Controversy Among the Dead; What the Resignation of Jean F. Larroux, III Tells Us About the Institutional Church
It has been brought to my attention that Jean F. Larroux, III has resigned as “pastor” from Southwood Presbyterian Church. Back when I thought the institutional church, that is, Protestantism and all of its various stripes was a victim of New Calvinism, I wrote something like thirty articles about the hostile takeover of Southwood by the New Calvinist machine.
Yes, if only those good Presbyterians understood what Larroux really believed, the Session would run him out of there and save God’s people from a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Well, I have done a lot of growing up since then.
I invested in the fight at the behest of Southwood members and other Presbyterian pastors because I was in the process of publishing The Truth About New Calvinism. I was sort of the go-to guy at that time for the “Old Calvinists.” I don’t know why Larroux is resigning, but a perusal of Southwood’s website clearly indicates that everything is business as usual. The church is presently “led” by fifteen, count them, fifteen “ruling elders.” It is unclear as to whether or not they are paid staff.
I have paid my dues in documenting Larroux’s outrageous doctrine and behavior, so no more time will be invested here. Suffice to say that Larroux was the topic of a whole chapter in the book “Sin Boldly” (a Luther truism) written by Cathleen Falsani. When Larroux was the overseer of a ministry in Bay St. Louis, Miss., he was known as “The Screaming Frenchman” and such is the title of chapter 8. I received an interesting email from someone who did ministry with him there in a leadership capacity, but refused to divulge the information. Why? Because by that time I realized it was not going to accomplish anything—it simply didn’t matter.
Furthermore, Larroux was recently invited by friend Tullian Tchividjian to speak at a Coral Ridge Presbyterian men’s conference where he furthered Calvin’s dark roast version of justification by faith which is really sanctification by justification through faith alone and faithfulness to the institutional church.
Listen, the institutional magic salvation bus supposedly going to heaven will continue to roll with the Jean Larrouxs’ onboard because…despite all of the fuss, what Larroux believes is at the heart of the Reformation gospel. It’s just that simple. There will always be quarreling and confusion on the way because many do not understand that reasoning from a grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures was contrary to Luther and Calvin’s interpretive approach.
We find a hint of that from this exchange:
Tullian Tchividjian was preaching on Friday night of the conference and his message centered around the need of grace and the preaching of the Gospel as vital in the lives of Christians. The message was moving, helpful and delivered with great passion. When he was done we sat in the pew following worship soaking in the reality of the Gospel. Brock turned to me and said, “We’re not crazy are we?” I said, “Well, we might be crazy, but we are not wrong…”
I had two emotions when Brock said that to me. The first was offense. I was offended. What did he mean, ‘we’re not wrong, are we?’ How dare he insinuate that what I had been preaching was wrong. “WHAT A JERK!” said my heart. But then I thought about his statement, our history at Southwood, the incessant chatter that said over and over again that we had taken grace ‘too far.’ Brock wasn’t making a statement of criticism. He was making a sigh of relief. It was easy to begin to believe the blogs and sidebar comments, but hearing the same exact message from a different voice in a different venue was not only affirming, but very reassuring.
And there you have it my friends; the institutional church, regardless of the stripe, is made up of Progressive Justification Light and Progressive Justification Dark, and sometimes there is disagreement in regard to the essence. If you are old enough like me, you remember the old Miller Light commercials, “Less filling! ‘No, great taste!’” And so it goes, “Not enough justification! ‘No, too much justification!”
This false gospel has circumvented a vast doctrinal body under the auspices of Christian living in sanctification. We must take back that doctrine, but it will only be accomplished by the laity fellowshipping in home fellowships apart from the institutional church.
Let the dead bury their own dead.
paul
Clearcreek’s Russ Kennedy and Southwood’s Jean Larroux III: The Divine Right of Philosopher Kings
Though in the title, Jean Larroux, pastor of the gutted Southwood Presbyterian Church (the subject of several articles here at PPT), has little to do with the crux of the issue to be discussed here. This post is in response to some requests by Southwood members to divulge information I have concerning alleged indiscretions unbecoming of a pastor. I obtained the information through an email by a person who identified _____-self. The information has been vetted and is credible for several reasons. I have not re-contacted the sender of the email, but could probably obtain even more confirmation points if deemed necessary. Where I am going with this will require the laying of some groundwork. Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio will supply some additional and helpful examples.
“Cult” is a word that is thrown around quite a bit in Christian circles, but in reality, for good reason. The essence of a cult is CONTROL. Cultwatch.com posits this definition of a cult:
The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying.
Cultism dates back to the cradle of civilization and is part and parcel with a basic concept that forms the philosophical infrastructure of all false religious groups. It begins with the presupposition that the masses are spiritually incompetent, and that preordained individuals are selected by God, the universe, or some other higher power to rule the masses on the behalf of that entity. Determinism is almost always a mainstay in said presupposition.
In the Platonist construct (which replaced mythology in these systems with a more scientific approach), the philosopher kings rule, the soldiers enforce the will of the kings (father [entity] knows best), and the masses are the producers who’s sum and substance of life is for the predetermined good of society as a whole. And the philosopher kings know best how to bring that about. And therefore, they should RULE the masses.
If at all possible, philosopher kings will use the sword and fear to keep the process running smoothly, but mind control, brainwashing, and indoctrination will always be present as the staple modus operandi. Such reduces the need for the sword, but the sword has the final say if necessary. The authority of the philosopher kings to send you to hell for eternity is also a strong incentive to live for the group or the whole, which is the “vision of the good.” So, job one is CONTROL.
This is the staple doctrine of EVERY religion that operates apart from truth, capital T. So, wherever truth is not practiced in religion, there is going to be a strong cultish feel in the mix. From a pure biblical perspective, the word is SECT, or SECTARIAN. These are groups who divide with UNTRUTH. So, a strong, very strong element of the cultish motif is lots of division. While cults maintain an operative core, it is at the expense of relationships and other human infrastructures. AND, the primary focus of the philosopher kings—where most of their energies will always be expended, is in maintaining CONTROL—leading to the cultish aura. Hence, “Hey Paul, we are going to this you fill in the blankchurch and I know this sounds crazy, but I think it’s a cult.” I don’t doubt it a bit. ANY system based on the spiritually enlightened ruling over the incompetent masses WILL have the cultish aura.
With all of that said, what about the moral fitness of the philosopher kings? Well, that depends on the particular gargantuan-faceted variances of this ancient principle, but for the most part, the moral fitness of the philosopher king is irrelevant. And throughout history, those who think otherwise and are vocal about it have become a rare breed. Ever heard of a guy named John the Baptist? Especially in Reformed circles where we are all totally depraved “sinners saved by grace,” and all being captive passengers on the Love Slime Boat, integrity doesn’t have relevance in regard to the spiritual caste system needed to lead the totally depraved safely to heaven. Those who don’t get it are mercilessly slaughtered for the sake of the group and the wellbeing of the whole. In America where John the Baptist types can’t be burned at the stake, hanged, or beheaded; slander, bogus church discipline, character assignation, and false criminal charges attempt to fill the gap in silencing detractors. Furthermore, antinomianism may be the very doctrine of the philosopher king to begin with. This reality is known as the divine right of kings:
The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings).
Therefore, the formula: higher power >+ enlightened proxy rulers >+ totally depraved = spiritual caste system = control = cultism = sectarianism = tyranny.
Let’s talk about the operative core that philosopher kings/pastors/elders are able to keep intact. Many people are inclined towards cult atmospheres. Some people are just there for the social community of it all. They like the people, the parties, the events etc. Many people there may be of the same cultural mindset as well. TRUTH is low priority—they hold to the doctrine of the leaders for the sake of community. A second group to consider are those who are simply adverse to change. Normality and business as usual is very important to them. Things would have to get pretty crazy before change would be considered. There is also a group that will follow whatever is placed in front of them. They simply have no discernment. Some know things aren’t right, but have been brainwashed into thinking that there isn’t anything better out there. Besides, to leave would also be admitting to complicity in unjust things that took place; things that are spawned by sectarianism. Finally, there are those who have totally bought into the doctrine. Dissenters who care enough about the truth to raise concerns are disposed with in one of several aforementioned methods.
But the bottom line is the following: churches that function by a caste system are in continual damage control mode. Everything else is window dressing. Real ministry is not taking place. The elders spend all of their time indoctrinating. Again, CONTROL is job one. Sermons are not focused on Scriptural life-wisdom—the focus is indoctrination for control purposes. There is going to be a constant tension, and one reason for this follows:
The written word of God poses a huge problem for the religious caste systems that have plagued the world from the beginning of time—the spiritual elite ruling the masses on God’s behalf via supposed direct revelation and authority. As church historian John Immel notes: The problem is that God is not standing there beside them and confirming His agreement. Or is He? The superintended life manual of God, and its availability to the masses poses a huge problem for those who wish to rule over men: God is telling us what He is telling them, and the tendency is to think God knows more than they do.
And it is clear that God’s word speaks to the individual. The books of the Old Testament and the letters of the New address the whole congregation of the saints. Yes, there are leaders among God’s people, but they are obviously very accountable. There are no closed board meetings between God and church leaders. Luke wrote two letters, really a book in two parts, for the benefit of one person. Why? “….that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Paul Dohse: False Reformation; p. 97, TANC Publishers 2012).
This is where Clearcreek Chapel, the church that incited my journey into these matters, supplies a helpful example. The leadership of that church is in constant damage control mode. Their sermon and teaching modules are continually focused on indoctrination and authority. Even when I was last there (circa 2006), there was a climate of fear. Often, their choice of sermon topics are driven by the latest challenges to their doctrine. Apparently, the last episode was in September of this year, prompting a sermon series entitled, “Biblical Authority at The Chapel”:
And, I want to dispel one false, wicked slander about us and churches like us. We do not believe or teach or require absolute, unquestioning submission to the leadership of this church. Whatever you have been told; whatever bad experience you have had elsewhere, I plead with you to listen this morning to God’s word. So in what I am going to say this morning, I am trying to hover close to the Bible and build a Biblical understanding of authority in God’s Kingdom. Tonight, Pastor Dale will help us think about how we take these precepts, principles and patterns and institute Biblical governance and guidance in the church. [and at the pm service: “A recent criticism has been leveled that we at Clearcreek Chapel engage in some sort of Christian mysticism.”].
No? They insist on “absolute, unquestioning submission” to “biblical authority.” BUT, they are the only ones that can properly interpret it! What’s the difference? As noted in the new publication of False Reformation (pp.110,111), another elder at Clearcreek plainly stated that personal study was only a supplement to efficacious elder preaching, and that the word came from God to the elders, then to the parishioner—back to the word, and then back to God with faith being the result. Clearly, the elders and the word are between the believers and God:
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. 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.
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. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.
The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s 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.
In the first part of the series, Kennedy makes it clear where the authority to interpret resides:
The New Testament often uses the word translated overseer or bishop. This word was primarily was used in the culture to refer to a governor who was sent by a conquering king to govern a city/state on behalf of the king. The overseer, the governor was to exercise oversight under the law the king had given. He was serving, not on his own behalf, but in the place of and for the good of the king. This is the term used for Elders. We are to govern the church on behalf of our King Jesus using the Scriptures as that which expresses His will and frames His wisdom. We are to govern and guide according to the Word of God.
But by the same token, these elders, and many others like them believe that all Scripture must interpreted in a way to yield a Christocentric (grace) meaning. Again, as noted in False Reformation (p. 100):
At this time, resist the temptation to utilize subsequent passages to validate the meaning or to move out from the immediate context. Remembering that all exegesis must finally be a Christocentric exegesis.
Look for Christ even if He isn’t there directly. It is better to see Christ in a text even if He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is.
Kennedy illustrates this in the same message via the following illustration.
Taken together, it is clearly a mystical approach that sees every verse in the Bible as redemptive, and a task that elders are only qualified to execute. This is spiritual cast that dates back to the beginning of time and always leads to tyranny. The point here is to clarify the divine rights of philosopher kings.
Now let’s address the ill behavior of Jean Larroux, and why it’s not relevant. First, the behavior. Jean Larroux’s outrageous behavior in the name of Christ is well documented. Larroux is the subject of chapter 8 in Cathleen Falsani’s “Sin Boldly.” Right, that’s the title of the book. It’s a treatise on, let’s sin more so grace may abound. According to Falsani, Larroux told her (in a conversation endowed with cursing and cigarette smoking) that the depths of grace can only be understood via the depths of our sinfulness. This is no less than the doctrine of the knowledge of good and evil that adorns the vast majority of tyrannical spiritual caste systems—especially Calvinism. This is the same Christocentric interpretation that the Clearcreek elders constantly refer to. All Scripture must be interpreted via God’s holiness as set against our wickedness. Obviously, if wisdom is the goal, and obedience puts us in a good light as opposed to endeavoring to understand our evil more and more; well, you do the math.
But there is something interesting about the writings of those, like Larroux, that think it better yet to actually practice evil as well to better understand grace; the disturbance of the conscience is clearly seen. However, it is usually seen as a vice to be overcome and related to an inept understanding of grace. On a blog belonging to a pastorate that preceded Southwood, Larroux writes the following:
I am becoming keenly aware of how little I actually believe the Gospel that I have been called to preach. I find it ‘easy’ to preach the truth, yet believing it is harder and harder.
Nevertheless, Larroux is a member of a prestigious club of Presbyterian philosopher kings—he is untouchable, and his sin is irrelevant to the Presbytery, and frankly, to most of the Presbyterian producers. I seriously doubt that many are unaware of the things revealed in the email I received, though heinous.
I receive many emails from hurting people who see this in the church and don’t know what to make of it. When you love the truth, it’s hard to get your mind around it. The email revelation will only build hope that someone will care with the enviable disappointment to follow, and deeper wounding.
Come out from among them. Where will you go? Go anywhere but back there. But wherever you end-up, Christ our brother will be with you, and our Helper will counsel you with powerful words from the Scriptures as you go.
All you lovers of the truth—Christ loves you, and for what it’s worth, I love you.
Forever His, and forever a yokefellow to the lovers of truth.
paul
Southwood is a Sad Mirror of the Contemporary Church: Pastors Have Diplomatic Immunity
Dear concerned Presbyterian (in response to this post),
Great to hear from you friend. Stay strong in the Lord. I have no qualms about revealing the information, though the source requested anonymity. Time/priorities have been the issue, but I could go to press without revealing my source. If anybody who could do something about it, and wants to, is interested in the information--have them contact me. But sadly, he's a philosopher king, and has diplomatic immunity with the Session. Sad but true. May the Lord come quickly. paul
Southwood Revisited
Actually Steve, I do have a life, that is why I don’t have time to publish the evidence
I have concerning the decadent lifestyle that Jean L.3 led before coming to Southwood.
I am also sure the Session has been advised of it also. But you know, herding the totally
depraved to the gates of heaven despite themselves is messy business, so I understand there
can’t be a concern about the mere morals of the philosopher kings. To disqualify Jean L.3
over his immoral lifestyle would not be looking at his life
in its “gospel context.”Have a nice day Steve. If you send me your address I will send you a free box of Kool-Aid
as a love offering.paul
Thanks for your immature statement of judgement and your self-approved obedience. Now you can check “being able to see other peoples corruption through a log” off your bucket list. No need for the Kool-Aid, I drink it daily from the Bible.
“Self-approved obedience” Steve? You mean as opposed to “elder-approved obedience”? Steve, you don’t read the Bible; you search the Scriptures for what the elders tell you to look for. And sorry to tell you Steve, I am not lower in the Reformed spiritual caste system than you because you mindlessly follow a Reformed elder. Therefore, your assessment has no merit.
Sorry. Now call Jean for something that will enable you to take on the day Steve.paul
You have just been “trolled” and caught. You have no knowledge of me at all, and yet you can make that statement about me “you don’t read your Bible”. Maybe you have just checked off enough of the “living in obedience list” to now replace Jesus and be all-knowing as well. That’s not Kool-Aid, but some type of elixir that only a few like you are fortunate enough to find. You might be the most happy person in the world…cause you sure have the naive thing down pat!
Steve, really, I do have a life, so please move on. I understand Reformed theology plenty, so you don’t have to inform me that applying biblical imperatives to life is replacing Jesus. Ok Steve, “you win the debate here.” Feel better? Now please move on.
paul
Southwood is Indicative of the Church’s Greatest Need in Our Day
I have been following the Southwood Presbyterian disaster for several months now. As in the ABWE missionary kids scandal—talk, lots of talk, more talk, and even more talk. As in the latter mentioned case, Southwood is talking about bringing in the Christian version of the United Nations: Peacekeeper Ministries. Whether PM, The Institute for Christian Conciliation™ (ICC), or G.R.A.C.E, these organizations are equal to the United Nations in their effectiveness. Stated plainly: they are worthless.
Why? Read all of their literature, and then add to it all of the endless statements from every type of committee trying to deal with these situations; there is one word missing in all of it. Read, read, read more, I just might be willing to give one, no, five dollars for every time you can find the concept: TRUTH.
There are a lot of battered/confused sheep among us because we are still naive enough to think that the vast majority of those who lead us care about Scriptural truth. If I am wrong, where is that word in anything they say? Strange, while on the one hand, the Scriptures make it clear that unity must be based on truth; on the other hand, PM and all the various committees called upon to bring peace to these situations never talk or write about truth. All they talk about is: finding sin within yourself; forgive the way Christ forgave you; recognize that we are all totally depraved, and therefore, stuff happens, que, sera, sera; and unity for the sake of unity.
Come now sheep; let us be completely honest with ourselves. The church, at least in this country, is being run by those who see themselves as the spiritual elite. The sheep are totally depraved, and must be saved from themselves. Yes, leaders believe they are totally depraved also, but also predestined for a certain enlightenment to lead. Therefore, they shouldn’t be questioned. This is one reason the “truth” word never appears in their vocabulary—truth is bound up in their authority.
Outrageous notion? Really? Let me demonstrate it from the Pastoral Care Committee of Providence Presbytery statement for the Southwood situation. Other than the fact that the word “truth” never appears in the document, the words for “heretic” does. In the Bible, unity is always linked to truth, and divisions are always linked to false doctrine. In the document, the biblical concept of heresy is exclusively leveled at the congregation and the leadership is completely excluded:
The Committee acknowledges that this report and these recommendations may meet resistance from any of the numerous factions currently at Southwood.
“Factions” is one of the English words for “heretic” in the Bible. The biblical definition of a heretic in the Bible is: a person who is part of a group or party that causes division through the use of false doctrine. I wrote a lengthy article on this subject here.
Elsewhere:
When Jean Larroux walked into Southwood for the first time as its Senior Pastor, we believe he entered into an environment that had the seeds for difficulty. Actions and reactions within that environment led the Church to where it is today. The SAHC sees four key factors in the decline of your church’s peace. These factors in our report were: Issues within the Session, Communication, Reaction to Conflict by all parties, and Theological Misunderstanding. The SAHC has communicated this in full to the Session.
Notice the fact that Larroux assumed the position without full disclosure (especially in regard to him thinking that he was bringing a “scandalous” gospel into Southwood) is nowhere on the committee’s radar screen. The committee again refers to the factions at Southwood as “parties,” another English word used to translate “heretic” from the Scriptures. I think this is by design. The “heresy” is not submitting to the leadership regardless of whether they are teaching truth or not. That’s because “truth” is bound up in their authority. This can be solidified with the fact that even after….
“We estimate that we have had hundreds of discussions, phone conversations, and email exchanges and have met regularly through the month of February.”
….charges of teaching false doctrine that was even called out by a thirteen-year-old visitor were summarily dismissed. And the existing leadership was given a sabbatical for the purpose of rest in anticipation of their future return to leadership. By the way, this is the exact same protocol being used by SGM to return serial sheep abuser CJ Mahaney to his presidency at SGM. The doctrinal concerns of the elders who resigned were also summarily dismissed in the document. Why? Because truth is bound up in the survival of the leadership. This is a serious problem that appears in Reformed theology from time to time in history: authority = truth.
Therefore, truth as perceived by the parishioners is irrelevant—because they don’t have the authority. Think my thesis is wrong? Note that there is no doctrinal error that even a thirteen-year-old (please, somebody send me her address so I can send her a bunch of stuff) can see, but only….
….Theological Misunderstanding
I have read many of Larroux’s messages; this is an outrageously offensive statement. Other than the fact that Christians are supposed to love the truth, and separate from those who don’t teach it (because a little Levin leavens the whole lump), I just don’t like the fact that we sheep ARE PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS! The message from the Presbytery, whether Baptist or otherwise, is:
Keep you damn mouth shut, put your money in the plate, buy our books, smile a lot, and bring other totally depraved sheep into our wonderful tyranny.
I close with a comment concerning this statement in the same document:
The Committee recommends that all concerned parties work toward forgiveness and not file any formal complaints or charges arising out of any events which have occurred up to the present time….
Christians are never to “file any formal complaints or charges arising out of any events”? I’m not so sure about that, and frankly, it’s the only hope I see in this document. The Scriptures are clear; we are only to follow those who follow Christ. And biblical imperatives to remove doctrinal error from local churches is most often directed at the whole congregation in the New Testament. I think that’s the greatest need of our day, for parishioners to stand up against error and any spiritual tyrant who seeks to protect error. If there is a course of action left for those at Southwood who love the truth—that’s what they need to do. Maybe it’s time for pastors to get the message: if you won’t stand for the truth, we will, and you can go get a real job!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment