From our friend Taking Note:
I thought you all might enjoy this exceptional quote from Sam Storms:
“There are people, professing Christian people, who are determined to
bring you under their religious thumb. They are bent on making you a
slave of their conscience. They have built a tidy religious box, without
biblical justification, and strive to stuff you inside and make you conform
to its dimensions. They are legalists, and their tools are guilt, fear,
intimidation, and self-righteousness. They proclaim God’s unconditional
love for you, but insist on certain conditions before including you among
the accepted, among the approved elite, among God’s favored few.
I’m not talking about people who insist you obey certain laws or moral
rules in order to be saved. Such people aren’t legalists. They are lost!
They are easily identified and rebuffed. I’m talking about Christian
legalists whose goal is to enforce conformity among other Christians in
accordance with their personal preferences. These are life-style legalists.
They threaten to rob you of joy and to squeeze the intimacy out of your
relationship with Jesus. They may even lead you to doubt your salvation.
They heap condemnation and contempt on your head so that your life is
controlled and energized by fear rather than freedom and joy and delight
in God. Rarely would these folk ever admit to any of this. They don’t
perceive or portray themselves as legalists. If they are reading this they
are probably convinced I’m talking about someone else. They’d never
introduce themselves: “Hi! My name is Joe/Julie. I’m a legalist and my
goal is to steal your joy and keep you in bondage to my religious
prejudices. Would you like to go to lunch after church today and let me
tell you all the things you’re doing wrong?”
I suspect that some of you are either legalists or, more likely, the victims
of legalism. You live in fear of doing something that another Christian
considers unholy, even though the Bible is silent on the subject. You are
terrified of incurring their disapproval, disdain, and ultimate rejection.
Worse still, you fear God’s rejection for violating religious traditions or
cultural norms that have no basis in Scripture but are prized by the
legalist. You have been duped into believing that the slightest
misstep or mistake will bring down God’s disapproval and disgust.
When you are around other Christians, whether in church or a home
group or just hanging out, do you feel free? Does your spirit feel relaxed
or oppressed? Do you sense their acceptance or condemnation? Do you
feel judged, inadequate, inferior, guilty, immature, all because of your
perceived failure to conform to what someone else regards as “holy”?
Jesus wants to set you free from such bondage! As Paul said, “you were
called to freedom”!”
– Sam Storms http://www.enjoyinggodministri…..s-liberty/
Juli.
I would agree that this is not what SGM would call Joyful Submission
Matthew 27:46
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
I now understand why SGM likes Calvin.
On October 27, 1553 John Calvin, the founder of Calvinism, had Michael Servetus, the Spanish physician, burned at the stake just outside of Geneva for his doctrinal heresies!(1) Hence, the originator of the popular doctrine of “once saved, always saved” (known in certain circles as “the perseverance of the saints”) violated the cry of the Reformation — “Sola Scriptura” — by murdering a doctrinal heretic without Scriptural justification. This event was something Calvin had considered long before Servetus was even captured, for Calvin wrote his friend, Farel, on February 13, 1546 (seven years prior to Servetus’ arrest) and went on record as saying:
“If he [Servetus] comes [to Geneva], I shall never let him go out alive if my authority has weight.”(2) Evidently, in that day Calvin’s authority in Geneva, Switzerland had ultimate “weight.” This is why some referred to Geneva as the “Rome of Protestantism”(3) and to Calvin as the “Protestant ‘Pope’ of Geneva.”(4)
Oh no, he didn’nnnnn!
What a visual offense! Another reason God will judge California first- horridly, tacky architecture.*
* that was a joke. **
**sort of.
My ancestor Sarah Barnes was drowned around 1635 for not going to church.
Not So Anxious Anymore –
The Quizzler wonders if Sarah Barnes was the subject of Puritan practices?
I was off on the name ,year and how she died.
Mary Barnes-accused
Execution of Mary Barnes , although a diary of William Goffe, who was in hiding and under suspicion himself at the time , made notation in his diary … “Jan. 20, 1662, three witches were condemned a =t Hartford Fe b.24, 1662.” It is believed one of these was Mary Barnes.It is also assumed that she was hung “up past Thomas Barnes old time Hartfordhomesite , near a prolongation of a northwesterly road alongside the Cow Pasture. Th is site was about a mile from the jail and a little back from a main road into the country. This was perhaps the Via Dolorosa of Mary Barnes’ last earthly journey for it was believed she had sold her soul to Satan. She left three childr en, undoutbedly interror of these events. Her crime… she did not attend church; this verdict from those who had fled religious persecution in Europe. An irony to be sure!
She had company, consider Ann Hutchinson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson
Puritins don’t have a good reputation for the way they treat women especially women with an opinion.
PFR,
Considering Che’s recent “apostolic commissioning” of Todd Bentley, I’m not sure his “gifting” is missed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVdY9ufJmz8
Wow, women martyrs. How can anyone follow the doctrines of a man, Calvin, who had someone burned to death? Too many times in history have “Christians” killed others for not following the rules. This is not the true gospel, needless to say. You can see this sort of conscience/behavior control growing in SGM (not that they are killing anyone, but the control certainly kills faith). So they have taken what they like in Calvin, and ignored the rest?
