Hello Beloved:
I’d like to kick off a vital discussion here at SGM Refuge by introducing a series on the subject of church polity.
Jim and I can’t seem to have any conversation without it turning to this subject, as so many ills in our churches –within and without SGM’s oversight– stem from a poor foundation or implementation of polity. This statement sounds rather judgmental, like it steps outside the bounds of sober issue analysis… but this is the church, beloved, the Bride of Christ… the one He will return for.
When many of us have asked questions about the form of church government practiced in Sovereign Grace Ministries-affiliated churches, we are handed Dave Harvey’s 54-page work on Polity. It should be noted the primary text or manuscript is on pages 1-28, while Endnotes, Three Addendums and a Bibliography take up the remaining 26 pages.
A couple of years ago, I remember reading an astoundingly self-absorbed blog authored by an editor from Big Name Christian Publisher. One of his entries expressed a whiny, nose-in-the-air-eye-rolling-sighing sentiment that he was “so tired” of pastors opening their messages with Webster’s definition of a word.
I’d like to dedicate the opening of our series on polity to him, by quoting old school Webster:
”Were the whole Christian world to revert back to the original model, how far more simple, uniform and beautiful would the church appear, and how far more agreeable to the ecclesiastical polity instituted by the holy apostles.” –comment under “polity” in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
———-
POLITY Episode 1: Who is Dave Harvey’s Phantom Menace?
In his Polity: Serving and Leading in the Local Church (which is part 2 [March 2004] of the Perspectives series by Sovereign Grace Ministries), early on (p. 2) Dave Harvey quotes Wayne Grudem from Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Harper Collins, 1994):
…At the outset it must be said that the form of church government is not a major doctrine like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the authority of Scripture… And church history attests that several different forms of government have worked fairly well for several centuries… It seems to me, then, that there ought to be room for evangelical Christians to differ amicably over this question, in the hope that further understanding may be gained (Grudem, 904 as quoted in Harvey, 2).
Harvey then immediately asserts:
Tempered by the wisdom of Grudem’s maturity and civility, we resist all impulses to canonize our polity (Harvey, 2).
I think we should go a little further in mining the wisdom of Dr. Grudem by simply doing justice to his chapter titled “Church Government” in Systematic Theology.
Here is that paragraph again, in its entirety, with the missing chunks in bold as well as the preceding paragraph and the paragraph following it (all in bold, as well) so that we may look at its proper context:
Is there a New Testament pattern for church government? Is any one form of church government to be preferred over another? These are the questions addressed in this chapter.
However, at the outset it must be said that the form of church government is not a major doctrine like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, or the authority of Scripture. Although I believe, after examining the New Testament evidence, that one particular form of church government is preferable to the others, nevertheless, each form has some weaknesses as well as strengths. And church history attests that several different forms of government have worked fairly well for several centuries. Moreover, while some aspects of church government seem to be reasonably clear from the New Testament, other matters (such as the way in which church officers should be chosen) are less clear, mainly because the New Testament evidence on them is not extensive, and thus our inferences from this evidence are less certain. It seems to me then, that there ought to be room for evangelical Christians to differ amicably over this question, in the hope that further understanding may be gained. And it also seems that individual Christians –while they may have a preference for one system over another– should nevertheless be willing to live and minister within any of several different Protestant systems of church government in which they may find themselves from time to time.
But I do not mean to say that this is an entirely unimportant matter. In this area as well as others, a church may be more or less pure. If there are clear New Testament patterns regarding some aspects of church government, then there will be negative consequences in our churches if we disregard them, even if we cannot foresee all of those consequences at the present time. Therefore Christians are certainly free to speak and write on this subject in order to work for increased purity in the church (Grudem 904-905, with missing words and segments in bold).
My beloved brothers and sisters in Christ who are fellow members of SGM churches, Please note: That last sentence above is our goal here. Read it again… read it thirty times, if you have to. Dave Harvey does not have the final word on church polity. In the spirit of Dr. Grudem’s observation, you are free to speak and write on this subject in order to work for increased purity in the church.
I think the missing segments from Harvey’s quotation of Grudem can form a general, episodic outline for our series and discussion here:
(1) Grudem believes “…after examining the New Testament evidence… one particular form of church government is preferable to the others, nevertheless, each form has some weaknesses as well as strengths.”
(2) Grudem also states, “Moreover, while some aspects of church government seem to be reasonably clear from the New Testament, other matters (such as the way in which church officers should be chosen) are less clear, mainly because the New Testament evidence on them is not extensive, and thus our inferences from this evidence are less certain.
(3) Additionally, Grudem exhorts, “And it also seems that individual Christians –while they may have a preference for one system over another– should nevertheless be willing to live and minister within any of several different Protestant systems of church government in which they may find themsleves from time to time.”
(4) And finally, Grudem warns, “But I do not mean to say that this is an entirely unimportant matter. In this area as well as others, a church may be more or less pure. If there are clear New Testament patterns regarding some aspects of church government, then there will be negative consequences in our churches if we disregard them, even if we cannot foresee all of those consequences at the present time.”
It seems to me that Harvey’s slimmed-down version of Grudem’s quote is an attempt to disarm any objections to what Harvey is about to lay out before us; His work, Polity, creates an unnecessary phantom menace of sorts in regard to those who question it or churches who operate radically different from SGM churches… particularly any of us in the flock who admire and respect Dr. Grudem’s work and would like to see him quoted in context on such an important matter. That being the case, I think we should look at Harvey’s work in the light of Dr. Grudem’s Systematic Theology, since Harvey feels free to quote from this volume –albeit vastly edited, it seems– in order to posture a “mature and civil” stand to “resist all impulses to canonize our (SGM) polity.” We’ll also get some thoughts from the best brains at SGM, many of whom I greatly respect even though I personally may part ways with them on issues from time to time. We’ll also get input from ordinary guys like Louis Berkhof, John MacArthur and such, all the while –it is my hope and prayer– tempering this with the primacy of Holy Scripture.
Polity is important, whether you want to assign importance to it or not. If we do not want to forsake the gathering with our fellow saints, then we must go above and beyond just playing church and acknowledge our vast dependence on the Gospel… that is, polity must be informed by the Glory of God, of which the center pillar is the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension and return of Jesus Christ. It must be informed by the guys who started (stumbled through) it: Peter, Paul and Company (bet you thought I was gonna say Mary), acting upon the instructions of their Lord and Savior, with the help of the ultimate Helper (who still helps us today, contrary to some polls), the Holy Spirit… and as impossible as it may seem, we must bring the Holiness of God to bear on all of this.
I look forward to going into the trenches of the Theological Death Star on this, and with God’s power taking the enemy of our souls to task for his exploitation of sin that mars this discussion.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
Nice!
The selective editing you’ve pointed out is…. interesting.
As we go through this document, it will become clear that you’ve just touched the tip of the iceberg.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 am
The difference in meaning between the Harveyated and the intact versions of that statment is stunning.
PK, you must be either a wonderful blessing or a complete burr on the backside of whichever SG church you belong. I, for one, find your analysis of church polity illuminating.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Hmmm. We weren’t really allowed to “differ amicably” over this issue. And it seems to me SGM strongly believes their polity is superior, as they do many of their stances on issues, even though they “resist all impulses to canonize” them.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Gracie,
We were encouraged to “depart amicably” because of this issue.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am
PK-
Good stuff-I read Harvey’s Polity years ago and wondered how anyone could take seriously his section on plural/team leadership (presbyterian) and the chapters’ emphasis on the Senior pastor and his role. He seems to want to use Reformed vocabulary but with entirely different meanings-definitions derived from the Shepherding movement.
Anyway-thanks for opening up this discussion!
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
DB said: “PK, you must be either a wonderful blessing or a complete burr on the backside of whichever SG church you belong.”
