G3: Baucham; Washer; Lawson; a Gathering of Calvin’s Spiritual Despots
You have heard of T4G (Together for Gospel Sanctification), and The Gospel Coalition. Now we have G3: Gospel, Grace, Glory. The conference will be held near Atlanta in January of 2013. The conference will feature avowed Calvinists Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, and Steve Lawson. Baucham has been increasingly more visible among the New Calvinist club. He was all the rage at this year’s, uh, well, what they call the “Shepherds” Conference at John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church. Baucham’s association, along with The Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood makes the strong connection between the New Calvinists and the Patriarchy movement apparent. More and more, all of the players in the spiritual despot tsunami are networking together to bring the American church under the bondage of Reformed spiritual despotism spawned by their adulated father, John Calvin.
Studying New Calvinism for five years now, my secondary curiosity concerning various abusive groups that I suspected were somehow connected with New Calvinism are coming more into focus. Their gospel/philosophy is basically the same, with spiritual abuse following. For several months, many have been encouraging me to focus more on the tyranny than dissecting the theology, and I am listening. Doctrine aside, New Calvinism is old Calvinism, and G3 is Geneva 3.
All three of these men proudly proclaim themselves to be Calvinists, and well they should. American jurisprudence is the only thing that limits their persecution of dissenters to bogus church discipline, character assassination, and misogynism. Jesus himself said that the student is like the teacher. As the despotic spirit of Calvin continues to manifest more and more as these groups consolidate resources, the fact that they would utilize the sword of government to control the masses is evident. They barely stop short of it now, using the government courts to sue bloggers, and holding members hostage under threat of being declared damned if they walk away from hybrid systems that combine counseling and church discipline.
In at least one case that I know of, a pastor who left Paul Washer’s ministry for doctrinal reasons was literally stalked for months, including elders who harassed the man’s wife at her workplace. Baucham’s “accountability” system at his church is a copy of the system that Calvin’s doctrine police used in Geneva—complete with yearly in-home inspections by elders. Many New Calvinist mega-churches now have their own in-house security teams that are practically full blown police stations. MacArthur’s church would be one good example of this. Accounts of MacArthur’s use of this security team to escort unwelcome dissenters off GCC property, and in some cases to their cars, is lengthy. There are even claims that this security team has apprehended people, and taken them into the church where they were confronted by GCC elders. As a former rabid respecter of John MacArthur, I have found reports of his heavy handed leadership style hard to accept; nevertheless, this is part of the Calvin motif.
They claim to be Calvinists while excusing Calvin’s murderous behavior because he supposedly lived in times when going Old Testament on people was socially acceptable, while on the other hand, claiming that he was an exegetical genius. Really? While continually beating the drum of doctrine = behavior, somehow, that doesn’t apply to their daddy, and “A tree is known by its fruit” must be read in its “gospel context” lest we think that it might apply to the enlightened Calvin as well.
Rather than replaying much of the sordid details of Calvin’s atrocities against those who disagreed with him, Martin Luther summed it up best:
Martin Luther said of Calvin’s actions in Geneva, “With a death sentence they solve all argumentation” (Juergan L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, vol. I, p. 285).
In fact, Calvin had a word for anybody who dared to object to him having “heretics” put to death:
Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. It is not in vain that he banishes all those human affections which soften our hearts; that he commands paternal love and all the benevolent feelings between brothers, relations, and friends to cease; in a word, that he almost deprives men of their nature in order that nothing may hinder their holy zeal. Why is so implacable a severity exacted but that we may know that God is defrauded of his honour, unless the piety that is due to him be preferred to all human duties, and that when his glory is to be asserted, humanity must be almost obliterated from our memories? Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face.
Ya, I want to be a Calvinist, how about you?
Observing the minutes of the Geneva counsel between 1541- 1549 also endears one to Calvin as well:
During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft.
From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgements of death and seventy-six decrees of banishment were passed.
Another, tired out on a hot summer day, went to sleep during a sermon: prison.
Another praised Castellio’s translation of the Bible: expelled from Geneva.
A couple of peasants talked about business matters on coming out of church: prison.
Two bargees had a brawl: executed.
A man who publicly protested against the reformer’s doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.
A book printer who in his cups [columns] had railed at Calvin, was sentenced to have his tongue perforated with a red-hot iron before being expelled from the city.
Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite.
Each offence, even the most paltry, was carefully entered in the record of the Consistory, so that the private life of every citizen could unfailingly be held up against him in evidence.” (See Pike, pp. 61-63).
Sources quoted in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. 8:
The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured or warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment.
Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.
A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.
A banker was executed for repeated adultery.
If anybody wants details on the difference between New Calvinism and old Calvinism from a doctrinal perspective, and the supposed life application thereof—it’s a little complicated, but behavior isn’t complicated. New Calvinist hacks like Lawson, Washer, and Baucham want to separate Calvin’s tyranny from his doctrine
…lest you would think they would ever do the same thing.
paul
New Calvinist Ray Ortlund: Abuse in the Church is Irrelevant, and Elders = Absolute Truth, and Will I Stop Seeing Immelism Long Enough to Write the Review?
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
What’s in a Video? Part Three: Al Mohler’s Mystic Contemplationism
The next snippet of profound unction in the 2012 Resolved Conference promotion video (http://youtu.be/3BbyzPkE_kc) is that of Al Mohler, president of Southern Theological Seminary. Along with CJ Mahaney, he is one of the “core four” of the Together For The Gospel conferences. Again, a close examination of words used in this video speak to the false doctrine they teach, and Mohler’s excerpt is no exception.
Mohler refers to us being continually “rescued” by the Scriptures. Per the usual, the verbiage is deliberately ambiguous, and could apply to initial salvation or our life as Christians, or both. There is a sense in which the Scriptures continually save Christians from the consequences of sin and instruct us on how to please the Lord. But Mohler is speaking of using the Scriptures to contemplate on the gospel with the result being, as stated by others, a “mere natural flow” of obedience. This is because it is not really us obeying, it is a manifestation of the active obedience of Christ. John Piper would say that we experience the manifestation of Christ’s active obedience in our lives when the obedience is accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. If we are confronted with the necessity to obey, and have not the joy, Piper’s counsel is to go ahead and obey, but ask for forgiveness:
I am often asked what a Christian should do if the cheerfulness of obedience is not there. It’s a good question. My answer is not to simply get on with your duty because feelings don’t matter. They do! [Especially since he makes joy synonymous with true salvation in When I Don’t Desire God]. My answer has three steps. First, confess the sin of joylessness. ( John Piper: Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial ebooklet; ch3, Desiring God.org )
This is simply the Bibliology of their doctrine: the Bible has one primary purpose; it is for contemplating the gospel and the works of Christ. Biblical imperatives are a fruit catalog of things we can’t do, and are in the Bible to evoke thankfulness to Christ for obeying the imperatives for us. The result of this Gospel Contemplationism is what they call, “new obedience,” or what Piper calls, “Beholding as a way of becoming.” If you read the Forward to Uneclipsing The Son by Rick Holland, you will also find out that John MacArthur Jr. has bought into this nonsense. The secondary use of the Scriptures is for controlling the totally depraved zombie sheep and church polity.
Of course, they are not going to say it plainly, but this all boils down to the idea that we are resaved every day. Their motto is, “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us.” It’s a progressive justification. They call it “progressive sanctification,” but that’s deception. Likewise, New Calvinist Paul David Tripp teaches that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” (Paul David Tripp: Playing With The Box; Southeastern Theological Seminary chapel service, Spring 2007). Couple that with the New Calvinist maxim, “We need the gospel just as much today as when we got saved,” and the kind of “rescue” they are talking about is apparent.
And this is also exactly what Mohler means in the promo clip when he said we are “rescued by the Scriptures.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment