My Response to Why I Warn Against the Wilsons

 A friend of mine recently asked me why I didn't like Rachel Jankovic (author and daughter of Pastor Doug Wilson) and thought she was a hypocrite. Here is my response. (I will probably add to this as time goes on and I have more time to write more specific things.)

So my primary concern with Rachel is her affiliation and similar teaching/theology as her father (thus this post is about "the Wilson's"). I have done extensive digging into his theology, character, and handing of church/other matters and would put him in the category of a false teacher. There are too many serious concerns to not to. I believe his teaching to be dangerous. In fact, I consider Doug Wilson a dangerous false teacher and an abusive narcissist. So, while I will admit I have not thoroughly examined Rachel's writing/speaking very specifically, as she and her father work together and teach/hold to the same things I haven’t felt it was necessary to spend the time to do that. 

 

As for their hypocrisy... a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. If someone claims to be an orthodox, Biblical teacher, but teaches things that are opposed to, even offensive to the truths of Orthodox Christianity, than umm yeah that makes them a hypocrite. So the real issue here is whether or not what the Wilson's teach is consistent with Scripture and Orthodox Christianity.

 

I will below list my main areas of concern with the Wilson's (and by this I mean Doug Wilson, his family or really anyone associated with him). Please note I don’t necessarily agree with everything his critics say or believe themselves, but when it comes to the topic(s) at hand, I believe they are absolutely right in their critique and concerns. Those who have gleaned good things from the Wilson's may think they are just throwing stones, but most of them have tried very hard to be fair in their critiques and concerns. Some of these are or seem small, but small things add up as well. Small flaws in character add up to bigger ones. The more small things I saw, the more I slowly became concerned. It will take some time for you to get through all this…. It was several months of me listening, reading and researching to come to the convictions I have now.

 

Doug Wilson’s questionable (heretical?) theology: It is important to say that a lot of what the Wilson's say, *seems* orthodox and right, and a lot of it IS orthodox. However, their false doctrine/teaching is extremely sneaky and subtle. I will share a lot of what others have written/said since they have done more extensive work and say it better than I could.

 

His view of Justification This is one of the biggest and most serious concerns. I really don’t have time to write out a whole explanation and argument, plus the two below do it very well:

https://theocast.org/is-doug-wilson-a-false-teacher/

https://thelondonlyceum.com/on-justification-doug-wilson-and-the-moscow-doctrine/

 

On Federal Vision: This is rather complex, but to summarize for you, Wilson says he’s Reformed, but the views he holds on the Covenants and on justification do not line up with traditional/orthodox Reformed theology. A lot of Reformed people outside his camp have serious concerns with views on this (and obviously Arminians would strongly disagree with him in this area of theology as well).  https://carm.org/about-theology/what-is-federal-vision-theology-and-is-it-biblical/

 

(P.S. Doug Wilson has claimed he no longer holds to “Federal Vision” however, it is very important to note that he has NOT rejected the theology that Federal Vision holds to - and that is the problem. In other words, he’s rejecting the label but keeping the theology. Tricksy… and completely hypocritical.)

 

Views on men’s/women’s roles:  The more I have read/heard from the Wilson's on this topic, the more I have been seriously concerned - and downright disgusted. The extreme patriarchy is very subtle at times, but I would assert is NOT in line with Biblical complementarianism. Again, they say a lot of things thare are actually right or at least *seem* right, but digging deeper I have often seen some red flags and have thoughts like “ehhh I’m not sure that’s quite right/balanced”. And on further study, I've found their view to not be in line with Scripture. As Rachel has written more about the area of womenhood it's important to address her specifically here. But as she is collusion with her father, I cannot freely trust her view on being a Biblical woman/wife/mother. While I have seen she does have many good and right things to say, there are also some huge concerns and wrong theology... At best, I would have to give too many cautions to feel I could recommend her to anyone. 

 Here's an article documenting the abusive teaching on a wife's obligation to submit to rape: https://www.vice.com/en/article/inside-the-church-that-preaches-wives-need-to-be-led-with-a-firm-hand/

Here is something from Rachel's own mouth... she's being grossly mistreated/controlled and doesn't even see it... seriously? What Christ-like husband would treat his brand new wife like this???: https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow/videos/346749201336488 

And while we're at it, here's another video from Rachel with a rather shocking condemning and hypocritical attitude. Other's "know for absolute certain?" You're a woman, you can't do anything right - that is the main message I've gotten from Rachel.  https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow/videos/1920306348165019

And one more for you: 

I can also talk about Nancy Wilson and her parenting advice.... you can watch clips of her "Biblical parenting advice" here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75lZfjq_GWg  The whole Wilson family also appears in this video - notice the gaslighting from several of them - Dean (the host/critic) is really good at pointing out the red flags you should notice. (P.S This is very similar to the Pearl's borderline(at best?) abusive parenting advice - STAY AWAY! P.S.S. I am not at all anti-spanking, I think it can be fine done correctly, but it can very easily be done wrongly.)

I will add here that I have personal experience of having to submit to and respect a husband who was in the wrong - who was going the wrong direction theologically - it was hard, I had to learn and grow a lot in my obedience to God in my submission and attitude towards my husband, however, my complementarianism/beliefs about submission are NOT the same as the Wilson's. I would absolutely not put them in the same category.  

I have seen too many quotes and heard things Doug Wilson himself has said that are downright demeaning to women and completely unbiblical. Here’s an example: It might just be a woman's fault if she gets raped.... “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape.” (Douglas Wilson, Her Hand in Marriage, p. 13) (And no, I’m not taking this out of context, you can read more in articles I’ve shared).

 

Here’s some people who have written about concerns in this area:

https://fullmetalpatriarchy.wordpress.com/category/doug-wilson/

https://mereorthodoxy.com/sex-submission-and-evangelicals-doug-wilson-controversial-words

https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/01/15/pastor-doug-wilson-on-rape-submission-feminists-and-boobs/

 

Doug Wilson/Christ’s church handing of sexual sin and sexual abuse:

This is another HUGE concern. I'm not sure there is another area of all of life that makes me more angry than the ignoring/injustice of abuse in "Christian" environments. If I were to curse like Doug Wilson and his crew does, this is where I'd do it. Not only do the above patriarch views allow for this kind of thing to flourish, there continues to be very little accountability or serious concern for protecting others and dealing with abusers appropriately. There has been NO admission of “hey maybe we got this wrong” only defensive tactics. I have looked into this probably the most extensively - I have listened to the victims and others who witnessed the situation(s), read reports, the actual court cases, etc.

You can find more information about the abuse cases at this link (which also provides links to actual court cases): https://bredenhof.ca/2023/07/10/doug-wilson-the-ugly/

 

Another article on this issue:

https://religiondispatches.org/sexual-abuse-is-inevitable-in-christian-patriarchy-just-take-a-look-at-doug-wilsons-christ-church-and-its-new-documentary-eve-in-exile-the-restoration-of-femininity/

 

Other personal/character concerns:

His crude language and sexualized content. This is mentioned in several of the resources I’ve shared, but worth stating again. Much of it is downright disgusting and inappropriate for a Christian. I have directly read and personally listened to SO many crude things, and swear words (F-word, s-word, d-word and so much more) from Doug Wilson and from others who work closely with him. I will not link any videos or proof of this one but it's easy to find. They literally throw these words around the same as an unbeliever would. Is this really the kind of people you want to recommend to others?

 

Also, when he first was trying to become pastor of his current church, the elders didn’t think he conformed to their statement of faith (mainly having to do with his view of justification above). They asked him to either conform or step down. Instead, he mobilized church members to support him and basically forced the other elders to resign/leave and took over the leadership of the church. It was a forcible power struggle that he won. This is not an appropriate way to be any kind of respectable leader and I consider this a very bad indication of his character - but it lines up with other control issues that are reported. (This whole thing is common knowledge and a number of people have written about it - it’s mentioned in several of the resources I shared.) The main reason Wilson formed his own denomination is that none of the other main (Presbyterian Church of America is where he first tried to join) denominations would accept him. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with starting your own denomination, but if it’s because you can’t find a single one you could at least be acceptable in - that indicates a problem. Not to mention I'm pretty sure he's just a narcissist who wants to be in complete control.

 

 

Other resources:

I would recommend checking out this facebook page (they are also on Instagram) - I wouldn’t agree with all their angles or everything they say, but they bring to light a lot of what I mentioned above and a lot of provide evidence in videos, quotes, documents, etc. https://www.facebook.com/ExaminingMoscow

 

This is written by a unitarian, so obviously there are some things in there we wouldn’t agree with him on, however he tries to be fairly fair and goes through some of the other things mentioned above as well as some I didn’t take the time to mention (i.e. Doug Wilson’s controlling nature, sloppy writing and references in writing, his view on slavery in America, his extreme patriarchy, extreme political views, etc. - all of which I would agree are concerning).

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsonempire.htm

 

 

In closing, so yes, I absolutely warn against the Wilson's, and anyone associated with them. If you're not convinced yet, take the time to listen to/read through the links provided.

Mama’s Tips for A Stress-Free Sunday

Sunday morning we go to church. Church is very important to us for various reasons. It’s important enough to be there weekly, to be on time, and for our kids to learn to behave/sit still so they are learning/participating and not being distracting to others.

 

Currently, my husband is teaching the adult Sunday School class at our church so we have to be leaving the driveway at 8:45 AM (and can’t be late!). Our kids (currently) have just turned 5, 3 and 1. Two years ago we lived down the street from church, so I stayed home with two littles ones while Mike went early to (again) teach Sunday School, and I got myself, a toddler and a baby ready and up to church by myself. So I have figured out a good routine to 1) make Sunday morning (mostly) stress-free and 2) get us to church on time! (I say mostly because as we all know, the unexpected happens with kids and they don't always wake up on the "right" side of the bed!) At the end I’m also going to share some tips for being in church with little ones and how to make that less stressful (and less distracting for others).

 

The #1 tip I’m going to give you for a stress-free Sunday morning is this: Prep Saturday night! I don’t think I can emphasize enough how important this is! It’s so important that I do not make plans Saturday evening if I can help it. You might not think there’s much to prep, but I’ll bet you’re running around Sunday morning before church doing at least most of these things. Doing all this Saturday evening, means (you guessed it) you don’t have to do it Sunday morning (AND you don’t have a messy house to make it feel more stressful). So here's my general Saturday evening routine:

 

1. Clean up: After dinner, the kids play (with Daddy or by themselves) and I clean up after dinner. I do the dishes, wipe counters (etc.), pick up our kitchen/living area (it’s all one room in our very small apartment) and vacuum. Having a clean house reduces stress over all, and means I have less to do late at night/in the morning…. Or later on Sunday for that matter!

 

2. Bathe kids. Around 7:15 is bath time for the kids. I wash their hair and then let them play for a while while I finish cleaning or move on to the next thing.

 

3. Pre-pack diaper bag. Diapers, extra clothes (for the baby at least), snacks, water bottle are the usual things I have to refill/check. Sometimes the diaper bag needs a quick cleaning out so I’ll do that too if needed.

 

4. Prep kids’ room so it’s ready for bed. I basically do this every night if it’s not already picked up… just a quick clean-up so it’s not a mess. Then I close the curtains and get their pj’s out.

 

5. Pick out clothes for Sunday. I will pick out the kid’s clothes and have them either laid out or at least obviously set-apart in case Daddy is the one to dress them. I also decide what I am going to wear as well (because I don’t want to waste time figuring that out in the morning).

 

5. By 8 the kids are out of bath and having a snack and I’m nursing the baby and getting him ready for bed. He goes down at 8:30. Then the kids have Bible Time with Daddy, brush teeth and go to bed at 9.

 

 

Sunday Morning Routine

We have a very simple and quick morning routine (an hour to an hour and 15 minutes is all we get):

 

Younger two kids are usually up around 7:30/7:45, which is when we usually get up as well. I take a shower and get dressed. Then I fix my breakfast and (try and) get kids to eat (3-year-old doesn’t like to eat breakfast usually – which is why I always have extra snacks packed for the car). My 5-year-old (Keller) usually sleeps late so I’ll often just bring him something to eat in the car… it’s wayyyy easier than waking him and trying to get him to eat. I’ll eat breakfast and do my hair, then do my daughter’s hair. I dress the baby while my husband helps Keller. Then we grab the diaper bag and Church activity bag (more on that below) and we’re out the door. The only extra things I grab are my phone and personal water bottle. (I usually do my make-up in the car since I don’t use a lot so that also saves time.)

 

If we got up earlier we could have more time for kids to eat, etc. but kids (and Mom and Dad too!) like to sleep later, and so this works for us. My biggest tip here is to figure out what time you need to leave and work backwards. Also, leave yourself 10 more minutes than you think you’ll need. As you get into a routine it may shorten, but when you’re first working on a routine you need to allow extra time (especially when you have little ones who unexpectedly will have a diaper blow-out or something). It might take some time to figure out your routine (and how much time you need) but you’ll get it! It’s worth it to have less stress and to be able to get to church on time! 

 

2024 Update: Currently, we are 40 minutes from the church my husband now pastors. We have to be heading out the door at 7:30am.  Our kids aren't big breakfast eaters so they get big reusable applesauce pouches in the car. I take my shower the night before now and we all get ready in less than an hour!

 

Tips for a less-stressful church experience with kids:

 

Work on sitting quietly at home: We didn’t start this till fairly recently, but when we have our evening “Bible Time” the two older ones are expected to sit quietly and listen. We will evolve this as time goes on and expand the time and our expectations for them. Kids can sit longer than you think. I remember being surprised when my son first sat through an entire prayer meeting (about 30 minutes) with zero issues (and he’s a very busy child)! I realized he could do a lot more than I thought he could! However, it is not fair to expect your kids to sit quietly at church if you do not practice at home.

 

Church Activity Bag: (or box or whatever!) This a bag that is ONLY for church with quiet toys, fidget toys, sticker books, books, coloring books, etc. Basically, whatever would help your particular child(ren) sit more quietly. This gives your kids something to do during the service if they get bored. We also try not to let them use the Activity Bag right away – ideally not until after the singing so they can participate in that. Kids do not “need” any kind of toys/coloring things during a service (or even during a sermon) because they can learn to sit quietly, but it’s an option, and a nice one especially when they are young.

 

If potty trained, take them to the bathroom BEFORE the service starts. This is easy to forget but it will hopefully eliminate the need for them to go during the service. This is a good general habit for adults as well... Valuing being in church means you think about even simple things like this so you’re not missing part of the service or being a distraction to others.

 

Sit in the Back: Have you ever sat behind a child in church who was fidgeting, moving a lot, and/or misbehaving? If so, you know why it’s respectful to sit near the back with your kids. If your kids are young, are still learning to sit still, and at an age where you need to be prepared to correct (or discipline) them during the service, it’s easiest and less stressful for you (not to mention much less distracting to others) if you sit in the back (or at least on the side/near an exit). I mean, full disclosure: we have on several occasions had to take a kid quickly out of church who was misbehaving…and loudly (anyone else???). So I was pretty glad we weren’t sitting up front! Valuing church means also helping others to not be distracted if you can help it. Sometimes it can’t be helped of course, and it is also important that we understand that kids make noise… and we shouldn’t segregate families or children because they can’t sit quietly like adults can. However, you can still do your part to help others be less distracted by sitting in the back with your little ones until they are at an age/stage where they can sit quietly. This is just generally respectful to others. And this will make church less stressful for you as well!  

 

I’ll add we have a general rule of no snacks in church. We haven’t always done this, but realized it was pretty distracting to others. Now my kids get snacks on the way to church (and right now they can have some during the Sunday School hour since there is no kids class), but once we’re in the sanctuary there’s no more snacks. This eliminates 1) them asking for snacks, 2) snack noises, 3) mess. The only exception to this is the baby who sometimes gets those little dissolvable baby snacks to help him be quiet (but make sure they are not the ones in loud packaging!). (Obviously nursing a baby doesn’t count either.)

 

Book Review: Unholy Charade by Jeff Crippen

“Discernment is not simply a matter of telling the difference between what is right

and wrong; rather it is the difference between right and almost right.” -Charles Spurgeon

 

Incorrect interpretations of Scripture, no matter what Christian theologian may 

speak them, need to be treated as what they are:  false teaching. 

Poor interpretation must be corrected if we want to hold Scripture high. (-me)

 

Jeff Crippen (pastor, advocate and writer at https://unholycharade.com/) has written this very educational book on domestic abuse in the church. With the experience of nearly hundreds of interaction with victims (and abusers), Jeff reveals the Church-at-large’s arrogant ignorance of abusers and their damage to their family members all while wearing an effective mask of Christianity. He quotes extensively from victims (and some notable church leaders) proving the church-at-large’s weakness in this area to understand and help.

 

The Church (and I speak of the Church-at-large) does not take abuse in the church seriously. One reason is because we don’t want to believe there actually ARE wolves in our midst. Surely, not in OUR church. Surely, not THAT “nice” man who teaches Sunday School! But most people are also woefully ignorant of the nature of abusers – that they are people without conscience and extremely skilled at deceiving others. While I’m sure most of us have seen some news stories of a charming man who ruthlessly murdered his wife (or others), we don’t think (or want to think) that this kind of man could be part of our church – or even be in leadership! But the truth is that Jesus himself warned that this WOULD happen:

 

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire…” (Matt 7:15-23)

 

Churches are also deceived by false repentance. We think that if someone SAYS they’re repentant and ACTS like it in the moment that they must be genuine. But the truth is that repentance is only really known by one thing: Fruit. And fruit takes time. It is false teaching to take the word of an abuser’s “repentance” and just expect the victim to “forgive and forget”. It is dangerous to rush reconciliation before we see evidence of true repentance. We not only may risk the physical life of the victim, but even more so, we put their emotional and spiritual health at risk.

 

Too many churches are also more concerned about their reputations than about dealing with situation. Abuse in the church looks bad, it’s far easier to just tell the victim to “submit more” “forgive and love him anyway” than actually help and deal with the sin of the abuser. Part of this is ignorance, but it’s a willful ignorance where they ignore the pleas for help and ignore the lack of repentance-fruit. I personally know several churches who were (or still are) either deceived or flat-out denied/ignored the plight of the victim, siding with the abuser and excommunicating the victim when she finally fled. Even when the elders were confronted with proof of abuse they have refused to apologize for the injustice they’d given. Instead of helping they tell her to submit in ways that she was NOT commanded by God to do, and to suffer unjustly. This is the total opposite of what church leaders are supposed to do. I have said elsewhere that those that don't deal with abusers are like the pharisees, here's what Jesus said about them:

 

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth 

of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters 

of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, 

without neglecting the former.” (Matt 23:23) You “pile heavy burdens on people's 

shoulders and won't lift a finger to help”. (Matt 23:4)

 

Christians can also idolize marriage so that their focus becomes on “preserving the marriage” rather than seriously dealing with the sin and protecting the victim. They do not understand that in their desire to “preserve marriage” they are actually degrading marriage by continuing to validating it when the vows have been broken (and continue to be broken with no true repentance). Many Christians also have a false interpretation of Malachi 2:16 that is so often quoted as “God hates divorce”. This is a completely inaccurate translation. This inaccuracy is prevalent despite the accurateness of the ESV says: “For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” Hating his wife and being “faithless” is exactly what an abuser is. This isn't saying he should divorce (or that she shouldn't divorce him). Even if he does not pursue divorce (usually an abuser does not as he wants to stay in control of his victim, plus that would make him look bad) he has broken the marriage vows to “love and protect” his wife. THIS is what it means to have a high view of marriage. While no one will love their spouse perfectly, the idea is that there is a genuine desire to love and do good to their spouse. Abusers do not have this, and over time the true of any “repentance” should be very clear – if we are paying attention.

 

Jeff gives lots of practical instruction on how to spot abuse, how to recognize an abuser, questions to ask to help you see through any façade, ways to help the victim, how to know if divorce is Biblical, and more. This book is a must-read for Christians, especially those in leadership who are called to shepherd Christ’s flock.  To ignore abuse is to ignore justice and mercy just as the Pharisees did.

 

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.” – Detrick Bonhoeffer

 

 

May we repent of our blindness and arrogant ignorance in dealing with abuse victims within our walls. May we deal rightly with the sin of abuse, and not allow the victimization of others. May we set free the oppressed and show true justice to the sinner and the victim.

 

“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause

of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.” (Isa 1:17)

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great,

but judge your neighbor fairly.” (Lev 19:15)

 

Some excerpts from the book: 

 

Buy the book here: https://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Charade-Unmasking-Domestic-Abuser/dp/0692533222

How to find a Good Church (Church Search Helps)

I would argue that being committed to a good local church is foundational to one's walk with Christ. We were saved to be part of a body, a community. We are not the "church" alone; not without other believers to meet with, grow alongside of and learn from. We need others to walk this Christian walk, we were not meant to go it alone. Paul specifically tells believers he is writing to that they should not be "giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching" (Heb 10:25). If you've been in not-good churches, or even been hurt by people in a church, don't give up looking for a good one!

First, I should probably define what a "good" church is.  Excluding specific secondary doctrinal issues, here's what you want to be looking for in a good church:

1. Expositional Preaching. This means that the preaching almost always is structured so that it goes through a book of the Bible verse by verse and carefully dissects and explains the text for the purpose of teaching and instructing the congregation accurately. Good preaching also interprets Scripture based on the rest of Scripture, not primarily presuppositions or assumptions or only looking at one text alone.

2. Biblical Theology. This may differ depending on how you interpret Scripture on some secondary issues (ex. baptism), but the point is, the church needs to be rooted in theology that is defensibly Biblical and orthodox.

3. Biblical understanding of the Gospel. The Gospel message should be clear and not watered down. A clear, Biblical explanation of sin, Christ's atonement and the need for repentance and faith are central to a healthy church.

4. Biblical understanding of Conversion. This goes in part with the last point; a church can present a fairly clear gospel and yet still have a muddled view of conversion and what it really means to become a Christian, which is really important. 

5. Biblical understanding of evangelism. Basically, we're supposed to be doing it, but the way we do it also matters. Is the church winning people to their church, to their programs, or to truly following Christ? This is why the previous point is also really important.

6. Biblical understanding of Church membership. Belonging and being committed to a local community of believers is really important for accountability, relationships and building community (see next two points).

7. Biblical church discipline. This really can't be practiced well without the last point. Holding church members accountable, correcting and rebuking if needed is important for a healthy church. 

8. Promotion of church discipleship and growth. It's not a healthy church if people aren't growing in their faith practically in daily life and in their understanding of Scripture. We should also be growing relationally, growing in what it means to love others. Church is more than Sunday morning, the church should be at least seeking to grow it's members with Bible study and discipleship opportunities as well as fostering relationships/community outside of Sunday mornings.

9. Biblical understanding of Church leadership. The Biblical model for church leadership is a plurality of elders/pastors. This is not as common today as it should be, but it is ideal for a healthy church. (Note that some churches/pastors view this as important and desire to move in this direction but it takes qualified men and often time to be able to make this happen.) At the very least the church should have a pastor/leaders who are faithful and committed to Scripture,

Credit for these points goes to 9Marks Ministries, for more on these points see this article.  

 

Here are the links I share when people are looking for a church: 

Master's Seminary Alumni church finder. This is an excellent, solid seminary and graduates of here would be assumed to be leaders of likewise solid and healthy churches: https://tms.edu/find-a-church/

9Marks has a database/church finder with churches that meet these 9 qualifications: https://www.9marks.org/church-search/

Of course there's more churches out there that would also meet the qualifications but for various reasons are not on these sites, and you should also keep in mind that there are still churches in there that are healthier than others based on how important they view these things or how well they do them - which can make a big difference. 

 

When checking out a church, here's some tips:

1. Look for a church website.

a) You're particularly looking for their statement of faith and other statements/documents like "church mission" or "what we value". How clear is it, and what do they stand for that's also important to you? (I always look for a clear and more specific statement of faith, some churches statements are more vague which, to me, can be an indication of something lacking.)

b) Most websites will have information on the pastor(s)/leadership team so you can learn a bit about them. Where the pastor(s) went to seminary or their past experience can be an indication of the kind of church it will be. Not always of course, but it can be telling. Denominational or church affiliation can be really helpful as well.

c) Look for online sermons, or even a livestream that you could watch. This can give you a great feel for the church before you actually visit. Obviously, a church is going to be different in-person, but watching a service online will let you know what they value about a church service, a general feel for the "church culture", the kind of music/songs/lyrics they are using to teach the congregation (which can sometimes be telling), the leadership and preaching style, and a whole lot more. If there's no livestream, then listen to some sermons (I usually recommend listening to at least 2 in case for some reason a particular sermon just wasn't that good that week). 

d) Websites also usually have information on other ministries in the church. Do they do small groups, Bible Study or prayer meetings? Adult and children's education/Sunday school? Outreach? What other ministries do you value for your family? (ex. youth group, Awana-type kids ministry, mens/ladies Bible studies.) Some churches may not have much going on outside of Sunday's - for various reasons, some out of their control. But at least some of these are pretty valuable and should at least be areas the church leadership desires to grow in... mainly because they help a great deal in fostering relationships and discipleship. 

2. Visit in-person. And visit more than once! (It's always good to give a church a second chance unless you're very sure it's not for you).

a) Assuming you think the 9 Marks are already met, look for a sense of community. Friendliness is not an indication of community. Lots of churches have friendly people, but it doesn't always go beyond that. Do the people there seem to genuinely care about each other? About you? Do people just casually talk or does there seem to be deeper, more meaningful conversations happening? Church is much deeper than a service on Sunday mornings, it's supposed to be a community, a family.

b) Intentionally meet some of the members, and the pastor, his wife, and/or other leaders. Have some questions to ask them about the church, ministries, etc. Here's some great questions: "What do you value about this local church?" "Where do you see the need for growth in this local church?" "What needs does this church have?" "In what ways have you been blessed by the church here?" 

Good churches can be hard to find! Pray, pray, pray as you look for one. If you can't find one, move or consider starting one!

Major Views on Baptism

When you start looking into specifics, it is rather astonishing how many different views there are on the subject of Christian baptism. It’s actually a little disheartening that there’s so many different views since we should hope that Christians would agree more on important doctrines like this one, but here we are. In this post I have laid out a summary of each of the major positions trying not to show (much) bias. These are just the major ones, there are often variations within each group as well. Each group will appeal to Scripture for support and often many of the same Scriptures, some better than others, but the real difference in the views usually comes down to Biblical interpretation, which is why figuring out how to properly interpret Scripture is so important. Everyone is prone to interpret Scripture in light of their own denomination or church tradition and being able to break out of that and look at Scripture with fresh eyes is super important. We should never just believe something because our church or pastor or tradition teaches it.

A few things to keep in mind as we think about baptism and it's relationship to salvation: Scripture talks about believers as those who have been saved (past tense, usually referring to conversion), who are being saved (present tense) and who will be saved (future tense). In the discussion of baptism, “conversion” is rather central to the argument and whether that comes before baptism, after baptism, or during or partially through baptism. The discussion comes down to these two key questions: What does it mean to be in the New Covenant? And when/how does God change the heart and give new life to someone?

I did not cite Scriptures in each view since again most views will use the same Scriptures to defend their view. Key verses on baptism used by most or all groups in their defense are: Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:1-41; 8:36-39; 16:30-33, Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:11-12, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, I have discussed many of these Scriptures and more in a previous post here.

 

Major Views on Baptism:

 

Symbolic-Only Credo-Baptist View: Baptism is the proper response to God’s grace in salvation through faith and repentance. It is an act of obedience through faith, and an initiation into the church. It symbolizes and demonstrates the death and resurrection of the soul through the death and resurrection of Christ. It is a visible sign and seal of the person’s entrance into the visible church and a confirmation to those witnessing it of the individual’s faith and repentance. Thus, baptism should only be given to professing believers. Baptism is not a "means of grace" it is strictly symbolic, and a testimony to one's conversion. It is not essential for someone to be considered "saved," however, as it is commanded by Christ/Scripture, true believers should be obedient to the Lord’s command.

Here’s a longer explanation on this view: https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-baptism.html

 

Low-sacramental/Reformed Credo-Baptist view: This view is very similar to the last, but slightly different and views it as a little more important. Baptism is the proper response to God when He has converted the heart and brought about faith and repentance. It is an act of obedience through faith, and an initiation into the church. It symbolizes and demonstrates the death and resurrection of the soul through the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus, baptism should only be given to professing believers. Furthermore, (and this is what distinguishes this view from a strict symbol view) Christ (and the Holy Spirit) are spiritually present in the act of Baptism and thus it is also a “means of grace” and an opportunity for spiritual blessing/encouragement. It is a visible sign and seal of the person’s entrance into the visible church, a confirmation to those witnessing it of the individual’s faith and repentance, and a grace-filled, powerful reminder of their position in Christ. While this view sees Baptism as more than just a physical act and more accurately as also a spiritual one that Christ meets us in in a rather mysterious way, baptism does not bestow forgiveness, wash away sin, or put the person "into" Christ. It is Christ that accomplished our forgiveness/justification on the cross, and new life/adoption is bestowed upon us the moment we believe by the Holy Spirit. Baptism could be considered the culmination of the "salvation experience," but it is not “essential” in the sense that one can temporarily or ignorantly delay their baptism and still be considered saved. However, it is commanded, and true believers must be obedient to the Lord’s commands to have true assurance of their salvation and for admission of their "official" membership in the visible Church. Like a wedding where the witnesses give their testimony to what has occurred, baptism is an important moment where the individual is outwardly joined with the visible church. While baptism can be said to “save” (lower case “s” referring to our ongoing salvation) or be an “effectual” means of grace, baptism doesn’t “save” (justify) us or put us "into Christ". It is meaningful and important, but still largely a symbol and outward sign of the work God has already accomplished internally.

Longer discussion and Q&A here: https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~sjreeves/personal/baptism_faq.html

 

Presbyterian/Low Anglican View: Baptism is “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or one’s ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of one’s giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” (WCF) Baptism is the act of God bringing a person into the Covenant family. In addition to adult believers, children of believers should also be baptized. Like circumcision in the OT brought children of Israelites into the Covenant, so baptism also brings the children of believers into the visible church and the New Covenant. By itself it is incomplete. It is an outward sign that must be completed/fulfilled through personal faith and repentance. Therefore, baptism is not a guarantee of regeneration or salvation, faith and repentance must (eventually) be evident. Baptism is required to be considered a Christian but one can be saved prior to being baptized.

The Presbyterian view is based largely on the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) here: https://www.creeds.net/Westminster/c28.htm  

For the official Anglican position see below.

(These last 3 views are the most controversial, and [in my opinion] the furthest from Scripture.)

Efficacious Church-of-Christ View: Man’s response to God in salvation is six-fold: Hear the Word, Believe, Repent of sin, Confess faith in Christ, Be baptized, Be faithful to the end. Baptism is but one aspect of the being saved. Furthermore, baptism is the “occasion of salvation,” the moment that God brings a person into Christ, into His body, His Church. It is not a work that we do, rather it is God’s work in which He washes away our sin, gives the Holy Spirit and bestows new life. Baptism is absolutely necessary for one to be a Christian and be saved. Therefore, baptism should only be given to those who make a profession of faith and should be administered with no delay.

Depending on who you talk to, some COC folks will say that one may still go to Heaven if they die on the way to their baptism, but others will say that God would not allow a genuine believer to die before being baptized (thus that person would be lost). However, all would agree that if a professing Christian delays their baptism for any reason they cannot be considered saved.

See a longer defense of this view here: http://www.christianlandmark.com/the-church-of-christ-teaches-the-truth-on-baptism/

 

Sacramental High Anglican/Lutheran view: Baptism is a means of grace whereby God gives or cultivates the gift of faith and graciously bestows new life on the individual, bringing them into his family. It works forgiveness of sin and eternal life for all who believe. Baptism should thus be administered to believing adults or children of believers. Although baptism kindles God’s grace and turns our hearts towards God, it does not necessarily “convert” our heart. God’s work in baptism may be resisted because for baptism to truly be beneficial, it must be combined with a personal profession of faith (will be later if they are baptized as an infant) and continued faith and obedience, otherwise the baptism becomes ineffective. We should look to what God did in our baptism and trust His ability to save us. Most would believe that one can ignorantly delay baptism and still be saved, but their salvation may still be questioned. This view also usually believes that the grace given in baptism can be lost, and the person baptized be unsaved.

The “official” Anglican position on baptism in the 39 Articles is rather vague. Some Anglicans hold to this higher sacramental view, for others, it’s more a “sign and a seal” (similar to Presbyterian above). For a more thorough explanation see: https://anglicancompass.com/holy-baptism/

The main difference of Lutheranism from Anglicanism is that Lutherans believe infants can actually have faith and that baptism cultivates that faith. The official Lutheran position is largely based on Luther’s shorter catechism: “[Baptism] works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe”. The official Lutheran position believes in security of the elect, and while they believe baptism does "work forgiveness" they will also say that baptismal grace can be lost if the person does not continue to believe. Further Lutheran explanation: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/what-is-the-lutheran-view-of-baptism/

 

Sacramental Roman Catholic View: Baptism is a means of grace whereby God cleanses one of original and previously committed sin. Faith is not given at baptism, rather the faith of the parents sustains them until confirmation. Thus, those baptized must be confirmed later when the child is older for it to be truly effective. Baptism is to be administered to infants or professing adults for forgiveness of original sin without which there is no entrance into Heaven.

Catholic explanation: https://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/a-guide-to-catholic-baptism/

A few observations from this study: In case you didn't already know, I personally am convinced of the Reformed Credo-Baptist position. Baptism is very important and special and there is "grace" given in it, but it is still completely separate from conversion and, other than being a spiritually encouraging/enriching experience, and an affirmation/witness of one's acceptance into the visible church, it does not change anything spiritually. Every other view in this post falls short of what I see Scripture teaching and/or adds to it in some way.

-It is interesting to note that the more "sacramental" one gets, the more (conscious) personal faith is separated from baptism. And the more unique spiritual conversion is blurred and ultimately eliminated altogether. Baptism becomes something done in order to attain forgiveness, which completely distorts the Gospel message.

-Also, the more sacramental you go, the more baptism becomes what "makes" someone a member of the New Covenant, or even a "Christian", and, the more likely it is that they could lose that status. At the very least, "baptismal grace" can be lost and thus the meaning/symbolism of baptism is ultimately lost. 

-When it comes to Infant Baptism, faith and/or salvation is often assumed unless it is not confirmed, the individual rejects their baptism, or they show themselves to be unrepentant. In keeping with this, there is sometimes not a clear calling of the child to personal saving faith in Christ and their need for salvation/conversion. There may be a call to "keep their baptism vows," the need to be confirmed, or something like that, but especially the more sacramental you get, the less there is a call or an emphasis on the need for conversion.  My biggest concern with infant baptism is exactly this, and it's one way the Old Covenant failed: If they are already part of the "covenant community" what need is there for conversion? The New Covenant is better than the old - those that are in it, are truly saved not just quasi-members. You cannot be a member of Christ by birth or by baptism. Let's make one thing clear: One is united with Christ by the Spirit and by the Spirit alone. No circumcision or water baptism needed. To deny this is to deny basic Biblical teaching on justification. Furthermore, if baptism ingrafts one into Christ or into the New Covenant, it minimizes (or even destroys) the deep symbolism and meaning of baptism and ultimately, what Christ has accomplished for His people.

 

P.S. I highly recommend this sermon series by James White on this subject. It goes through all the various Scriptures and arguments.

LENT: Yes, No or Maybe So?

Historical Background: 

Lent refers to the 40 days leading up to Easter beginning with Ash Wednesday (but excludes Sunday’s). It is celebrated not just by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans but also many Reformed and various other Protestant denominations, although most of the latter aren’t as traditional and don’t do anything for Ash Wednesday.  

The word “Lent” is an Anglo-saxon word that means “spring”, but the idea of Lent originally came from a Latin word meaning “forty”. The 40 days is (supposedly) symbolic of Jesus’ 40 days of fasting in the wilderness (although how this exactly relates to preparing for baptism or repentance I’m not really so sure). There is some evidence that there was a springtime pagan festival that lasted 40 days and many think that as the area was Christianized that the festival was transformed into a period of preparing for Easter. This could certainly be “a” reason, but I would not go so far as to say it’s the only one, nor is it reason enough to write it off. (Some people also think Easter was connected to a pagan holiday for the goddess Eoster. That certainly could explain the name we give the day today, but in Scripture, Resurrection Sunday [the term some prefer for beforementioned reason] was clearly the Sunday following Passover and thus we celebrated it at that time.)

The Lenten season dates back to the late 300’s where, after the conversion of Constantine and the legalization/encouragement of Christianity there were many new people coming into the Church. With the dramatic increase of seekers, the Church found itself needing a way to “vet” the newcomers to be sure of their seriousness and commitment to Christ.  (Prior to this the commitment of someone to baptism in a culture that persecuted Christians was enough!) There are some traces of the idea prior to this around the Easter season (looking forward to the memorial of Christ’s death and resurrection and being more focused on the idea of death to sin/self and new life in Christ) but the 40 days and the various things that went along with it were put into place quite a bit later. Originally, these preparation days (it wasn’t 40 days in every area, but it became unified over time) were specifically designed for new converts who were preparing for baptism (that would take place on Easter Sunday). For x-number of days they were required to focus on repentance and confession of sin (acts of penance were later added), death to sin and self (which was practiced by various forms of fasting) along with doing various good works/acts of service in order to show/prove their repentance of their old way of life and their desire to live for Christ.

It then somewhat gradually became an opportunity for baptized believers to also take the season to prepare for remembering Easter, reflecting on their sin, fasting in different ways, growing in repentance and their need for Christ for life/deliverance from sin. The liturgy for Lent is certainly beautiful and filled with Scripture on repentance, and our desperate need for God’s forgiveness and mercy.

 

Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent. Catholic/Orthodox/High Anglican churches will have Mass (church service with communion) and will utilize ashes, making a cross sign with them on the forehead that often then is symbolically washed off on Easter Sunday.  Ashes symbolize death, and Easter obviously is the celebration of the resurrection (and thus our new life in Christ). Not all lower Anglican churches will incorporate the ashes (it is not required in Anglicanism) but will still have a service (often with communion) and focus on the theme of death to sin and self.

There are various spiritual disciplines encouraged or provided during Lent. Many higher churches have the “Stations of the Cross” which commemorates the final hours of Christ’s life. Flowers are removed, things are veiled, and various other symbolic means are used to aid in the remembering of Christ death for sin. There are Lenten devotionals that are focused on the theme of repentance and a deeper confession of sin that are encouraged for families to go through together.

----------------

The idea of having a season for new converts to learn doctrine and to give them a chance to bear the fruit of faith and repentance is certainly NOT a bad thing. Taking care to disciple new believers is very important. Of course, on the other hand, it would be easy for this preparation time to become focused on one’s good works and acts of contrition as what makes you “worthy” of being a Christian/being baptized. For baptized believers as well, it’s not bad at all to have seasons where you do some form of fasting (it is assumed in Scripture that believers will fast), and/or where you spend more time focused on reading Scripture/immersing yourself in the things of God. I have had seasons like this. They were seasons of growth (in various ways), refreshment and spiritual blessing. The danger of course with any kind of good works is that we can find pride in it. How natural is it for us to think “wow I just gave up social media for a month” and find satisfaction in ourselves! What prideful creatures we are! Scripture tells us over and over again to beware of pride or of finding righteousness in ourselves/our good works. The parable of the Unprofitable Servants (Luke 17:7-10) is very helpful for us in this area. Here there are servants who are doing what they are supposed to, they are being obedient, but the Master does not thank them for it. Jesus says in conclusion, “So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unprofitable slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done’”. In other words, when we obey, do a good work, or take a season for fasting/repentance we should not look to God as if to say “God, look what I did!” Rather, it should humble us, and we should say “Anything I have done is worthless before You, and all is by Your grace”. In all our spiritual disciplines, they should humble us and bring us closer to God. Again, I do believe Christians should be fasting in some forms and taking seasons where we spend more time in prayer/spiritual disciplines. It’s assumed and encouraged in Scripture. If you as a Christian have not really considered this, you should be.

But is Lent Scriptural? The season certainly is not. It is hardly Scriptural for you to feel obligated to keep it since it’s not found in Scripture and no one should ever feel obligated or be pressured into keeping a tradition. However, is it “wrong” to celebrate Lent? No, it’s your heart and attitude that is important. If you are celebrating Lent just because that’s what your church tradition does, or to gain some sort of bonus points before God, to attempt to “show” Him how repentant you are or even perhaps (even secretly) to feel better about yourself, then you’re doing it wrong and furthermore, you’re distorting the Gospel. But if you take it as an opportunity to focus in more on Christ, to take time away from the world/things in order to pour into others or into Scripture and prayer and your heart is humbled and challenged by it, than it can absolutely be very encouraging and beneficial for a Christian. Pastors can take the opportunity leading up to Easter to preach a series on sin, repentance, the cross, etc. At the very least, taking time to emphasize the coming of and the remembrance of Good Friday and Easter is extremely valuable. Certainly, it will make Good Friday/Easter a little more meaningful and special as you anticipate them together. (The same can be said about the Advent season and looking forward to Christ’s coming.) Personally, I think most Protestant churches do not make a big enough deal about the Easter season – Palm Sunday is sometimes not even really referenced at all, “Holy” week gets a Maundy Thursday OR Good Friday service (rarely both) but besides making Easter Sunday more special that’s about it. What is the season really about? I challenge you: Are your decorations more about spring or bunnies and eggs than they are about Jesus? Is the start of the baseball season more interesting than gathering and remembering/celebrating with your church family?

 

If you’re wondering if I’m celebrating Lent, well, no.  I do not personally feel the need to something “just because it’s Lent”. Again, I do think Christians should be encouraged to take times of spiritual fasting, etc. but to emphasize a certain time of the year where people feel obligated to do this (I think) takes away from the personal desire and conviction of the Spirit. Lent can be a reminder for us that we should take seasons to fast, seek deeper repentance and spiritual growth. Those are all good Biblical things (and I will also say that I appreciate the emphasis of this in the church services leading up to Easter). But it doesn’t have to be during Lent, and especially should not be “just because” it’s Lent. Using the Lenten season in a way that makes people feel obligated to follow tradition I don’t believe is most faithful with Scriptural teaching. But it’s very important to not make assumptions or judgements about those who do or question their motives. Many Christians keep Lent from a desire to love and honor God and that should be admired. But others see the season leading up to Easter as a joyous time of looking forward to remembering Christ’s resurrection and the salvation He accomplished for us. Both are acceptable. May our hearts just be every more focused on Christ and His work for us.

 

As a follow-up, here is a helpful/interesting article on Lent from a Reformed (non-Anglican) perspective: https://worship.calvin.edu/resources/resource-library/yes-and-no-lent-and-the-reformed-faith-today/?fbclid=IwAR2Te0GnuV3D5L518SfTml-9d6BbJx54eTD0fdfKfIaaKSaU92ImAeR8utU

 

And HERE is another Reformed perspective on Lent which I thought was really helpful from Doug Wilson. 

 

 

 

The Case for Weekly Communion

One of the things that I like about the current church we go to is the fact that they do communion every week. The non-denominational church we attended in Philadelphia for a few years also did communion every week but it’s actually very uncommon outside of traditional churches (like Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran or more traditional Presbyterian). Many "high" churches will actually do it almost every time the church meets, so often during the week as well or for special/holiday services. Personally, I feel doing it more than once a week is more unnecessary, but I can appreciate their desire to be consistent on this point. 

 When we read the book of Acts and the formation and early practice of the Church, it is rather evident that they “broke bread” very often. 

Acts 2:46: “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts…” While they went to the Temple daily, it’s not as clear as to the frequency or practicalities of “breaking bread”. This is also at the very beginning of the Church so they had yet to develop any kind of clear organization or pattern, so it is very possible that they did break bread whenever they were able to gather together.  

Acts 20:11: Paul is speaking to the church in Troas that had gathered for worship "on the first day of the week" and they “broke bread and ate”. This seems to be what they did on a weekly basis. (Based on Scripture and very early church history, gathering on first day of the week very quickly became the norm and breaking of bread was always a part of it.)

In 1 Corinthians 11 we have the only time the Lord’s Supper is clearly addressed in the Epistles. Paul is correcting some abuses, including the fact that the wealthier Corinthians were not waiting for everyone to eat, nor sharing their food with the poor (likely even segregating themselves from them). It does seem that the communion time was a whole meal centered around the bread and the cup – similar to the Passover which was also a whole meal. It’s also evident here that the Lord’s Supper happened often, “when you come together as a church” (assumption then is weekly, on the first day of the week, see also 1 Cor 16:1-2). Paul warns them not to partake “unworthily,” which in the immediate context refers to the division they were causing, since a big emphasis of the Lord’s supper is the unity of the body. How can you partake of the Lord’s supper if there is disunity in your heart or otherwise towards a fellow Christian? (Note: I think there could absolutely be room for “unworthily” including sin in general, I’m just pointing out the immediate context here.)

There are some Christian groups that still think that the Lord’s supper should be connected with an actual meal, but when Christ instituted the sacrament, it is “after supper” and he is referring very specifically to just the bread and the cup. (Of course, I’m all for fellowship meals since eating together is a great way to fellowship, serve and be together as a church family, it’s just not necessary.)

I would argue that the early church probably didn’t do communion every time they had a gathering of some kind. For example, if a small group was gathered for prayer (like when Peter was imprisoned in Acts 12)) or they had a church meeting (Acts 15). Of course, it doesn’t say they did or didn’t, but it does seem that very quickly the pattern became that they broke bread for their main weekly gathering. Early church tradition reinforces this.

Why then do most Protestant churches only do communion once a month? Does not Scriptures indicate that communion MORE often is more likely than having it LESS often? Below are two common reasons I have heard for not doing it at least weekly:

 

• It’s not necessary to do it every week.

If by “necessary” you mean “clearly required,” I guess there is no clear command in Scripture that says “do this every week”. However, Paul does seem to indicate a pattern of this happening on a weekly basis and furthermore he says, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1 Cor 11:26). So the question is: How often should we be remembering and “proclaiming” the Lord’s death? Is this not to be a central part of our worship together as a Church? Are you really going to insist that it is not necessary for Christians to “share in the Lord’s death” or “proclaim the Lord’s death” at least weekly when you gather together?

 

• Doing communion too often turns it into a ritual or makes it not as “special”.

 This is the most common excuse. I say excuse, because that’s still what it is. Because anything can become ritualistic if we’re not careful. Every church has traditions, every church has things they do “just because that’s how we do it” but we don’t get all concerned about other things becoming a “ritual”. While this might seem like an understandable concern, ultimately we should be more concerned about doing what Scripture says, not avoiding it out of concerns of mis-use. The church in Corinth was absolutely abusing the Lord’s Supper… that was serious. But the solution to this was not to avoid it or do it less often, it was to strive to take it more seriously. So, Biblically, taking it “seriously” does NOT mean you do it less often. 

 

•  It makes the service longer, more complicated, more work/money.

I resort to above arguments. If these are your excuses, you're in danger of possibly being lazy and/or plain disobedient.  

I’d love to see the Church at large have the Lord’s Supper weekly. Pray about it and consider the importance Scripture lays on it. Whether you take a sacramental view or a memorial view it’s meaningful and important. And it’s the pattern we see in Scripture as well as very early Church history.

On a side note: those who take communion should also be baptized. This is also the pattern in Scripture, and it's also very clear in early church history that new converts were not allowed to take the Lord's Supper prior to baptism. 

 

Abusers and the Pharisees Who Enable Them

(This post is a follow-up to this post. Readers are advised to read that one first.)

“My zeal consumes me, because my foes forget your words.” (Ps. 119:139, ESV)

The Pharisees in the Gospels are not portrayed in a favorable light. Over and over Jesus warns his followers to not imitate them. They were proud, self-righteous, didn’t practice what they preached and focused on their own interpretation of the law rather than what God intended. No Christian wants to find out they are like the Pharisees. I tread on rather dangerous ground even hinting that this could happen, but to not do so, I believe would be pharisaical itself.  

I read a book some time ago called Accidental Pharisees (you can read my summary of it here). This is a fantastic book but not an easy read as it reminded me that all of us have same tendencies and sin-inclinations that the pharisees had and that it is deceptively easy to slide into self-righteousness and pride. (Lord, may this not be me right now!)

We have a problem in the church today. When confronted with abuse, churches are not handling it in godly, Biblical ways but rather in ways that fit with their pre-disposed ideas. With abusive marriages particularly, often church leaders value the marriage over the individual people. As a result, they minimize the abuser’s behavior, believe him over her and even shift the focus and blame on the victim for wanting out of the marriage. This type of thinking and action is seen fairly often in patriarchal churches that hold to an unbalance of power in marriage, for, “When taken to their logical conclusion, the teachings of patriarchal authoritarianism groom men to become dictators, and condition women to accept abuse as God’s will.” (From Fractured Covenants, see my last post). Like the Pharisees, they focus on the “letter of the law” rather than the person and the situation – the real heart of the issue. Their focus is on “saving the marriage” rather than dealing with the real sin issue and rescuing a sister in Christ.  

When I was getting my counseling degree from Westminster Theological Seminary through Christian Counseling Educational Foundation, one of the most impactful classes I took was an observation class with Darby Stickland where we watched her counsel a couple where the husband was emotionally abusive. It was incredibly eye-opening. The husband was an EXACT match for the descriptions of an abusive person given in chapter 1 of Fractured Covenants (See under heading “Where Does Subtler Mistreatment End, and Abuse Begin?” See also additional descriptions in chapter 2). And the poor wife, she was so conditioned that she had no idea she was innocent – and that he was the problem! It was beautiful seeing the understanding dawn in her face as she realized the way he was treating her was wrong and that she had done nothing to deserve it. It was tragic to see a woman stuck in such an awful situation.

In 1 Cor. 5:11, it says this:  ^“But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler - not even to eat with such a one.” You can be a practicing adulterer, reviler, drunkard, or you can be a Christian. You can’t be both. “In fact, according to this text, a reviler who calls himself a brother is far, far worse than an outright unbeliever. A reviler who is allowed to call himself a brother will corrupt the whole church” (Fractured Covenants, and see here). Many abusers pass themselves off as “good Christian men” but in reality, in secret, are slanderers and revilers of their wives. Jesus had a lot to say about these kinds of people: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness” (Matthew 23:27-28).

When church leaders misplace blame and demand a woman return to an abusive husband – especially one who claims to be a Christian - they are disobeying 1 Cor. 5:11 and the rest of Scripture which says over and over to rescue those who are oppressed (see Psalm 82:3-4, Lev. 19:15, and many others). Doing so they spiritually abuse their position and add to the victims suffering by using Scripture against her and disciplining her for fleeing her abuser. Jesus had a lot to say about these kinds of people too:

^“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! … You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth...” (Matthew 23:23-24, 34-36, NIV)

These words are incredibly harsh and frightening. Not only do these kinds of people persecute the righteous, but they risk going to hell.  

In the book, Fractured Covenants, the author shares much of her own story of abuse in her marriage and her church’s tragic, abusive response. While initially supportive, her two pastors chose to side with her husband and, despite acknowledging she was a victim, still demanded that she return to him. In a letter to her (after she had resigned her membership) in which they threaten church discipline they write, “Our first and greatest concern is that you chose to divorce…”. (This and subsequent quotes taken directly from the letter from the church pastors which you can read here.) Their first and greatest concern was not over the sin HE had committed towards her, it was not that SHE needed safety and healing…. It was that she was (apparently) sinning by divorcing this man who repeatedly and unrepentantly verbally, spiritually and emotionally abused her. Again, while the leaders acknowledge the abuse, they still somehow believed that she was the one “breaking (the) marriage covenant”. They claimed she didn’t “attempt to address his sins” or “didn’t want help or counsel”, (quote) which was not true – they had done counseling, she'd tried to get help about his problems but nothing changed. He wasn’t willing to change – that was the issue. Of course, he feigned sorrow and “repentance” to the pastors, but then he turned around and continued in his verbal abuse and antagonism towards her. This is completely typical of abusers. Yet the pastors, these “blind guides,” naively believed him over her – and subsequently sought to discipline her because she had “wandered from the truth” (quote). What “truth” is that exactly? How could she seek to “preserve the marriage” (quote) when her husband was the one breaking the marriage covenant? Is this what God intended when He created marriage? Is this the kind of leadership and ministry God calls pastors to? 

As for the church leaders who so sinned against her, God will judge them for downplaying and even condoning the sin of the men in their congregation and for shooting their own wounded. 

Brothers and sisters, we cannot tolerate, excuse or downplay abuse. It is sinful, demonic and damaging. It is a sin against the man to leave him in his sin, a sin against the woman to leave her in her suffering or hurt her further, and a sin against the local church and the church at large (in showing how we handle sin and oppression) and to Christ Himself. Proverbs says that, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD” (Prov 17:15) and Jesus Himself said, “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matt. 7:2). Let us not be like the Pharisees, let us not imitate or follow those who value their interpretation of Scripture over the soul of one oppressed. Let us believe those who come to us with their stories of abuse and rescue them from the hands of the wicked.

You can read about the events in this particular case for yourself in Fractured Covenants and in THIS article on Marie's story.
  

For additional reading: Spiritual Abuse in Marriage