Here’s an article/essay a friend of mine sent to me.  I’m publishing it with his permission:

There’s an essay that was brought to my attention that I think has a lot of relevance to the church in general and to the world of ADM blogging in particular. You can find the essay here at Frontline Fellowship. There is a lot of truth to what the author is saying here about the way in which pastors are treated both in their local congregations and by those who do not belong to their congregations.

The author of the essay is reviewing a book, The Wounded Minister (Dr Guy Greenfield). I’ll excerpt these two sections and let them speak for themselves. The essay (review) is helpful. The men and women who serve in pulpit positions really do struggle with this and with the proliferation of internet web pages and blogs upping the ante, it’s no wonder more and more men and women leave the ministry each year.

Who are these clergy killers? “These are not normal people, average complainers, critics and typical dissidents who are generally unhappy about life itself … they are deadly and have a knack for gathering a following of ordinary folk with common complaints and disagreements in the church. They can easily create the illusion that there are hordes of people against the pastor. They are masters at using the tyrannical they in their comments: ‘They are very unhappy about …’ or the illusive people: ‘people are saying that ….’ These are verbal instruments in the arsenal that they use to destroy a minister.”

Dr.Greenfield describes pathological antagonists/clergy killers, as persons with “a very mean spirited disposition … they are destructive. The damage that they want to inflict is intentional and deliberate. They are not out simply to disagree … they want to inflict pain and damage persons.… clergy killers are determined. They are headstrong and will stop at nothing. They may pause for a time, change strategies, even go underground to reconnoitre, but they will come back with a vengeance to continue the intimidation, networking and breaking all rules of decency to accomplish their destructive objectives. For them, their plans have priority over all other programmes of the church. These persons are deceitful … masters of manipulation, camouflage, misrepresentation and accusing others of their own atrocious deeds … experts at twisting facts. … maybe mentally disordered, but they do not yield to patience or love, nor do they honour human decency. Apparently clergy killers carry around a lot of internal pain, confusion, anger, and even rage. Spiritual leaders … become available scapegoats for this pain and confusion, which is unidentified and untreated.”

“Clergy killers are masters of intimidation, using it to violate the rules of decency and caring that most Christians try to follow. Intimidation is a powerful weapon … therefore, ministers and their supporters are easily intimidated by these persuasive and charming religious assailants. Clergy killers are experts of disguise when they see it would be to their advantage. They are able to present themselves as pious, devout and spiritual church members, who are doing their destructive work ‘for the good of the church to advance God’s Kingdom.’ They can convince naïve church members that they are raising legitimate issues. These religious monsters often hide among their allies of opportunity … they openly intimidate any opposition by making it clear that they will fight dirty and use any tactic to accomplish their goals. Gentle and peace-at- any-price church members are quickly sidelined by such threats, leaving ministers and those who support them to cope with the problem the best way they can.”

“Clinically speaking, … they may possess distinct personality disorders… anti-social, borderline paranoid, narcissistic … others have learnt to throw tantrums to get their selfish ways. They’ve learnt how to distract, confuse, lie and seduce to do harm to the vulnerable.”

“Clergy killers wound or destroy either by direct attacks or by inciting others to inflict the wounds. Sometimes they induce victims to self-destruct, by harassing them to the point of frustration and anger. … it only takes one or two in the church to create havoc and bedlam. Because these people live in denial as to their true nature, they would not see themselves in this chapter, even if they were to read it. Clergy killers have surrounded and insulated themselves with a whole array of defense mechanisms and justifications for their actions. They firmly believe that what they are doing in harming and terminating a minister is the right thing to do. For them, it is the will of God. Nevertheless, they are sick and mean people.”

What is a Pathological Antagonist?

A pathological antagonist is an intransigent person of antagonistic disposition.

1. “The arguments of a pathological antagonist are usually found in little or terribly misrepresented evidence … quibbling over petty details, offering strong proof of irrelevant points … exaggerating the position of one’s opponent … making an accusation that cannot be disproved and then claiming that this makes it true … outright lying or falsification. An antagonist, in his attempt to make the kill, will take certain facts and so twist them that they are blatantly false when presented. In time he convinces himself that his twisted facts are true.”

2. Pathological antagonists are ‘”hyper-sensitive to any word or action, even trivial oversights, so that he takes these things as a personal attack and responds aggressively.”

3. “The pathological antagonist is never satisfied. His demands are insatiable. No amount of accommodation on the ministers part will ever suffice. Attempts at appeasement will not calm him down, but will encourage him to make more demands. … he is persistent and unstoppable.”

4. “The pathological antagonist will lead a campaign of attack on the minister … not trying to give constructive criticism … his goal is nothing short of control, no matter what it may cost the minister or the church. The antagonist is so full of rage that he feels compelled to attack the enemy (the minister) until he is destroyed (terminated and eliminated from the scene).”

5. “This person probably has a God problem. He feels some deep-seated anger towards God for some reason out of his past experiences. Because it is difficult to show anger directly towards God, the pathological antagonist chooses the minister, the ‘man of God’, as his target. Sometimes this anger is guilt-driven (possibly due to some hidden sin) … a smokescreen to cover his own moral indiscretions.”

6. “The attacking behaviour of a pathological antagonist is selfish in nature … this person is rarely interested in authentic spiritual goals. If one rationale no longer works to his advantage, he will devise another … his stated reasons for opposition are a ruse for his own hidden agenda. What he really wants is power, control, status and authority.”

7. “The attacks … are for destruction rather than construction. The antagonists’ actions divide the church; they do not pull the people together.

In the Pulpit and Pew Project at Duke University, Hoge and Wenger did some research and wrote a paper detailing the reasons why ‘numerous pastors’ are leaving church ministry. The paper, from 2003, is insightful and contains wonderful tables at the end. They write,

The most commonly mentioned motivation was “an opportunity came for new ministry.” This factor was not always the only one in pushing the decision, since a highly satisfied local church pastor may not be likely to leave even if an opportunity came for new ministry. We need to see it as often acting in combination with other factors, making the task of discerning its importance a difficult one. In any event, it is lower as a motivation for the Methodists and Assemblies of God than for the others, and it is highest for the Missouri Synod pastors.

The second most common comment was that the denomination was not supportive, or that there was conflict with denominational officials. It is similar across denominations. The third most common was that the minister was burned out, discouraged, stressed, or overworked, a feeling voiced by ministers in all the denominations. The fourth–needs of children and family–was slightly higher for the Presbyterians than for others. The fifth–conflicts with church members—and the sixth–doctrinal conflicts over specific issues –occurred similarly in all denominations.

(This work was later published in book form and titled Pastors in Transition.  Here.)

It seems to me that armchair discernment, then, is not limited to the online types. They are everywhere in the church. John the apostle did warn that a certain type of malicious person would come from within the church and Paul makes warnings to Timothy for how to deal with such rebels. I am not saying that all preachers are innocent, nor am I saying that all accusations are false. All I am saying is that if this type of ‘ministry’ is so damaging in the local church, to local pastors, (and the repercussions and collateral damage are massive), then how much more damaging is it when you have an online audience? If I am reading the author of the paper correctly, nothing good comes out of this type of ‘work.’ It damages too many people, not to mention the pastor, his family, his children, his wife. It is an insidious evil that is not meant to build up the church, but to destroy it, sidetrack it, and utterly ruin it’s effective witness in a community.

What I have learned personally about such people is that normally the issue is one of control. That’s all. Pure and simple. Being in the public eye is hard enough as it is. Being a local church pastor, in a small or large church, is terribly difficult. It’s downright terrifying when the worst critics of the pastor are not those outside the church, but those inside it.

Seeking justice, mercy, and faithfulness amidst persecution from within.

Tags: ADM, local pastors, perscution

I have no idea who Paul Walker is, nor do I know anything about the church he shepherds other than it must be in the SBC. However, this post over at CR?N leads me to believe it must be an exceedingly mature and spiritual fellowship. While many pastors deal with conflicts over musical style, the ubiquitous need for more teachers in the children’s classes, finances, divorce, porn use among Christian men, real issues etc… Walker’s biggest concern within his church seems to be labyrinth walking.

Oh, that we all had such problems!

Basically Paul Walker is upset that a publication of the SBC for women endorsed both the Lectio Divina and labyrinth walking. What I found particularly fascinating was Walker’s urgency. “Red flags appeared” when he saw an article titled Reclaim Meditation. “Worse than [his] worst fears were realized” when Walker discovered that the article went straight to Lectio Divina and (horror of horrors) – “labyrinth-walking!” This is worse than his worst fears?  He can really think of nothing worse?

Walker takes the ADM Party line and follows the ADM SOP. He first belittles the practice – calling “contemplative prayer, silence or solitude” drivel. Never mind the fact that meditation is a biblical concept, never mind the fact that Jesus frequently got away from the crowds and even his own disciples for some solitude… that’s all drivel. Just the fact that an article on meditation would raise red flags is nearly comical – what next, red flags on reclaiming prayer? Probably, if said prayer is not “practiced” in the party sanctioned method.

Walker continues the ADM SOP by a) not bothering to describe the contents of the Lectio Divina, nor the steps in the labyrinth, b) failing to make a case for why either the Lectio Divina, or labyrinth walking should be repented of, and c) a condescending personal swipe at those who disagree.

