How and Why “Gospel-Driven” Sanctification / Sonship Theology Creates Cult-Like Churches
Originally published January 31, 2011
In all of my writings on gospel-driven sanctification / gospel sanctification, and its apparent mother, Sonship Theology, I have primarily addressed the error, and not its ill effects on discipleship and people’s lives. Basically, refutation of false doctrine has prevention in mind, not theological debate for entertainment purposes.
My firsthand experience with a “gospel centered” church is applicable here because this same church and its leaders are well respected in Reformed circles, and especially among those who propagate gospel-driven sanctification. Paul David Tripp speaks at this particular church often, and others such as Stewart Scott and Robert Jones have recently participated in major events there as well. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that this particular church’s activities are not considered to be abnormal among “gospel centered” persuasions.
The church I am using as an example regarding the “what,” (I will write about the “how” last) would classify themselves as being a New Covenant Theology church. They consider “Theology of the Heart, redemptive-historical hermeneutics, gospel-driven sanctification, and Christian hedonism to be tenets of NCT. What does this church and many others look like as a result of this theology?
Foremost, the leadership is very controlling. Members must have permission from the elders to vacate membership status. Those who attempt to leave membership for “unbiblical reasons” can be placed under church discipline. I have personally counseled former parishioners of said church on how to “get out of there” with minimal stress, and how to leave without being placed under church discipline. At this particular church, leaving for doctrinal reasons is considered “unbiblical.” In one particular case where the elders deemed the reason for departure “biblical,” the parishioner informed me that the chairman of the elders told him, “We would never prevent you from leaving for that reason.”
These elders are also very controlling in the area of thought. In a sermon preached by one of its elders entitled, “How to Listen to a Sermon” the following idea was introduced: Christians are not able to grow spiritually from personal study, but must only learn from sitting under preaching; specifically, preaching by the elders at that church. Here is an excerpt from the manuscript:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. [Particularly on the issue of radios]. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Of course, the first thing that would come to mind for any thinking Christian is the biblical account of the Bereans who studied the Scriptures on their own to determine the truthfulness of Paul’s teaching. But according to this elder, the account in Acts 17 wasn’t referring to that, but rather was illustrating the proper way to listen to a sermon:
“The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
In other words, personal study alone cannot produce belief; preaching from an elder must be part of the “cycle” that produces belief (notice the emphasis on “belief” rather than increased knowledge per the progressive justification element of gospel sanctification). In fact, he said that personal study only “flavors” the preaching:
“So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will”
So, personal Bible study isn’t the food, it’s just the flavoring. And, personal Bible study is for “flavoring,” not discernment. Buyer beware.
In another category under mind control, separate small groups that meet during the week under the supervision of individual elders in homes of members are instructed not to associate, or speak with members who have left for doctrinal reasons. Also, the primary purpose of the meetings is to get feedback from the parishioners on what was taught the previous Sunday, and fielding objections or concerns. In other “gospel centered” churches, these mid-week meetings are closed to outsiders, or non-members. These meetings have also been known to produce weird occurrences like the time an elder unexpectedly produced all of his financial records in plain view of the group for their inspection. A parishioner confided in me that he found the incident to be surreal, and more information than he cared to know about.
Unknown, for the most part, is the gospel-driven use of what’s called redemptive church discipline. It is a staple of these churches, and it is a very broad use of church discipline. Reformed Christians who join “gospel centered” churches assume it is a reference to traditional forms of church discipline. Parishioners can be placed in this process for any sin, and without any prior notice or inclination. It is not the normal process of inquisitive steps to determine a Christian’s willingness to repent, but more like a counseling process in which elders judge when the parishioner has actually repented. Verbal repentance on the part of the subject is not accepted. Members are not free to leave membership while in this process without being excommunicated for supposedly attempting to vacate membership while in the midst of an unresolved sin issue. Those who dispute gospel sanctification are often placed into the process to convert them to a “redemptive” view of sanctification. They either convert, or they’re excommunicated. Accounts of “gospel centered” churches using this process to control parishioners is vast.
However, the major complaint coming out of these churches is the ignoring of clear biblical mandates by their elders. Parishioners are often perplexed by this. But this is because the elders of these churches believe the Bible is solely for the purpose of showing forth redemptive principles (ie., the gospel) and not instruction. Per New Covenant Theology, they are only obligated to a “higher law of love” which replaced biblical imperatives. The idea is the following: all actions done with the motive of love are righteous. As Francis Chan wrote, “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin”(Crazy Love p.102). As in one case when an elder was caught counseling someone’s wife without the husband’s knowledge – his defense was that he did so “in love.” Therefore, just about anything goes in gospel-driven churches, and well published accounts include excommunicating hundreds of members at one time for non-attendance, which is a questionable act when Scripture is considered to say the least.
How does this happen? First, it begins with a niche doctrine. Propagators often admit that gospel sanctification is a “radical departure” from orthodox doctrine. Those are the words of the propagators, not mine. Any movement that begins with a niche doctrine is in danger of becoming a cult, that’s Cult Apologetics 101. My research has made the following evident: the doctrine was conceived by a man named Jack Miller in, or about 1980.
Secondly, the niche doctrine draws leaders who are more interested in being unique than being in the truth. Take note of what one of the elders of the aforementioned church said while introducing a Sunday school class teaching Christian hedonism: “This doctrine is what makes us unique.” Whenever the goal is to be unique, trouble is not far behind.
Thirdly, niche doctrines and a striving to be different leads to subjectivity and confusion because the leaders are constantly striving to make the doctrine fit with reality and orthodoxy. This results in the kind of events mentioned above.
Fourthly, these elements mixed with the fact that most Reformed churches are autonomous in their polity is an extremely dangerous combination. Basically, the leadership is not accountable and the congregation is on their own.
Niche doctrines, the control of members in thought and action, the ignoring of clear biblical mandates, misuse of unbiblical church discipline in order to control parishioners through fear, manipulation, and intimidation; this is how the “gospel centered” leaders of our day adorn their vile doctrine. Therefore, perhaps they should be named with the cult leaders of ages past accordingly.
paul
Biblical Counseling as Cover-up: Professional Courtesy Among Reformed Pastors is Epidemic
“Why do sharks refuse to eat attorneys? ‘I don’t know, tell me.’ Professional courtesy.”
Doctors, lawyers, and especially policeman (the blue wall of silence) are often known to stick together. Such professional courtesy should not be known among God’s chosen men, but the New Calvinist movement threatens to take such courtesy to new heights not even known among professional pagans. Such professional courtesy enabled Jack Hyles to remain in the pulpit until his death despite behavior that gangsters would even find intolerable. Never before in church history has cowardliness and cronyism seen a greater day among those who call themselves pastors.
The Biblical Counseling Dichotomy
Let there be no doubt about it: biblical counseling for the sheep is different than counseling for the shepherds. Reformed churches, especially New Calvinist churches, have completely integrated a Matthew 18 discipline model into counseling, and without full disclosure. After all, if the sheep knew, they wouldn’t come—this almost obligates them to accept whatever they hear in counseling as gospel (no pun intended). No matter how bad a situation is for a Christian, they are never to turn off their discernment lest they find themselves in worse shape than counseling found them.
Nevertheless, counselees routinely come to a counseling session and are surprised to see one additional elder or two sitting in the room. Tag, counselee is it:
“Hi Bill, I’m sure you know elder John and elder Joe from our church. They are here because the counseling isn’t going very well. Actually, they are here as witnesses because we are placing you under church discipline.”
Bill: “But shouldn’t you have confronted me first before it came to this?”
Counselor: “Bill, I have confronted you about many things in our appointments.”
Bill: “Yes, but I didn’t know that it was in the context of a first step of church discipline!”
Counselor: “Bill, according to Galatians 6:1 and other passages dealing with church discipline, they are both for the purpose of restoring you, so they are the same.”
Bill: “I see. Well, I agree, I have been stubborn in regard to some issues. No need for the discipline, I will follow your instruction on the major point we disagree on.”
Counselor: “Uh, Bill, that’s not exactly how it works. You will be under church discipline until you are released from counseling.”
Five months later:
Bill: “Look, this counseling is going nowhere. I have decided to leave this church and enter into counseling somewhere else.”
Counselor: “I’m afraid that’s unacceptable Bill. You can’t vacate membership here to avoid church discipline. The elders will not find that acceptable.”
Bill: “What are they going to do about it?”
Counselor: “You will be excommunicated and declared an unbeliever before the congregation Bill.”
Notice that “Bill” was not immediately dismissed from the discipline process upon verbal repentance according to Luke 17:4. Not only is this present-day biblical counseling protocol unbiblical, but in most states it is a first degree felony to control any person in any way under threat of financial loss or loss of reputation. Under most State law, it is called “Coercion” under the “Kidnapping” statutes. This type of counseling/discipline is a criminal act, and also unbiblical. Furthermore, in most of these cases, the counselor is looking for a conversion to Gospel Sanctification; that’s why this process is often referred to as “redemptive church discipline.” The counseling will entail a lot of “showing forth of the gospel” without any instruction which over time confuses the counselee. This leads to a stalemate, further steps of discipline, and in many cases, excommunication.
Once a parishioner is under church discipline or excommunicated in Reformed/Neo-Calvinistic circles, professional courtesy is on steroids. Other pastors will not intervene, no matter how grievous the situation. Here is a snippet of the types of pleas this ministry hears from time to time:
“I don’t know what you can do if anything, however, we are contacting anyone possible in an attempt for help. The governmental system of the Presbyterian church, designed to protect us, is now being used as a weapon.”
But the biblical prescription for sinning, abusive pastors is not even taken seriously:
1 Timothy 5:20
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
When it comes to the sheep—by the letter, and then some. But regarding elders, professional courtesy kicks into high gear. What better example than the present “counseling” of CJ Mahaney by well-known New Calvinists? Mahaney was finally forced to step down from his position as president of Sovereign Grace Ministries because layman took action by erecting websites exposing his significant shortcomings as a leader. He was not confronted by his New Calvinist pals who often wax eloquent about transparency, humbleness, and confession, but with millions on the line in regard to conference revenues from T4G and Resolved, Mahaney is on a New Calvinist sponsored sabbatical to “reflect on his shortcomings.” It is obviously an image rebuilding project. Mahaney is still officially listed as the president of SGM and will still be a part of the “core four” at this year’s T4G conference.
But on the one hand, these pastors will not overstep their supposed bounds to help distressed parishioners in the local church, while on the other hand, a Presbyterian and two Southern Baptists have come to Mahaney’s (a Charismatic) rescue against people he has sinned against!
To put the icing on this sickening hypocrisy, CCEF, who counsels people for $85.00 per hour, does not invoke church discipline on their counselees because they are paying customers!
Damage Control Organizations
Organizations spawned by the Reformed counseling movement such as Peacekeepers International and G.R.A.C.E are clearly damage control organizations paid for by the laity to protect pastors and church organizations. A point in case is a situation that I have firsthand knowledge of involving Peacekeepers International. A parishioner was brought up on church discipline that was obviously bogus, and Peacekeepers was asked to intervene by a well-known pastor in biblical counseling circles. Peacekeepers declined because according to them, they only enter into mediation between Christians, and since said individual was under church discipline and declared an unbeliever, it was technically not a matter between Christians. Words cannot describe how lame this excuse is as a ploy to avoid mediating the cause of a wronged believer against elders.
Yet another case is the involvement of G.R.A.C.E in the Bangladesh Missionary Kids affair. Here is what I wrote concerning that situation in another post:
If the ABWE Former Missionary Children (Hereafter FMC, not “MKs”) put some stock in GRACE, the parachurch organization that “teaches” the Christian community how to deal with child abuse in a “Godly” way, then so will I, but not totally. I have some concerns…. That brings me to the latest “investigation update” by GRACE concerning the ABWE horror story. It begins as follows:
First phase? How many phases are there going to be? Why is more than one phase needed? The document, throughout, invokes all kinds of questions of this sort. And, “GRACE plans to schedule additional interviews….” Why do they have to “plan” to schedule? Is it really that complicated? Once again, the FMC are waiting for somebody “important” to do something. My grandmother had a word for it and often scolded us with it: “lollygagging.”
The report continued….
Huh? GRACE “hoped” to gather information? The document is full of tentative, overcautious language. The interviews succeeded in “beginning” to “help” “build” (how big is the building going to be and how long is it going to take to build it?) an understanding? For crying out loud, the FMC have already built the case with all kinds of documentation! The job is more than half done! And GRACE’s proclamation that God put his stamp of approval on it all regarding their interviews is just classic, and arrogant. But I will again mention that where GRACE will hopefully have some value is in their final ”thorough,” “balanced,” “independent” report; if it gets completed before the second coming. And we certainly don’t want any victims muddying up the waters with their own assessment of getting molested by the ABWE icon, Donn Ketcham—that just wouldn’t be “independent” and “balanced.”
Then, GRACE concluded the snail race report with the news that they are expanding the investigation to “non-MKs” in addition to the FMC they presently don’t have time to interview. Good grief! In addition, they are going to spend time singing Pat a Cake, Pat a Cake, with a “new” ABWE “liaison” regarding ABWE’s lack of cooperation with full disclosure—unlike Penn State which has committed to full disclosure—day one.
In my estimation, G.R.AC.E is simply going to counsel this situation to death until it goes away. This is nothing more than damage control. It reminds me of a big-name church leader who responded to a molestation victim regarding her insistence that her attacker be removed from the ministry in his denomination: “ What do you want me to do, shoot him?”
I would say, “No, we want you to practice 1Timothy 5:20. We want you to take some of your book royalties, buy a ticket, get on a jet Saturday night, go to his church the next morning, wait till he is into his sermon for about ten minutes, then get up, walk down the aisle, and rebuke him in front of the congregation. Somehow, that is more radical than molestation.
paul
How and Why “Gospel-Driven” Sanctification / Sonship Theology Creates Cult-Like Churches
In all of my writings on gospel-driven sanctification / gospel sanctification, and its apparent mother, Sonship Theology, I have primarily addressed the error, and not its ill effects on discipleship and people’s lives. Basically, refutation of false doctrine has prevention in mind, not theological debate for entertainment purposes.
My firsthand experience with a “gospel centered” church is applicable here because this same church and its leaders are well respected in Reformed circles, and especially among those who propagate gospel-driven sanctification. Paul David Tripp speaks at this particular church often, and others such as Stewart Scott and Robert Jones have recently participated in major events there as well. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that this particular church’s activities are not considered to be abnormal among “gospel centered” persuasions.
The church I am using as an example regarding the “what,” (I will write about the “how” last) would classify themselves as being a New Covenant Theology church. They consider “Theology of the Heart, redemptive-historical hermeneutics, gospel-driven sanctification, and Christian hedonism to be tenets of NCT. What does this church and many others look like as a result of this theology?
Foremost, the leadership is very controlling. Members must have permission from the elders to vacate membership status. Those who attempt to leave membership for “unbiblical reasons” can be placed under church discipline. I have personally counseled former parishioners of said church on how to “get out of there” with minimal stress, and how to leave without being placed under church discipline. At this particular church, leaving for doctrinal reasons is considered “unbiblical.” In one particular case where the elders deemed the reason for departure “biblical,” the parishioner informed me that the chairman of the elders told him, “We would never prevent you from leaving for that reason.”
These elders are also very controlling in the area of thought. In a sermon preached by one of its elders entitled, “How to Listen to a Sermon” the following idea was introduced: Christians are not able to grow spiritually from personal study, but must only learn from sitting under preaching; specifically, preaching by the elders at that church. Here is an excerpt from the manuscript:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. [Particularly on the issue of radios]. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Of course, the first thing that would come to mind for any thinking Christian is the biblical account of the Bereans who studied the Scriptures on their own to determine the truthfulness of Paul’s teaching. But according to this elder, the account in Acts 17 wasn’t referring to that, but rather was illustrating the proper way to listen to a sermon:
“The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
In other words, personal study alone cannot produce belief; preaching from an elder must be part of the “cycle” that produces belief (notice the emphasis on “belief” rather than increased knowledge per the progressive justification element of gospel sanctification). In fact, he said that personal study only “flavors” the preaching:
“ So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will”
So, personal Bible study isn’t the food, it’s just the flavoring. And, personal Bible study is for “flavoring,” not discernment. Buyer beware.
In another category under mind control, separate small groups that meet during the week under the supervision of individual elders in homes of members are instructed not to associate, or speak with members who have left for doctrinal reasons. Also, the primary purpose of the meetings is to get feedback from the parishioners on what was taught the previous Sunday, and fielding objections or concerns. In other “gospel centered” churches, these mid-week meetings are closed to outsiders, or non-members. These meetings have also been known to produce weird occurrences like the time an elder unexpectedly produced all of his financial records in plain view of the group for their inspection. A parishioner confided in me that he found the incident to be surreal, and more information than he cared to know about.
Unknown, for the most part, is the gospel-driven use of what’s called redemptive church discipline. It is a staple of these churches, and it is a very broad use of church discipline. Reformed Christians who join “gospel centered” churches assume it is a reference to traditional forms of church discipline. Parishioners can be placed in this process for any sin, and without any prior notice or inclination. It is not the normal process of inquisitive steps to determine a Christian’s willingness to repent, but more like a counseling process in which elders judge when the parishioner has actually repented. Verbal repentance on the part of the subject is not accepted. Members are not free to leave membership while in this process without being excommunicated for supposedly attempting to vacate membership while in the midst of an unresolved sin issue. Those who dispute gospel sanctification are often placed into the process to convert them to a “redemptive” view of sanctification. They either convert, or they’re excommunicated. Accounts of “gospel centered” churches using this process to control parishioners is vast.
However, the major complaint coming out of these churches is the ignoring of clear biblical mandates by their elders. Parishioners are often perplexed by this. But this is because the elders of these churches believe the Bible is solely for the purpose of showing forth redemptive principles (ie., the gospel) and not instruction. Per New Covenant Theology, they are only obligated to a “higher law of love” which replaced biblical imperatives. The idea is the following: all actions done with the motive of love are righteous. As Francis Chan wrote, “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin”(Crazy Love p.102). As in one case when an elder was caught counseling someone’s wife without the husband’s knowledge – his defense was that he did so “in love.” Therefore, just about anything goes in gospel-driven churches, and well published accounts include excommunicating hundreds of members at one time for non-attendance, which is a questionable act when Scripture is considered to say the least.
How does this happen? First, it begins with a niche doctrine. Propagators often admit that gospel sanctification is a “radical departure” from orthodox doctrine. Those are the words of the propagators, not mine. Any movement that begins with a niche doctrine is in danger of becoming a cult, that’s Cult Apologetics 101. My research has made the following evident: the doctrine was conceived by a man named Jack Miller in, or about 1980.
Secondly, the niche doctrine draws leaders who are more interested in being unique than being in the truth. Take note of what one of the elders of the aforementioned church said while introducing a Sunday school class teaching Christian hedonism: “This doctrine is what makes us unique.” Whenever the goal is to be unique, trouble is not far behind.
Thirdly, niche doctrines and a striving to be different leads to subjectivity and confusion because the leaders are constantly striving to make the doctrine fit with reality and orthodoxy. This results in the kind of events mentioned above.
Fourthly, these elements mixed with the fact that most Reformed churches are autonomous in their polity is an extremely dangerous combination. Basically, the leadership is not accountable and the congregation is on their own.
Niche doctrines, the control of members in thought and action, the ignoring of clear biblical mandates, misuse of unbiblical church discipline in order to control parishioners through fear, manipulation, and intimidation; this is how the “gospel centered” leaders of our day adorn their vile doctrine. Therefore, perhaps they should be named with the cult leaders of ages past accordingly.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment