited the Reformation, and also taught that the job wasn’t done (semper reformanda), and you can imagine who contemporary New Calvinists think that duty has fallen to. This is all covered in chapter four along with documentation concerning the fact that John Piper, one of the “elder statesmen” of the New Calvinist movement agrees with that scenario. This us against them mentality was passed down from the Forum and blossoms in the movement to this very day. They are the children of the Reformers—we are Rome.
And this arrogance translates into a predominant characteristic of New Calvinism: heavy-handed leadership style. As far as New Calvinists are concerned, evangelicals have been leading people into hell for the past 100 years (their estimation of when semper reformanda was lost) and any interference with the “unadjusted gospel” will be dealt with—no holds barred.
And such was the case at Clearcreek Chapel. After John Street left, changes were swift and radical. Russ Kennedy was appointed to replace Street, but we were clueless as to what he really believed. The front doors of the Chapel had barely hit Street in the backside before a marked difference in the preaching was noticed. A friend of mine referred to it as “flyby preaching.” Many left the Chapel shortly thereafter because “things are getting weird,” but really didn’t know why. Eventually, even though the elder over adult education was part of the old guard and called on me to teach from time to time, I declined because of the open hostility towards my teachings from the Emmanuel crowd.
All in the same year: my mentor left; I stepped aside as an elder; stepped aside as a teacher; and found it difficult to wrap my mind around what was going on with the new leadership. I started investing more time at work and began traveling a lot, but still stayed connected to the Chapel body. In 2003, I began discussing a business partnership with two core members at the Chapel, Matt and Sheelah Beaver. About the same time, something strange happened. The aforementioned Greg Cook, who I never really related to well, and always felt uncomfortable around, offered to start meeting with me every Monday morning for breakfast to discuss business, and offer advice on being the sales manager for the company that was being formed by the Beavers and me. Not long after that, I started attending a Friday morning men’s fellowship, and upon my attendance, an elder by the name of Dan Turner also started attending. I began to notice a pattern—I was being monitored.
It is important to share this testimony about Clearcreek Chapel because it is typical of many New Calvinist churches and where they end up because of their mindset concerning semper reformanda. Frankly, they become cultish. In fact, as we shall see, Clearcreek Chapel possesses all eight points that constitute a cult by Cultwatch.com. The first point is Deception. Cultwatch says the following about the first point:
A cult needs to recruit and operate using deception. Why? Because 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.
New Calvinist leaders are not hasty to reveal to people that they believe the Reformation was about the “false gospel of the new birth” and that you are either with them or the Roman Catholics. Neither are they hasty to introduce their ministries as part of the original Reformation. It is clear that the Clearcreek elders spoon-fed the congregation over a number of years. When one member started raising questions about New Covenant Theology, a gag order was placed on him and he was told by elder Chad Bresson that NCT would be taught when the members “were ready.”
The second point is Exclusiveness. This speaks for itself. To say that New Calvinists believe they have an exclusive doctrine would be a gargantuan understatement. This mindset is fertile ground for cultism.
A third point described by Cultwatch is a Reporting Structure. The Chapel clearly had a reporting/monitoring structure—primarily through the elders, and I assume they still do. The Chapel has three times the number of elders that is prescribed by church consulting groups for a church their size. When I was a member there—it was clear that elders were used to monitor the congregation.
In 2004, I parted ways with the Beavers; they took the retail part of the company, and I took the service part and started my own company. That was the agreement. The separation was overseen by Greg Cook and all parties agreed to it. In 2006, I began redoubling my efforts to become closer to the Clearcreek Chapel “family.” I had a large tolerance for the ongoing weirdness; it’s the only church my children knew, my daughter and son-in-law were married by Russ Kennedy, and after twenty years of membership, all of the “friends” that I had were there.
That’s when the problems started. Questions I was asking in Sunday School couldn’t be answered. The first problem was that the Chapel elders were asking long time core members to teach their doctrine when the members had no idea what they were teaching. They were given the material and told to merely read through it. One or two elders would then be assigned to that class to monitor the outcome. This was obviously done to give the doctrine credibility with the Chapel members. At least one parishioner resented being used in that way and told me so (Terri Engle). The problems started for me in a class where Greg Simmons was “co-teaching” a class with elder Mark Schindler. It became obvious that Simmons had no idea what he was teaching, and frankly, I didn’t either.
Another individual in the class was also asking difficult questions. He was telephoned by elder Chad Bresson and put under a gag order. I was called into a meeting with two elders (Devon Berry and Mark Schindler) and told that members were concerned about the questions I was asking. I pointed out that Matthew 18 was being ignored and that if those individuals had a problem with me, they needed to come to me “alone.” The response was: “They don’t have a problem with you, they are just ‘concerned.’” To this day, I contend that there was no “they” because several members were thanking me for the questions I was asking because, “I don’t know enough about theology to even know how to ask the questions I want to ask.”
The elders were beginning to lose credibility, so core members were removed and replaced with elders; and that didn’t go any better—now several other people were asking difficult questions. Then all of the Sunday Schools were combined into the auditorium to be taught by the big gun—Russ Kennedy. That didn’t go well either. The whole situation was becoming a comedy of confusion. Then one night, while relaxing in my living room, there was a knock on the door. When I answered, I was surprised to see three elders standing at my door, Mark Schindler, Greg Cook, and Devon Berry. They had inappropriately prearranged the meeting with my wife for obvious shock and awe effect (element of surprise by coming unannounced—plus three of them which is very unusual). Surprisingly, the meeting was not about doctrinal issues, but a “concern” for the difficulties I was having with my company. However, Mark Schindler had the audacity to suggest that I not be concerned about doctrinal issues “for at least two years.” I remember thinking, “That should give you enough time to assimilate the doctrine (whatever it is) into the minds of our people.” What was going on was completely obvious. This brings me to another Cultwatch element, Intimidation. This meeting was designed to intimidate, and several members who thanked me for asking questions would do so stealthily—wanting to encourage me to do so while being too fearful of the Chapel elders to do so themselves. The climate of fear at the Chapel was evident.
There were several of these kinds of meetings in the months following. During that time, the Chapel elders offered to pay for my CE in fire inspection—I declined for obvious reasons. By December 2007, I still had very little idea what these guys were teaching. My best guess was that they were enamored by New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, Heart Theology, and Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics, and were trying to devise their own system that unified these theologies into a consistent system. However, unknown to me at the time, that was already a done deal—they were propagating a prepackaged system that had already accomplished that. Whether you want to call it the centrality of the objective gospel, Sonship Theology, or New Covenant Theology, that was their package. I submitted my letter to the elders in December of 2007 and departed with my family. We began to attend Grace Covenant Church in Beavercreek, Ohio. The church is pastored by a former associate pastor of the Chapel, Rick Wilson.
After my departure, and apparently due to being called on it previously, Mark Schindler and Devon Berry called and asked for a prearranged meeting with me. However, Schindler lied about the purpose of the meeting. When they arrived, and much to my surprise, they announced that they were putting me under the “first step of church discipline.” Already upset about leaving my church family of twenty years, this turn of events stunned and confused me. I collected my thoughts enough to ask for specifics. Four reasons were given: 1. Sewing discord among the brethren. 2. Worldly sorrow 3. Slothfulness 4. Walking in darkness. I thought number three to be interesting because I knew I had a reputation at the Chapel for being too focused on work. When I asked for clarification on number three, Schindler corrected Berry and said that wasn’t one of the reasons, so these two elders were not even on the same page regarding the purpose of the discipline. I asked for time to consider whether or not I would submit to the discipline, and such was granted, but I also knew what would happen if I refused to submit regardless of the fact that I had already submitted a letter of departure.
The next day I contacted Rick Wilson. He didn’t know what to make of the situation. However, a former elder from the Chapel suggested that the situation was driven by Russ Kennedy reliving visions of Illinois. Rick Wilson’s counsel was probably apt for the moment; the best I can remember: “Look Paul, you have been there twenty years. Go back and take their concerns seriously, and then take your family and leave in peace.” That’s what I did, but if I didn’t do anything else correctly, I was smart about one thing: I insisted that they put the reasons for the church discipline in writing. This took about two weeks of my insistence because it was evident that they did not want to do this. When I finally got the letter, two reasons were stated. 1. Love your wife according to Ephesians chapter five. 2. Find a different job. They refused to put any of the initial four reasons in writing. When I finally got the letter, I met with Rick Wilson at a Cracker Barrel restaurant, his treat, and he was completely perplexed by the letter and didn’t know how to respond.
I returned to address the issues, but in every meeting with the elders, NEW ISSUES were introduced. The whole situation became very confusing. Two months later, I announced to the elders that I was leaving the discipline. I was sternly warned that I would be excommunicated and declared an unbeliever before the congregation. I later found out that controlling a person in any way via threat of personal loss, including reputation, was a felony listed as Coercion under Ohio kidnapping laws. Another month later, it became evident that I was going to have to embrace their doctrine before I was released from the church discipline. That’s why New Calvinists call it “redemptive church discipline.” The goal is not to correct behavior, but to bring the individual into a “redemptive understanding of sanctification.” Hence, all of my meetings with the elders were break sessions attempting to use what I call “law negative” in The Truth About New Calvinism to show me that it is impossible for a Christian to keep the law in our “own efforts.” In fact, to attempt to do so in sanctification is an attempt to duplicate the fruits of justification; so for all practical purposes, justification by works. That’s why the elders continued to bring up more and more issues in our meetings while I was under their church discipline. As I saw my failures and a second step of church discipline looming on the horizon, I was supposed to break down and cry out, “I cannot keep it—someone must keep the law for me!” I cite New Calvinist Bill Baldwin in the book to illustrate this twisted reality concerning New Calvinism. This also explains why Mark Schindler was baptized again shortly after John Street left. Apparently, he repented, leaving Rome and joining semper reformanda.
Meanwhile, my missionary son-in-law and daughter came back on furlough from Puerto Rico and become intimately involved in the situation. Upon his counsel and the counsel of other pastors, I walked away from the discipline and took my family to Rick Wilson’s church. Shortly thereafter, Berry and Schindler came to my house on a Saturday evening and warned me not to leave. I in turn warned them that God would judge all things in the end. The next morning I was excommunicated before the congregation and declared an unbeliever. No reasons were given; the congregation was left to their own imaginations. Many who I had ministered to in the past simply assumed that I had committed adultery against Shirley and was unrepentant. In fact, a member of the Chapel recently told an acquaintance of mine that they were told such accordingly. In a meeting with myself, Mark Schindler, and Rick Wilson, Schindler pathetically denied that deliberate form of slander by saying that the elders mentioned in their statement to the congregation that I disagreed with the discipline. No kidding? I bet they were surprised to hear that! Adulterers rarely agree with church discipline. No?
Upon arrival at Grace Covenant with my family, Shirley and I entered marriage counseling with pastor Wilson. In our first counseling session, Wilson asked Shirley what it would look like for me to repent of the reasons I was brought up on church discipline. She didn’t know. In fact, she said she wasn’t sure why I was brought up on discipline. During this time, and unknown to me or Wilson, the Clearcreek elders privately submitted a six-page resolution to my wife commanding her to return to the Chapel without me. The statement painstakingly documented all of my sins against Shirley, which excluded verbal accusations they were making to Chapel parishioners at home Bible studies. The document also gave her the green light to divorce me based on three biblical abandonment principles of not supplying need: love; sex; financial needs. A copious note written by Shirley on the document is telling: “Is it still abandonment if 3, or 2 of the 3 are provided?” Also, I submitted full financial disclosure to Wilson which he also forwarded to the Chapel elders. I found the document in Shirley’s Bible. It also included a promise of a job, financing of a divorce attorney, and housing. Had Wilson been copied on the document, it could have been used to address specific issues in our counseling, but the document was given to Shirley in secret. They also stated to Shirley in the document that I had no authority over her because I had been declared an unbeliever by the Clearcreek elders. According them, they were the ones who had the authority in her life, and they were instructing her to return to the Chapel. At that same time, they instructed parishioners to barrage Shirley with cards and letters. Cultwatch calls this technique, Love Bombing.
During that time, I began receiving emails from a Clearcreek parishioner. Here are some excerpts:
So what ended up happening, is all these clues started to add up. The major one was how they responded to your being “given the boot” so to speak… I was there when they first announced it in service, and later on, in flock when Dan brought it up “in order to allay [or prevent…] our questions and concerns”. You probably already know basically what we were told- not to visit your website, not to engage debate with you- to trust our elders who knew so much more than we did from having spent so much time “in” the situation. And shortly after that, was when they implemented the security measures, in a not-so-concealed and vague way, they certainly implied you or someone on your behalf may pose a serious threat. I of course went to search out the website immediately, I’m sorry but even the apostle Paul encouraged the church to search the Scriptures for themselves- to my knowledge he never demands our unconditional trust of himself, or anyone but the Lord.
The website that the parishioner is speaking of is a website constructed by my son-in-law to confront the Clearcreek congregation for breaking up our family. The website, eldersresolution.org contains substantial documentation for purposes of ascertaining the truth in the situation. But the parishioner’s testimony is also indicative of two more points by Cultwatch: Relationship Control and Information Control. Regarding the first, Cultwatch says, “Beware of a group that tells you who you can and cannot see.” Regarding information control, Cultwatch states, “If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult.”
Regarding the motives of the Chapel elders, this email was interesting:
Even after this, I continued to attend Clearcreek. But more questions arose, especially concerning church discipline. More and more it seemed they selected the ppl for discipline, while others were left alone. I am a prime example. I realize they don’t have the resources to follow everyone around, but I was even living with my [boyfriend/girlfriend (info withheld to protect identity of parishioner)] at one point and [name of elder withheld to protect identity of parishioner] just eventually quit talking to me- though my membership remains and I was never brought up on any “charges”. I’d been in counseling for much of the entire time I attended. There are more strange happenings, but I won’t get into all of it.
The above was going on while I was literally being held hostage at the Chapel under a bogus church discipline. The Chapel elders severely overestimated the congregations ability to think for themselves or to take a stand. They should have just let it all go. But they continued to try to cover bad decisions with more bad decisions. And as time goes on, they are telling more lies to try to cover for prior lies.
Though these events are tragic, I can now see where they have equipped me to contend against this false doctrine. My story is by no means isolated or unique. I think Clearcreek Chapel is typical of the kind of ministries that are being spawned by New Calvinism. In fact, I know it is. This has given me the drive necessary to research this doctrine in order to learn more and more about it and warn others. And to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments