Paul's Passing Thoughts

Today’s Christians have so lost their will to discern that New Calvinists don’t even have to be careful how they state ideas any longer. Jim Jones would be in cult heaven if he were alive today, and Koolaid will soon dwarf oil in value on the open market. If you have any discernment at all, this recent post by Ray Ortlund boggles the mind: http://goo.gl/b1jeu .

Ortlund, unbelievably, begins the post by citing texts from proverbs that refer to abusers (specifically), and then applies the verses to those who have been abused and protest the abuse. In biblical context, all of these verses cited in Ortlund’s introduction refer to unregenerate people who cause division with deceptive speech, but Ortlund applies the texts to people who supposedly cause division by demanding reconciliation—a “problem” that Scripture never addresses. To the contrary, the Scriptures indict those who keep silence regarding error or injustice.

Ortlund then concludes his introduction with Titus 3;10,11, which speaks to people who belong to groups that divide with erroneous teachings. The word used in this passage is “heretic,” and the idea is the aforementioned—not someone who divides by complaining that they cannot be reconciled to abusers and a subsequent insistence for a biblical resolution. The biblical word “heretic” is also interpreted as “sectarian” because it carries with it the idea of groups that hold to certain doctrines, not individuals.

After butchering these passages, Ortlund states the following:

Not every opinion deserves a place at the table.  It is the responsibility of a church’s elders to monitor the conversation going on in their church and encourage the positive and confront the negative.

And that they do, usually in the small midweek meetings in member’s homes. The sermon and teachings from the prior Sunday are discussed by elders who oversee the small groups. The group is also encouraged to discuss any ‘issues” that they know of, etc. The elder of each group is responsible for being on top of how each member is thinking about any given issue. If the THINKING is “negative,” i.e., something the elders don’t like, the problem/parishioner  is neutralized. “negative” = unacceptable.

Ortlund continues with Neo-Calvinist despot protocol: those who question = closed minded people who can’t be reasoned with:

Sadly, some people just don’t listen.  They are too self-assured.  Reasonable discourse leaves them unsatisfied, because they are unsatisfiable.  They do not feel that you understand them until you agree with them.  The only acceptable outcome is their outcome, which they will pursue relentlessly.

Ortlund then warns concerning those who think they have a right to raise issues because they have been abused by the people who Ortlund accuses them of being. The abusers aren’t the abusers, the victims are:

Sometimes people overreach in this way because they claim they have been hurt.  But no one, however wounded, has the right to disrupt the blood-bought peace of a church.  The sacred wounds of Christ overrule all others.  Moreover, in today’s climate of victimization, hurt can, in fact, be hate.  Elders are responsible to discern this and confront it, even if the person offending is a long-standing member and a personal friend.

Since peace is “blood-bought,” it is to be kept at all cost. Notice the reasoning here from the Neo-Calvinist everything gospel interpretive prism: Since suffering purchased peace, suffering must not interrupt the peace that the ultimate suffering purchased. If you haven’t suffered more than Jesus did, your suffering is irrelevant, and an illegitimate reason to disturb the “blood-bought” peace. There are no words to describe the degree of discrepancy between this idea and the truth of Scripture.

Ortlund then spells out in no uncertain terms that there is only one standard for dialogue in the church: POSITIVE Jesus-speak. If anyone throws a rock in the smooth pond and makes waves, show them the front door. Then Ortlund arrogantly pre-speaks for all Koolaid guzzling Neo-Calvinist lambs by saying that this will always meet their approval:

It is the privilege of elders to keep the conversation going on 24/7 in their church positive — about Jesus, his gospel and his mission.  Those elders who accept this clear teaching of the Bible and courageously follow through will, in the long run, “have delight, and a good blessing will come upon them.”  To preserve their church in those green pastures and beside those still waters, the elders might have to ask the trouble-maker to leave.  They will do so reluctantly and carefully, and they will try not to embarrass the offender, but faithful elders will obey the Bible.  And everyone in their church will breathe a sigh of relief.

I suppose if I am ever going to write the review for John Immel’s Blight In The Vineyard, I am going to have to stay off the internet for a while. Immel’s book exposes this kind of spiritual totalitarianism, its origin, development, and contemporary examples of how it plays out in real life. The quotes in the book that satirize this kind of tyranny are worth it alone:

It is a vague truism that all churches have their problems. But that doesn’t mean they should have problems or that all problems are morally equivalent. Just because some churches fuss over the color of the sanctuary carpet does not absolve the Catholic leadership of molesting little boys. And it most certainly doesn’t mean the little boys can’t complain of the mistreatment.

But to New Calvinists like Ray Ortlund, all problems are morally equivalent because the suffering that results is less than what Jesus suffered, and making any problems an issue disturbs the “blood-bought” peace that should always entail positive Jesus-speak  “24/7.”

Yes, to Ortlund, “God’s Glory” = being served up for dinner. Hence, I close with my favorite sound bite from Blight In The Vineyard:

When the sheep figure out that the shepherd only defends against the wolf because he wants the same wool and mutton. When it dawns on his herd animal mind that he will be eaten either way, he finally stands up like a man and argues against the definition of “God’s Glory” equaling being served up for dinner. In that moment, the howl from the wolves and the shepherds is the same.

paul