I well remember Che from the U of MD – he had a bit of an outreach there – back in, oh, 1979 best of my recollection. He was a jovial, faith-filled young man. We’d tool around in his car - was it a bug? – singing songs of praise. What glorious fun!
Anyway, to think of the direction he’s gone – sigh – where in the world did he get the impression that he was qualified or appointed by the Holy Spirit to commission apostles???? And, come on, Che, Todd Bentley? How do you justify qualifying him, of all people!
Shaking my head.
Burning “witches”, people accused of “heresy”, etc. This is the historical “reformed” theology that sgm has imbraced. The puritanical “classics” (need barf smiley here), written by the same folks accusing people of “witchcraft” and “heresy”.
The “witches” where most likely women who spoke their minds, or didn’t “attend church”. “Heresy” was anyone that didn’t agree with the puritanical version of calvinism……. Let’s look at the end result of the areas (Mass, new england areas), they are among the most “culturally liberal” in this country outside of CA, pro gay marriage, pro abortion, etc, etc. Interesting that the areas once under puritanical control are now part of the areas of the US farthers from the bible belt.
Freedom,
Excellent points. Wonder when the day will come when we bloggers will be called “heretics”?
Just for clarification, it appears that Che Ahn was involved in this “commissioning” of Tod Bentley before last summers revival and thus before Bentley’s marital problems came out.
Doing it this at that time, doesn’t remove all of the questionable practices but at least is better.
Canary,
Plenty of bloggers are heretics…so we might as well start now.
And by the way, Freedom
The “puritans” who wrote the “classics” (and some really did, by the way, write classics on the grace and goodness of God) were not the same people as hunted “witches”. That’s the problem with historical labels. The God, grace, and truth loving Puritans of the early Puritan revivals not only wrote and preached some classics, but did more for the right treatment and dignity of women than any group had done for many, many years before them. This is a very different group of people than the much later “Puritans” who had lost the grace of the Doctrines of Grace, abandoned much of the Gospel, and persecuted people largely for political gain.
This defense is coming from somebody who fully agrees that SGM and others have dangerously idolized (and often misinterpreted) the Puritans and who has no desire to bring back the excesses and imbalances of even the better of these folks. That said, much of the truth and grace tradition that many of you enjoy now is deeply indebted to the vision through trials of fire that the experience of these often slandered people left as a heritage to those that follow.
Just something to think about…
And before Calvin is himself torched on a blog-stake…
Well, let’s just say we should be careful of generalities and broad-stroke judgments that ignore historical perspective and write off completely those who make many (and even some inexplicable) mistakes. If we make a habit of this, Calvin and I will have a lot of company out in the cold.
Besides…I love Hobbes (his alter-ego stuffed tiger).
We have to remember this…at Calvin’s time, pretty much only the church of Rome was existent. Calvin was moving away from Rome, into dependence on the Word alone, on grace alone. Was much messed up? Yes. Was much good, was the gospel advanced? yes.
It is not like you could worship at the people-burning church, or else go to your friendly charismatic church down the street.
the Bride of Christ had a long way to ‘come back’ in Calvin’s time.
Take a read through some of the Puritan writers…clay pots, like all of us, but focused on God. And didn’t he redeem them, refusing to allow them to hold heresy and spiritual abuse?
All of us are ‘descendants’ of Calvin in one way or another. We must eat the watermelon and spit out the seeds.
And I do beg you not to think for a minute that SGM is reformed. It is not.
Taking Note – My points were referring to the puritans that came to America AKA the Pilgrams,. I know there are multiple sects of purtians dating back to the 1500′s. I’ve rad some of the “classics” and haven’t been a big fan. Most people (myself included) love to beat up on “sinners in the hands of an angry God”. There is so much to the puritanical movement that can be studied – it’s a graduate course in itself. It is interesting how much of the puritan movement has been repackaged over the years. On surviviors, people have made note of how some of sgm is repackaged gothardism, which in itself had a good deal of repackaged purtianism. How the puritans treated women and where patrichial was passed right on down to SGM - I guess we should have seen it coming. The puritan movement, in general, was full of legalism.
Calvin and Hobbes was awesome! I miss that strip! (Along with The Far Side and Bloom County!) Calvin (the old duth dude) did some pretty bad stuff – there’s another interesting case. Anyone ever been to amsterdam? I’ve been there, walked through the red light district – the stories about “window shopping” for prostitutes are true, as are the “coffee houses” that don’t sell coffee. It’s interest that Calvin’s land is now one of the most “culturally liberal” on the planet. I have Dutch friends and I love to joke that they have a low crime rate because everything is legal! It’s amazing what can happen over time to people oppressed by legalism. But, Calvin would say the dutch today must not be God’s elect. Note – I don’t think anyone has ever called me a Calvinist or reformed in my thinking. I tend to be more emerging (much like I tend to be more libertarian in my political thinking!)
yeah, the Puritans were rather jacked up - fortunately they were SO jacked up and their beliefs didn’t stick, so that they died out with them.
that is, until some yahoo decided to resurrect the DEAD doctrines they teach.
gee, thanks, whoever you are. I’m sure it was someone wanting to make a buck.
Yah Juli, there’s real money in reprinted Puritan literature (sarcasm intended).
It is a shame that so many seem to have bought wholesale the slanderous and silly stereotypes of folks like the Reformers and early Puritans.
Like it or not, friends, everyone on this blog owes a debt of gratitude to the heritage of grace, truth, and joy (yes, joy) that these deeply passionate, deeply flawed men of history handed down to us. They labored (many at risk to their lives) in defense of the liberties, gospel hopes, and freedom of conscience that are valued so deeply through out the pages of these blogs.
Their flaws and blind-spots were very real and giving them undue celebrity or authority is silly and careless – but the real people of those seasons of history deserve to be admired and thanked, not to be made into ridiculous “straw-men” who are now burned at blog-stakes for things they neither believed nor practiced.
Praise God, the truths that so many mocked and disparaged truth-warriors of history died for are the exact opposite of “dead doctrines”. Whatever their errors or excesses – Kill the doctrines they loved most and you kill the hope of your soul.
Taking Note – you really believe the Puritans fought for our freedom of conscience?
what history books are YOU reading? Seriously? Everything they did was to BIND the conscience! Even children’s books mentioning the Puritans, including personal journals, speak of their rigid lifestyles, condemnation of others, persecution of people, and total LACK OF GRACE.
I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you better re-read your history. And not just take the word of some present-day theologian who is peddling Puritan teachings for the Pharisee of today.
Legalism, judgement of others, constant focus on indwelling sin..these are teachings that help somehow to give HOPE to our souls? to YOUR soul?
Their teachings are doctrines of death. They preach another gospel according to God’s Word.
Jesus died so we would be free from the guilt of sin, he warned against the leaven time and again..it is impossible to have a clear conscience and therefore a life of faith, by believing the leaven they preached.
woww..
OK, I have to share just a few lines from the infamous Valley of Vision just to illustrate the heart of these writings, and how there is NO progression past personal sin, guilt, condemnation, feelings of unworthiness, etc…it’s truly pathetic how manipulative it is and why people wonder the many complaints about not moving past the Cross to a victorious life. I can’t believe I ever read this crap. I am assuming we can still say crap on here Jim, right?
(my apologies upfront, but I am trying to illustrate a point - WARNING – do not read further if you do not want to feel condemnation for your sins and have SGM flash backs!)
pg. 107: “When I review my past guilt and am conscious of my present unworthiness..”
p. 13 “Such joys for so vile a rebel!”
“Let wrath deserved be written on the door of hell”
p 14 “for if I do not walk holily before thee, how can I be assured of my salvation?”
p15 “But oh how I mourn my sin, ingratitude, vileness, the days that add to my guilt”
“my sin-soiled conscience”
p 25 “Deliver me from the natural darkness of my own mind, from the corruptions of my heart..”
p50 “I bewail my coldness, poverty, emptiness, imperfect vision, languid service, prayerless prayers..”
ok, needless to say there is TONS more but my stomach is already churning and I’m guessing others might be too.
And I wonder why I had no joy in SGM…hmm..and how I was so defeated and depressed…and how I was able to be manipulated and “Kept down” below the leaders and dependent on them…hmm..maybe it was the copies of Valley of Vision the pastor would lay across the pews for each of us on Sundays..like an idiot I went out and bought my own copy.
I think I will have a bonfire this weekend.
anyway..no one here (I don’t think so anyway) is saying of that we are without sin – but certainly anyone can see that this constant dwelling on it does exactly the opposite of bringing life- it KILLS the soul. BALANCE.
This type of thinking is why people hate God. After reading this funk, God to them becomes this pissed off Father in the sky that is mad and they aren’t sure why but they have these images of him throwing lightening bolts and they aren’t ABOUT to go to him in faith, when for crying out loud..they’re freaking out! It’s much easier for them to just deny He doesn’t exist than deal with all that guilt and fear.
Is THIS the God of love and mercy and endless grace of the Bible? When I read these words from the Puritans, I don’t see my Father there AT ALL. And I didn’t see Him there before either – what emerged from the words of so much of what I read during my SGM-prison term was this false image of God that I created in my total desperation and fear and guilt. I wasn’t willing to stop believing He existed, but I certainly stopped believing He loved me, or that He would or could forgive me.
BINGO! The following part of the post is the lifestyle culture of SGC Chesapeake down to a tee:
I suspect that some of you are either legalists or, more likely, the victims
of legalism. You live in fear of doing something that another Christian
considers unholy, even though the Bible is silent on the subject. You are
terrified of incurring their disapproval, disdain, and ultimate rejection.
Live Wire
The Quizzler wonders………………
A) were you under legalistic bondage?
B) freed by the working of the Holy Spirit?
C) walking now in freedom?
D) experiencing a renewed joy in Our Lord Jesus?
E) all of the above?
The Quizzler also wonders why the SGC down in Chesapeake is “reducing” its staff?
Interesting part of an article on puritans from Wikipedia:
The relationships within the nuclear family, along with interactions between the family and the larger community, distinguished Puritans from other early settlers. Authority and obedience characterized the relationship between Puritan parents and their children. Proper love meant proper discipline; in a society essentially without police, the family was the basic unit of supervision. Disciplining disobedient children mostly derived from a spiritual concern: a breakdown in family rule indicated a disregard of God’s order. “Fathers and mothers have ‘disordered and disobedient children,’” said the Puritan Richard Greenham, “because they have been disobedient children to the Lord and disordered to their parents when they were young.” Thus disobedient parents meant disobedient children. Because the duty of early childcare fell almost exclusively on women, a woman’s salvation necessarily depended upon the observable goodness of her child.
Puritans connected the discipline of a child to later readiness for conversion. Accordingly, parents attempted to check their affectionate feelings toward a disobedient child, at least after the child was about two years old, in order to break his or her will. This suspicious regard of “fondness” and heavy emphasis on obedience placed complex pressures on the Puritan mother. While Puritans expected mothers to care for their young children tenderly, a mother who doted could be accused of failing to keep God present. Furthermore, Puritan belief prescribed that a father’s more distant governance check the mother’s tenderness once a male child reached the age of 6 or 7 so that he could bring the child to God’s authority.
- Sounds lot like sgm’s views…….
An SGM defender may say that from the depths of our unworthiness, our view of the cross, and where we were brought from, should be the source of joy.
To keep and maintain that perspective and appreciation for the cross, we must remind ourselves of our wretchedness, lest we forget our true nature and become arrogant.
For me it was always more that sufficient to know that God loved me so much, that he was willing to sacrifice his son to be reconciled.
Besides;
I would feel strange reminding me of my singleness, and what I was like when I was single, simply to better “appreciate” the fact that I was married. I know my spouse would prefer that I not use my time in that way.
Nor would I conger up much that was relevant to who I am today.
I stand whole-heartedly by my earlier comments based on a thoughtful understanding of the historical circumstances, gospel beliefs, real excesses, rich contributions, fierce trials, undeniable failings, and deeply valuable legacy of early strands of these the non-conformists (Puritans) who labored in the Scriptures, experienced great revival, championed the great doctrines of God’s grace, and often lost their lives for the New Covenant doctrines that, yes, are the hope of your soul and without which no one has hope.
And, yes, the early Puritans (like the much-maligned reformers before them) labored for freedom of conscience as few ever have, in a world dominated by monarchy and papal oppression. And they would have been heart-broken to see some of their Puritan-in-name-only descendants later trample on the consciences of others.
Beyond these restatements of earlier reminders, I simply won’t argue with you. Wikipedia characterizations, authoritative declarations of practices and beliefs that are rooted in popular caricature but not historical substance, random quotes that are declared to be the sum of all Puritan belief, etc. – there is no basis for thoughtful dialogue in these kinds of ultra-dogmatic, straw-man, slash and burn arguments.
If you label everyone with their weakest points and defame anyone who was not always right when they fought for truth against every tide and storm. then you will have no one left that you can admire and learn from and no one left to listen to but yourselves.
So, I simply stand by my earlier general comments – reminding you only that I oppose Puritan-adoration, have taught about their dangerous inclinations and flaws, and fully acknowledged from the beginning of this brief discussion that there are many hues to the Puritan story, both delightful and deeply disappointing.
Juli,
Very well said, my sister.
I also just cannot agree with this statement posted by Taking Note: “ Kill the doctrines they loved most and you kill the hope of your soul.” The Hope of my soul is Jesus Christ, not doctrine. Maybe I’m mistaken, but it seems that I have noticed this: some of those who speak about doctrine so lovingly and with such passion, sometimes omit this same emotion for the only Hope of my soul, Jesus. By the time we left our SGM church, we rarely if ever heard the name of Jesus spoken, let alone admired passionately, except sometimes in worship. However, we did hear about having passion for doctrine quite a lot. It was an imbalance that effected the whole Body in a negative way. Just my observations.
Taking Note,
I wish to add that I wasn’t picking on you personally in my above post. I like your last paragraph:
“So, I simply stand by my earlier general comments – reminding you only that I oppose Puritan-adoration, have taught about their dangerous inclinations and flaws, and fully acknowledged from the beginning of this brief discussion that there are many hues to the Puritan story, both delightful and deeply disappointing.”
Could you possibly give us some quotes from Puritan writings that are “delightful”? It would help to balance this discussion. Thanks.
Canary,
I understand and appreciate the heart behind your distinction between Jesus and “doctrine” (by which you seem to mean big thick books of human theologies and dogmatic personal viewpoints). But this is not a distinction that exists in the Scriptures.
Doctrine (a biblical term) simply means a teaching or a life affecting truth. Jesus – who He was, what He did, how He loved, wept, died, lived and ascended in glory to prepare a wedding feast for His beloved bride…this is eternal and life transforming “doctrine”. We know of Jesus and the hope of life only because it was doctrine – that is, teachings sent by God through His Son, prophets, apostles, and His people.
The apostle Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 to shut down legalism and foolishness and all that he says “is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
You see, your love for Jesus and all the joyful realities He brings to your life is a love of “the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel.”
That’s all I meant (and continue to mean) by saying that if you kill the doctrines (eternal truths/teachings) that the Puritans loved most you kill the hope of your soul. It is because the teachings from God’s amazing Word that these folks loved most (for all their flaws and other stumblings) were the “doctrines” from God of delightful, saving grace, through Jesus alone, by faith alone, to the glory of God alone.
Hi Canary,
I didn’t see your second comment until now. Thank you for the thoughtful tone of your question.
I won’t give a bibliography of Puritan writings right now (frankly, I’m not a big one for recommending that people plow into long, old writings that are often dense, wordy, and hard to understand
).
What I will say is that the vast majority of preserved, early Puritan writings are not about sin, wrath, and judgment the way many state or imply. The largest amount of their works is about Christ, the Gospel, the work of the Holy Spirit, etc.
John Owen is an ironic example. I don’t particularly enjoy plowing through his thousands of hard-to-read written pages, so I rarely do; but contrary to what many would assume, he wrote far more about Christ and the Gospel than he did about sin. His two large volumes on sin and mortification are, in my opinion, unfortunate in a number of ways; but they are also a small fraction of what he wrote.
Owen himself (a man who is passionately despised, I would guess, by many on this site) wrote a rich exploration of how our lives are saved by grace and transformed by grace in his book “The Glory of Christ”. It is a deeply thoughtful (still dense and hard to read – as was the style of the era) exposition of the beautiful vision for Christian living that is offered in 2 Corinthians 3:18.
The problem is that most folks only know the Puritans through bookstores, sermon quotes, or “Valley of Vision” type repackaging that reflects more of the perspectives and tone of the recommender/quoter than it reflects of the heart of the Puritans and their library full of writings.
For that matter, even a “Valley of Vision” re-packaging offers some of the delightful, grace-absorbed material that you ask for, though not with the richness that a bigger picture of the Puritans and their hearts would offer.
QUOTE“Fathers and mothers have ‘disordered and disobedient children,’” said the Puritan Richard Greenham, “because they have been disobedient children to the Lord and disordered to their parents when they were young.” Thus disobedient parents meant disobedient children. Because the duty of early childcare fell almost exclusively on women, a woman’s salvation necessarily depended upon the observable goodness of her child.END QUOTE
Freedom….this explains alot of what I experienced….the judgmental and dismissive attitudes of other parents who had been blessed with “easy” children towards me and my kids when I did everything that they did in parenting X10. >sigh<
Taking Note,
Thanks for responding.
“I understand and appreciate the heart behind your distinction between Jesus and “doctrine” (by which you seem to mean big thick books of human theologies and dogmatic personal viewpoints). But this is not a distinction that exists in the Scriptures. ”
This is NOT what I was saying. I love scripture, and do my best to understand it. Doctrine today, on the other hand, is something that men use to try to explain their understanding of scripture. The problem is, we don’t all agree with some interpretation, which is why we need the eyes and ears of the Holy Spirit. Puritan, reformed, whatever…seem to interpret scripture more in a legalistic manner, which is not what Jesus intends for us to do.
Respectfully, you also speak of Jesus as though we should not or cannot have a live, personal relationship with Him, where He speaks, we listen, He comforts, we worship, etc. I saw a lot of this in PDI before we left. The leaders seemed condescending towards our heart for the Lord. We weren’t throwing out scripture, mind you. We were trying to live it, and were not allowed to follow our own consciences. If I have misunderstood this about your post, I apologize.
“The apostle Paul writes to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 to shut down legalism and foolishness and all that he says “is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
The glorious gospel Paul speaks of here is what I have been posting about a lot. My point is always, legalism is contrary to good doctrine. It is a false gospel, the leaven mixed in with the whole lump of dough, the stuff that Paul urged churches to purge themselves of. The Puritans may have had some good doctrine, but they also had a bunch of the leaven, which eventually grew and grew, till the whole dough was fermented. Then it died out. Read 1 Cor. 5:6-7.
Today, men are reviving some of this doctrine, the good with the leaven That leaven has proceeded to do what it always does – it is fermenting the gospel. No longer are we free to follow our own conscience, or listen to the Holy Spirit (guided by scripture, of course), nor are we, in controlling churches, allowed to have Jesus alone as our Mediator. This is very troubling, and faith destroying. How many people have come on here and other blogs, saying that when they left or were “dismembered”, their faith in God was nearly gone, because of all the abuses they had experienced or seen? These are the people we want to reach out to, to make sure they understand that the false gospel (legalism) was what nearly destroyed them, not the “glorious gospel of the blessed God”.
So, take what is good with the Puritans and the Reformed guys, but beware of all the leaven that caused their groups to die out. It will happen again to any group that practices their ways but are not wise enough to purge out the leaven. I have to go out for now, but look forward to your response. I have learned from your posts, coming a little closer to understanding why SGM has become the taskmaster most of us here see now. If you are not one of those people, please, I apologize again.
Ellie,
I despise parents judging other parents. I despise the memories of myself doing that when I was a Pharisee. You are in a unique place with your kids, and are trusting God as you raise them. It hasn’t been easy, yet you stick with it. You stick with the Lord. Your way has been rougher than some. No one who has not walked in your house slippers (more comfy than shoes!) can judge you. Jesus does not judge, but saves. How should we, His children, dare to behave any differently? Remember, some of those holier than thou leaders’ kids have had some serious troubles in their late teens. How to explain that?
Grrrrrr…if I could stand in front of those who made you feel like a rotten parent, I’d shake them til all that leaven flew out their ears! You keep trusting God and loving your kids. It will all turn out right in the end, because all things work out for good for those who love God! Hugs, Ellie
Taking Note, you said:Owen himself wrote a rich exploration of how our lives are saved by grace and transformed by grace in his book “The Glory of Christ”.
I have not read this work, but I’ve read enough of Owen to hedge a hefty bet that his backdrop and presupposition for saving grace is our own sinfulness and ongoing recognition of it, and that even grace itself is not defined by looking to the character of God Himself, but rather characterized and understood only in the context of OUR WRETCHED HEARTS..am I right? Is He able to explain what grace is and how that transofrmation takes place without using personal guilt as leverage?
this is the problem with the vast majority of Puritan mindsets which is so pervasive in their writings- instead of the starting point being the character of God and who He is, these doctrines assume the starting point is US and that is the first mistake. They presuppose:
1) We cannot really know God apart from knowing our sin
2) it is only in the context of our own character (or lack thereof) that we can comprehend what grace is
I say – rubbish! Both are outright distortions of Scripture – Romans 1, Jeremiah 32 and many other places in Scripture clearly teach us and show us that we CAN know who God is (and his eternal attributes!) apart from an awareness of sin. Jesus came and died to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and justify us..to cleanse our consciences, remove the guilt…so why does man teach the complete opposite? That this very GUILT that Jesus died to remove from those with faith, man heaps upon those members of the household of faith IN ORDER to produce repentance of some sort? I’m lost here. I thought the Word said it was God’s KINDNESS that leads us to repentance, not our guilty consciences..it is the knowledge of God and His character that promotes and encourages a response of faith.
Talk about undermining the work of Christ and preaching another gospel..the Puritans did.
“An SGM defender may say that from the depths of our unworthiness, our view of the cross, and where we were brought from, should be the source of joy.”
“Should” be the source of joy. Are they on crack?
Ellie Wrote: Freedom….this explains alot of what I experienced….the judgmental and dismissive attitudes of other parents who had been blessed with “easy” children towards me and my kids when I did everything that they did in parenting X10. >sigh<
Me: These would be the parents that never had a strong-willed child, or a child with a development delay that slows the processing of what you say to them. That is just insane – if a parent loves their kids, works with their kids to raise them right, they (in the sgm defender’s words) get over it. The developmental delay is a real thing that exists more than most people are aware – it has to do with their the way their brain works and neurons fire. Those kids need different strategies, beating them every time to don’t obey immediately, cheerfully and completely does not work. You have to do different things in order to stimulate the growth of their brain pathways so that they are OK as they grow up. When you beat them, they do not understand why they are being spanked, when they are diciplined, they don’t know why and don’t even think they did anything wrong because it isn’t processing. (I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS THE CASE WITH YOUR KIDS) and could be with the others they have judgemental attitudes towards because the kids don’t obey “immediately, cheerfully and completely”. These people could use a little (OK, alot) of the back end of the Lord’s staff, if you know what I mean
Taking Note – I am not condeming you, I am ALL FOR discussion!!!!! I have NO ISSUES listening to other view points!!!!!!!!! I just happened to not be a fan of the puritans or reformed theology. Everything the puritans did was based around salvation (ok, so they called it “justification”) by works. Not much different than the Catholic church (sacraments, etc). A whole of guilt trips to go around. The start of the puritanical movement (and Calvin’s own work to boot) is not far removed from the catholic church at the time. My biggest issues with the catholic church are the guilt (there is a reason for the expression “catholic guilt”) and legalism of how to be “justified”.
The puritans also used guilt and confronting those other felt where “in sin”. Granted, some of those were bruned at the stake and SGM just shuns people that don’t “repent”. But it is heavily steeped in the common defination of legalism we are using on this blog.
sgm talkes about grace too – but look how it is applied, the same way the puritans applied it – since juli tackled that one, I won’t beat a dead horse.
The issue is that the puritans applied the writings on grace to works for “justification”, even though last I checked some guy name Jesus took care of that when he was executed.
Another interesting factoid, many of the puritan leaders felt the state should punish people for “sin”, and they did just that when the “great migration” of the puritans to america (did you know they primarily came as families, because the woman was expected to keep house and “home-school” the children?).
As far as the “chew the meat, spit out the fat and bones” – sure, I can do that, but when it is a really fatty, grizzly, dry piece of meat I will selected something else. It’s kind of like this show currently airing on the Smithsonian channel called “Decoding Christianity” – some really good insight into Christian history. Not all of the guy’s facts are straight – like when he called Mary Magdalen the “repentant prostitute”, which I do not see as true, but more manufactured primarily by Pope Gregory back in the day as a way to not supress the role a woman had in Jesus’ ministry and life. Heck, she was up with the Apostles (the REAL apostles, not the sgm self proclaimed variety) received the power of the holy spirit and gifts to boot!
I like the discussion, please do not think I am attacking you. This is a good thing – better to discuss than to attack. I am not going to call you a “heretic” because we disagree.
Stunned – Yes, they are on a “spiritual crack” that they were sold that causes SEVERE withdrawal when taken away – btw John Immel said that way before I did, but I am stealing it from him – don’t tell him! hehe
he’s far more clever than I
I’ve experienced some of this myself lately – and it is very much like withdrawal from crack or any other addiction – disclaimer: I’ve never been a actual crack addict personally, but addictive behaviors in general, no matter the source of individual dependency, is unhealthy and detrimental dependency on something else, and eventually the “something else” enslaves you and you are an addict. I’ve certainly been enslaved to many things before..the Bible calls this idolatry I believe? Just sayin’ . . .
So I think “SGM Crack” is a good way to describe what I’ve been through..
For what it’s worth, I agree with RT and Taking note that you need to take the Reformers and Puritans in their historical context before passing judgment on their long history.
I do agree with Juli about Valley of Vision and Owens SIn and Temptation. I found them discouraging and boring-but that’s me. And I do think that often times the Puritan movement fell into legalism and other times they merely repeated the sins of their culture-much like most of us do also. Burning people at the stake is certainly horrific and clearly sinful-especially over doctrinal differences-but in the time of the Puritans-this was a commonplace practice for both civil and church authorities throughout the Western world. The Puritans and Reformers many times faced this same type of persecution and is one of the reasons the Pilgrims came to the “New World”. Not to regurgitate-but if you really need to know-their are some great books, both Christian and Non that do a really good job of explaining the Puritans (both Old World and New) in their historical context, warts and all. The truth is out their-as they say.
The problem I see with SG’s use of any historical church movement or confession, is that they do not equip their people to discern the good and the not so good found in any church at any point in church history. Heck-the New Testament church was a mess most times (read Paul’s letters some time). If they truly want to help people learn from a historical movement like the Puritans or the Reformers-than they need to teach it with humility and the nuance required to make it helpful and not with broad sweeping absolutes about how great the Puritans were without acknowledging that some Puritans and some Puritan practices/doctrines would not be helpful or Godly for today’s believer to imitate. I’m not holding my breath-SG is not known for allowing nuance in their teaching-but what a loss for them and their flocks…
Anyway-abother unrelated question-
How can CLC say they are a non-religous entity? That ranks up their in the “George Orwell” type of statements-can someone explain that one too me? I am just baffled about how a church can make such a claim….
musicman wrote: Burning people at the stake is certainly horrific and clearly sinful-especially over doctrinal differences-but in the time of the Puritans-this was a commonplace practice for both civil and church authorities throughout the Western world. The Puritans and Reformers many times faced this same type of persecution and is one of the reasons the Pilgrims came to the “New World”.
Hey Musicman – It’s all good to have differences of opinion
Diversity is a GOOD THING (could you ever imagine cj or shank saying something like that?) The interesting thing is that the puritans that came to the new world who faced persecurtion from the monarchy (and the churchof england, that was ruled by the monarchy) did the exact same thing one they where in charge?
Musicman,
I suppose I have been intrigued by the historical accounts that detailed personal interactions with the Puritans (I don’t have a beef with the Reformers, not sure how they got lumped in with the Puritans, but rather agree with much of what Taking Note said about being grateful for these men and women for our present heritage of faith, not a religious system of works)
but when we read history, we are indebted to the personal accounts, ultimately, of those eyewitnesses to the outworkings of the doctrines the Puritans taught. I mean that when I read Valley of Vision today, or John Owen, or any other writings of these men and women who we now refer to as Puritans, there is a sharp disconnect that unfortunately, we are unable to overcome as a result of our present inability to interact with them personally. Our interactions are limited to the words and teachings of dead men.
It has only been my modern-day interactions with people who have adopted their teachings that I have realized that what I now see firsthand (as the practice of the doctrines they emphasized) does indeed coincide with many of the historical accounts of interaction that were based on eyewitnesses or their time. Fruit eventually shows up – you can’t see fruit in the teachings themselves, but we can see it when we examine the application of teachings and beliefs. (by the way, still wishing for that discussion with you canary that you alluded to earlier back about examining fruit, was looking forward to your thoughts on it when it came up! I know Stein isn’t posting anymore, but that was a worthwhile topic to explore together here I thought!)