My church, in truth, is a blessing to me (in more ways than I can describe here). I love my church, and that’s why when I see this going on, my blood boils. I used to think I was in a Catch-22, because I was convinced that defending the church inwardly (and not just from wolves outside) would be taking up the offense of another; in truth these verses are not just taken out of context, they are wrenched out of context to build a slide that insecure leaders and sheep invariably funnel into scripture’s seventy-two references (cross-referencing five credible translations) of slander and gossip. This is a manufactured theological paradox/time bomb, a set of lead-filled boxing gloves that have to be exposed, and this nonsense has to be called for what it is (and I have used this less than savory description before, so put your seatbelts and goggles on, and clip a clothespin on your nose for this expansion on it): a paper bag with a steaming dogpile (or wolfpile, in some cases) in an effort to section off a KEEP OUT territory in side the flock’s church; the stench of it is designed to ward off frightened sheep. It’s then set on fire to increase the fear factor. So, my fellow sheep, it’s time to stomp it out knowing we will get dirty in the process. The end goal is the Glory of God, who can wash the wolf leavin’s and dogberries off of any of us, and sanctify us in the process.
These dogs and wolves sometimes forget that some sheep, while we are mild-mannered at times and can “baaa” rather peacefully, can also pack an uzi or a samurai sword –no less than the word of God– ‘neath our wool; and these dogs and wolves act mystified when they get blown to bits or cross-sectioned by it; this has happened to me, and still happens to me on a regular basis. The word of God is designed to purify all of us, no exceptions. He is merciful!
…pk
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
musicman: “He [Dave Harvey] seems to want to use Reformed vocabulary but with entirely different meanings-definitions derived from the Shepherding movement.
Anyway-thanks for opening up this discussion!”
Yep… and you are welcome, musicman. Your testimony is still ringing in my ears (thanks a lot…lol).
…pk
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Hmm…lots of Star Wars references in the post…are you really the Protestant Jedi Knight?
I find the Harvey’s denial that they attempt to canonize their polity amusing. It was my criticisms in precisely this area that elicited some of the strongest verbal insults from my old sp.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm
exintern said : “Hmm…lots of Star Wars references in the post…are you really the Protestant Jedi Knight?
I find the Harvey’s denial that they attempt to canonize their polity amusing. It was my criticisms in precisely this area that elicited some of the strongest verbal insults from my old sp.”
Don’t think that I didn’t think more than once about “Protestant Jedi Knight,” but I will stick with just plain ol’ Knight… for now.
I hope the Star Wars references don’t distract in a bad way. I was hoping to bring some levity to what can be a crushing discussion for some. I thought about your story, exintern, while I was writing this intro… the mere fact your disagreements on polity ignited such ire in regard to it. I reacted exactly that way at one time. In my own life it became a sacred cow, an idol I am still demolishing.
It’s sad when issues like Polity become a galactic “Star Wars” rather than a forum of discussion with the flock, the gathering of believers, the beloved saints.
I am just done taking it sitting down. I have turned the other cheek to show the offender the ridiculousness and gutteral behavior they exhibit, especially if they backhand slap their sheep with this issue to start with.
…pk
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Musicman said: ““He [Dave Harvey] seems to want to use Reformed vocabulary but with entirely different meanings-definitions derived from the Shepherding movement.”
Church polity in the Shepherding Movement in Florida in the late 1970s was hierarchical like SGM, but with a twist. Members would pay tithes directly to their small group leader (shepherd). Small group leaders paid their tithes to the senior pastor who tithed to whoever was above him, probably one of the “Fort Lauderdale 5″.
This practice created an incentive for small group leaders to counsel their group members in a way that encouraged bigger tithes. Shepherds would promote a dependent relationship and would be controlling in ways that go far beyond what I have seen in SGM. In fact, I was relieved when I joined my SGM church that it was not as controlling as those from Shepherding Movement of the 1970s.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
PK all that from someone that regards his church as a huge blessing. I am completely taken aback.
Now, I am a nerd, I have it really bad. On to the Star Wars reference.
The Phantom Menace; what exactly *was* the aforementioned phantom menace? *Palpitine*!!! Someone that userped power from the rightful leader of the Galactic Republic and eventually manipulated the senate to *vote* for him to have absolute power (at the time, it reminded me of Hitler getting the Weimer Republic to vot him some dictatorial powers but now I’m reminded of a pair of people that held so-called apostolic (sp?) positions that didn’t last long.
The prophets (the Jedi,) were deceived or killed or otherwise dispached. Hmmmmm? Analogies? I have a few.
An army of cloned drones? Hmmm…….
Civil rights taken away? Hmmmm……
Oh, the nerd in me is having way too much fun.
I could go on but I’ll stop.
Oh, heck no, eventually Palpy was *bald* as was Vader….now I’ll stop.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Single-
True-SGM has veered away from some of the more extreme practices of the Shepherding Movement, but their definitions of leadership and authority are essentially the same.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“So this is how freedom dies…”
Palpatine! How utterly appropriate, pk!
Wow - that’s quite the “hack job” that was done on Wayne Grudem’s writing by Dave Harvey, a total change of meaning…incredible!
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
PK: Just wondering, and excuse me if you wrote this somewhere and I missed it… You say you are still in a sovereign grace church, correct? If so, have you spoken to your pastors about your concerns and how did they respond?
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Hi eponine:
You asked: “Just wondering, and excuse me if you wrote this somewhere and I missed it… You say you are still in a sovereign grace church, correct?”
Yes.
You also asked: “If so, have you spoken to your pastors about your concerns and how did they respond?”
Yes, and this statement from this post sums up the response: “When many of us [including me, PK] have asked questions about the form of church government practiced in Sovereign Grace Ministries-affiliated churches, we are handed Dave Harvey’s 54-page work on Polity.”
No room is really left to question Harvey’s work… many besides me have asked questions like this (on polity) and many other subjects, and the responses are typically to hold the party line before conceding an inch.
A rather unexciting and sad answer, but the result is I am now using arrows instead of questions.
…pk
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
What I’ve heard over and over again is:
“It’s all about relationship”. Gotta love the non-answers.
In my meeting with my ex sr p and the pastor who gives oversight to him, I was quoting a portion of Harvey’s statement. The guy actually argued with me-until I told him I was quoting Harvey.
Time to change the subject….
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
PK,
be encouraged. This is going in a great direction, I think.
This site has more potential to seriously discuss doctrinal, theological, political and technical issues with regard to SGM whereas the Survivors site may be mostly called to bind up wounds, nurture the sick, and point out what caused them to get there.
As for politiy, the crux of the issue lies, of course, even deeper than the comparison Harvey-Grudem reveals. SGM decided, from the start, to take in the Protestant and American poison of independence: “we can figure that out on our own” (implied: in 2000 years, no one really got it right). The outcome is an odd, culturally conditioned form of American “evangelical” self-sufficiency, in this case applied to policy (another applications is SGM’s doctrinal hodgepodge).
It is an enigma to me why people like Dever or Duncan do not see this clearly.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Fama:
You said : “As for politiy, the crux of the issue lies, of course, even deeper than the comparison Harvey-Grudem reveals. SGM decided, from the start, to take in the Protestant and American poison of independence: ‘we can figure that out on our own’ (implied: in 2000 years, no one really got it right). The outcome is an odd, culturally conditioned form of American “evangelical” self-sufficiency, in this case applied to policy (another applications is SGM’s doctrinal hodgepodge).
It is an enigma to me why people like Dever or Duncan do not see this clearly.” (underlining mine)
Outstanding observation!
…pk
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
even worse than that: it is odd, culturally conditioned, an evidence of self-sufficiency and individualism: and SGM doesn’t see it. Because all the fishes in the waters of the variety of “families of churches” in the evangellyfish are just as wet as they are.
Why, though, why does a family of churches that prides itself in its “sound doctrine” , emphasis on mutual accountability, its blessings of oversight, feel it has to do its “own thing”?
Maybe, just maybe it is because they are less within the stream of historical orthodoxy (and ecclesiological orthopraxy!) than they like to think they are.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
I have challenged their supposed attachment to the Reformation so often: where are the poets of the church, the creeds, the baptism, the presbyterian form of government, the catechism, the confessions?
Answer: we are reformed.
Question: what makes you say that? You reject the history of the church and make your own!
Answer: cuz we just are.
Which week do they teach logic and argument at PC anyway?
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Reformed Teacher:
You said: “I have challenged their supposed attachment to the Reformation so often: where are the poets of the church, the creeds, the baptism, the presbyterian form of government, the catechism, the confessions? Answer: we are reformed. Question: what makes you say that? You reject the history of the church and make your own!Answer: cuz we just are. Which week do they teach logic and argument at PC anyway?”
This is so true, and sadly characteristic of us. If we have any “Distinctives” or “Essentials,” it’s all based on talking about Reformation theology with very little to none in living it… it’s all talking about the Charismata while simply quashing it rather than having the guts to follow Paul’s guidelines of what it looks like in the church.
It’s these very things I pray so strongly about for us: the absence of “the poets of the church, the creeds, the baptism, the presbyterian form of government, the catechism, the confessions…”
Josh Harris says we have to stop dating the church. I would say that we need to stop dating theology. What a deep, rich heritage we could have if we would stop flirting with good theology and just marry it.
Great comments, RT!
…pk
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
“Josh Harris says we have to stop dating the church. I would say that we need to stop dating theology. What a deep, rich heritage we could have if we would stop flirting with good theology and just marry it.”
YES!!!
September 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
On a completely different note, has anyone ever ready any of Frank Viola’s books. I have them all and have found them very interesting. He is of the opinion that the church should revert back to the NT form of meeting in homes with a plurality of elders who guide rather than lead the flock. Even though my husband and I are not ready to leave our SGM church I am definitely in favor of this type of church and leadership since it does seem to make room for each person’s gifts. Right now, it seems the only ministries open to the average member are Sunday School, greeters, Alpha ministries and worship team. We do have a mic open on Sunday mornings for prophetic words but it can be a wee bit intimidating to walk up there, ask the pastor for permission and then speak in front of so many people.
Thanks!
Mac
September 7th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Mac,
Hi, and welcome! I love Frank Viola’s books. They certainly help to clarify the definition of leadership. I’d love to be a part of the type of church he speaks of but, as you say, there doesn’t seem to be much choice at the moment but the typical Sunday service. Still hoping, though!
September 16th, 2008 at 4:35 am
Hi,
The selective editing seems to be a SGM practice - I think it a good observation. I think the New Testament is clear that churches were led by a plurality of elders.
I noticed went I went to CLC - CJ used to always do the same thing with Spurgeon. Spurgeon is so much fun to read because he clearly shows you your sin and then smackes you upside the head with God’s amazing grace. He would leave you not thinking about your sin but clearly thinking about God, grace, and running to Christ. CJ pulled out alot of Spurgeon quotes to get you thinking about sin. Spurgeon is not someone where you can quote one or two lines and get what it was he was saying altogether. I think it is clear they do the same thing with Grudem on this issue.
September 20th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
SGMSINGLE,
I understand that you do not see SGM as having the same control over people that the Shepherding movement ot the 1970’s. What I think needs to be understood is that CJ and Larry Tomzak were associated with shepherding movements such as ”Lamb of God” in the 70’s and 80’s which was a communal shepherding style church with associations to many house churches. Larry Tomzak and CJ were leaders of TAG (Take And Give) which were heavily into the lifestyle of shepherding, including leadship choosing and approving relationships of members and heavily controling finance and other areas of the church communities life. During this period there was a heavy hyper charismatic emphasis and a lower view of scripture that gifts as reflected in teaching emphasis. The reformed influence has come via Dave Harvey, whose teaching has always been very persuasive except for a overemphisis on the authoritativeness of pastoral leadershio without exception.
When I brought this up as a concern to my church leadership when we explored joining the PDI / later SGM movement I was told they had changed to being reformed. From what I have seen recently there is a shift back toward an isolation of leadership from accountability to scriptural concerns of the body to only being accountable to the direction of higher leadership. This is reflected in the fact that Pastors are directed to only be accountable to each other, not to the observations of others in the body.
The other area where there is a shift backward to the shepherding movement is in the area of women’s role and men’s authority, Although scripture has many examples of women having positions (non-pastoral) of authority such as Deborah being a judge, the direction of teaching related to women is suppressive and unbalanced. The “I Kissed Dating Goodby” and “Courting” emphasis as a measure of obedience toward God is not a value or perspective described in scripture. Christianity was the first religion to recognize the value of women in the religous community to be equal to men, with only Pastoral leadership being out of bounds of biblical order. There are women Deacons listed in the new testament, there are strong women praised for their faithfulness, there are women who were sent as missionaries along with apostles.