Simply put, I once read ABOUT the Puritans without knowing their teachings and passed judgment about what their focus was, taking the word of others alone who witnessed it. Then I became familiar with their teachings, embraced them because they “seemed” good (a.k.a having the appearance of godliness but denying the power thereby) But after some time practicing their teachings myself, and then seeing them played out to their logical conclusions in terms of application, what I saw in myself and others was indeed what Paul saw when he wrote to Titus: (1:15)
“To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.”
Paul is of course in this context speaking about a rebellious people of the circumcision group. What is interesting is that he brings up the conscience, faith, and actions here. We know if our conscience is clear, is is only by faith and not by works. And whatever does not come from faith is sin, this we also know. So purity comes ultimately, not by actions, but by having faith and a subsequent clear conscience. This is NOT what the Puritans taught. Their focus was on actions, deeds, works..the conscience was unable to be clear because of the constant focus on indwelling sin – which is contrary to the gospel which says that Christ died so that our consciences would be clear before God and bring us into right standing with Him, and we would no longer be under the law..so I see it as lack of faith that was ultimately the problem of the Puritans. They were legalists.
that is just my opinion and perspective after studying history, their teachings, applying them, watching for fruit, and studying the Word of God, so to others perhaps this is worth a cup of coffee – and I’m not talkin’ Starbucks either! But to me, this truth was a revelation of what it truly means to be justified (clean conscience before God) by faith.
Juli-
I actually agree with most of your observations abut the Puritans. I mentioned the Reformers because someone mentioned Calvin’s burning of Cervetus who’s writings were heretical and he then dared to attend a church in Geneva after being warned to never visit the city.
Freedom-
I agree-I think it’s ironic that the New World Puritans did the exact same thing to dissenters that the Church of England and the Monarchy did to them. But that’s my point-every church movement exists in a culture with many cultural assumptions. How many modern day Christians mix nationalism with the Kingdom of God? That’s all-hope I didn’t muddy the waters…
musicman – nah, no muddied waters
– power coruptes and absolute power coruptes absolutely. In the new word, they where now the big dogs and used that power as they saw fit.
Any issues I have with the reformers has more to do with their doctrine. The purtians always get lumped into the reformers because they tend to be, well, reformed.
A good question about calvin would be why isn’t the fact he had someone bruned at the stake talked about in discussions about him? That would be an important aspect of his life. It’s like trying to study King David without talking about the whole bathsheba incident
Freedom, there is a lot of controversy surrounding that particular piece of history – and you aren’t likely to hear it mentioned in Calvinist circles for obvious reasons. I heard about it when I was reading a book on conditional security (ugh) long before I became a Calvinist, and of course to attack Calvinism many feel they must attack Calvin himself to prove their point. I don’t see the need, but whatever. I’m not a fan of Calvin either way.
But I do think the church should not be afraid to let people think for themsleves and encourage free-thinking..that means not having approved reading lists, not being afraid of this blog and others like it, etc. Of course that also means not being power-hungry, paranoid, control freaks or into shepherding. Hence, the reason SGM never speaks of the incident, or many, many other things. Good grief, if they don’t want to discuss Noel’s story publicly and feel they need to do damage control…well…
Juli - thanks for the info. I had never had actually heard that part of Calvin’s history. I totally agree that free-think SHOULD be encouraged. You are correct, if the whole “shepherding”, control freak, paranoid, power-hungy where to ever even allow free-think, they would lose control. That happens when people find our the truth for themselves. Instead, it’s all passive-agressive mind games from the pulpit (or whatever they call it at SGM these days) – “blogs are all run my twenty-somethings in their mommy’s basement blogging in their underwear and are all pimple faced”
I’m sure someone would have blogged about Calvin in his day if they had the chance..the internet makes it impossible to stifle free-speech and free-thinking.
It’s great.
I like Jesus.
And pumpkin pie.
I like Jesus and pie.
That there’s the depths of my theology. Jesus loves me, this I know for the bible tells me so. Little ones to Him belong. They are weak but He is strong.
How I love simplicity.
(And pie.)
Stunned,
How I love simplicity.
You and me both! Jesus was a simple man on earth, even though He is the Son of God! I was born in a hospital, but he was birthed in a stable. That means I didn’t start out simple enough!
Yep, simple. I’m with you, Stunned. I love Jesus, and I like pizza and chocolate (not together, of course). I love people and try to leave the fragrance of Christ wherever I go. Aw, blessed simplicity…
Is there any example Storms can give of these “lifestyle legalists”? Could it be that he’s laying the groundwork, kind of like most Emergent church folks, for homosexuals in the evangelical church? I think it’s a distinct possibility. For the life of me, I don’t see the appeal of this man’s writings – they’re unoriginal and mediocre, much like John Piper’s. The Bible is pretty clear that fear of God is a good thing. Trying to tell people that it’s all about delight and joy and desire fulfillment is dishonest and rather immature.