When the attitude of leadership is to teach that women should be under their fathers authority and in their house until a suitable courtship and marriage is arranged, that is shepherding. I am not against protecting my daughters and expecting her to seek my counsel about an individual, but I am not in the position of acting as the Holy Spirit for my daughters, only a loving father encouraging my children to be heart guided by the holy spirit, God’s Word, and the counsel of balanced and wise believers. At this time I do NOT consider my pastors as being wise counsel in terms of relational, emotional, or health issues.
Finally the use of guilt to oppress the church body into conformance in areas of lifesyle and church operation is a real issue that is getting worse not better. When the leadership of a church loses respect of the church body members ability to seek scripture and the holy spirit for guidance and acts as the Holy Spirit for members, the leadership are not being biblical shepherds, rather they become life administrators, administrating legalism.
I am still attending and praying for change to less legaliism, condemnation, and authoritarianism.
“They will know Me, by how you love one another” Jesus
Please pray for respectful dialogue and diversity of the body as God has indicated the body should express.
DAD
September 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Dad,
Welcome! I was buried in fixing a mess I created here and missed your post.
I really don’t think SGM has ever changed their view of authority. So much of what they say looks like PR to me.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Hi DAD, and welcome!
You said: “The reformed influence has come via Dave Harvey, whose teaching has always been very persuasive except for a overemphisis on the authoritativeness of pastoral leadershio without exception.”
From my perspective, Dave wants to ride the coattails of Reformed faith but maintain a hierarchy. Hence the wiggle room of “Reformed in essence with Charismatic distinctives.” This can be flexed enough to basically do what you want as a leader, and this is wrong to the core.
In my 28 years at SGM with more than a couple churches, the hierarchal form of polity seems to have remained consistent. Men do not want to give up their positions.
…pk
September 20th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Dad,
I agree that CJ and Larry were associated in some way with the Shepherding Movement of the 1970s and and 1980s. Charles Simpson, who was one of the original founders of the Shepherding Movement, has spoken at SGM events several times in the past. By repeated invitations to Simpson, many people believe that SGM leaders were implying agreement with Simpson’s teachings on authority and submission. There are some similarities to those teachings in the current SGM doctrines.
My point was that things were worse by far in those Shepherding groups in the 1970s than they are now in SGM. I was in a Shepherding group that pressured members to live in houses rented from their pastor. Members not only paid rent and tithes to their pastor, they also volunteered to work for free doing remodeling and repairs on those houses. When the church fell apart, the pastor sold the houses for a profit and retired. Um, I don’t think SGM is that extreme in comparison.
That experience really helped me to forgive, love, give, and serve more unselfishly than before, but I would never want others to go through it. I would have spoken up long ago if I had seen anything that extreme at SGM.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
SGMsingle
Thankyou for your feedback, I had friends who were in the shepherding movement and fortunately by the grace of God recognized their departure from God’s truth. I believe that small diversions from the truth are more dangerous than blatant issues. So in my mind the SGM leadership model is even more dangerous than shepherding because shepherding is blatantly wrong; what is more difficult for the average believer to percieve is that dominant unchallenged leadership is based on prideful sin.
DAD
September 21st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Dad,
I am enjoying reading your perspective.
I’m wondering if I know you, perhaps, I believe we are of a similar vintage.
I’m remembering Harvey’s messages from the very early 90’s and they were starting to get reformey back then; a departure from what we had expected from a more charasmatic group.
Some of it was actually good because I perceived it at the time as more meaty where, by contrast, what we had been previously fed was sort of milky.
I always attributed this to the education he was receiving at the time.
At some point, however, this good meaty teaching grew tedious and downright dry, it moved in a direction and went far beyond acheiving a balance between hypercharasmatic and dry as the desert reformed theology (sorry, tulipey friends, I’m coming from a charasmatic perspective and, much as I appriciate the good meat, Harvey’s preaching was the frakking Atkin’s diet, all meat, no veggies, no dessert.
And the woman and sheltering thing is straight from the hyperpatriarchal pit, it’s an odd combination, that’s for sure.