I am fully aware of the standard objection of the labyrinth. Since when did our (or their) faith become so weak that anything first used by non-Christians cannot be employed by the faithful? Since when did our (or their) faith become so weak that even biblical concepts such as contemplation are now raise red flags base on some guilt by association?  Since when did we need to repent of following a set path and pondering the greatness of God?

I have no doubt that many new-agers use labyrinths in the pursuit of unbiblical spirituality… and probably some churches abuse them as well… but seriously, does this really mean that (because of their misuse) no Christian can walk a circular path and contemplate God’s greatness?

Over break, I received a link to an article in the Huffington Post (a blog I studiously avoid) in an email my friend titled “Hell Has Frozen Over – Literally”.

The article is titled, Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted, and deals with the non-politically correct data which has been steadily building in opposition to the sealth-Luddite positions on Global Warming/Climate Change by Al Gore and others over the past decade and a half.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that “the science is in.” Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:

1. First, the expression “climate change” itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots — and even revolutions, including the French Revolution — were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).

[...]

2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as “flat-Earthers.” This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.

And he continues to tear into Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” and recent conventional wisdom, quite deftly. Why is this news? In my estimation it is because it is being carried in a liberal publication that a) has a level of influence with part of our country’s policy-makers; b) is unashamedly counter to their past direction; and c) it may be part of a signal of the end of the browbeating/blackballing of voices which question orthodoxy on Global Warming/Climate Change in support of an unspoken, yet distinct, anti-industrial agenda…

Disclaimers

1) I believe we, as Christians ought to be good stewards of God’s Creation, and all of the resources within it.

2) I believe the Western lifestyle is often wasteful.

3) Despite #1 and #2, I think we often get caught up in “environmentally friendly” programs/ideas/fads which do little (or actually do damage) – example: corn ethanol & food-based biofuels – because it feels like we’re doing something good for the environment, even if we’re not…

Chris,

I’ve been reading Walter Isaacson’s biography on Benjamin Franklin recently, and in a portion I read this morning, the fable of The Man, the Boy and the Donkey was referenced.  Franklin noted this fable in a pamphlet he wrote to instruct printers on how they should decide on what clients to take on.  Franklin was a big supporter of the free press, but he also realized there may be times when a printer must refuse to print something on moral grounds.  Perhaps more importantly, though, he realized that trying to please everyone would quickly lead to pleasing no one.

The fable he referenced is the following:

The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey

A MAN and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?”

So the Man put the Boy on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: “See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides.”

So the Man ordered his Boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn’t gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along.”

Well, the Man didn’t know what to do, but at last he took his Boy up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor Donkey of yours—you and your hulking son?”

The Man and Boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the Donkey’s feet to it, and raised the pole and the Donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his fore-feet being tied together he was drowned.

“That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them:

“PLEASE ALL, AND YOU WILL PLEASE NONE.”

I have to admit that the first thing that came to my mind when reading that were the recent discussions we’ve had here concerning Rick Warren.  It seems to me that there is nothing he could where he doesn’t displease someone.  This could be said of many Christian leaders I think.  I know that when I was overseeing a campus ministry, I was amazed that I always managed to disappoint or tick off someone.

All of this is to not defend or demean Rick Warren, but rather to observe once again as we enter the new year, that the more things change, the more they remain the same.

May you all have blessed new year and continue to live honestly and with conviction!

It seems to me that the topic of “Universalism” and “Christian Universalism” continue to boil up in most of the threads these days. As such, it is a bit frustrating to those who wish to discuss other matters of Christian living w/o having to bring Universalism into the discussion.

The initial hope was that if we closed the initial Universalism thread and let the holidays intervene that the topic might die down and allow new material/discussions to better enrich the discussion, but I don’t see that happening. As such, I’m putting up this thread (for the next 10 days, at least) and asking those concerned to please use this thread for the CU discussion, rather than other non-related threads…

With that said, here are a few of the recent items to start off the discussion:

One of the first off-topic posts regarding this was John Hughes’ “Universalist reinterpretation” of Matthew, which I found both a bit humorous (kind of like the Calvinist Bible) and enlightening as to how we would have to alter our view of Scripture to accept a “Christian Universalist” view that we should expect (and teach that we should expect) that all will be saved:

I was given a new Bible translation for Christmas. Here are a few of the highlights from Matthew:

Matt 5:29-30 – If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out put a patch on it and throw it away. It is better for you (to lose the use of one part of your body) than for your whole body to be thrown into helltime-out. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it awaydon’t wash it until it shapes up. It is better for you (to lose the use) of one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell time-out.

Matt 7:13 – “Enter through the narrow any ole gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that all leads to life, and only a few eventually everyone find it.

Matt 7:21-23 – Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does even those who do not do the will of my Father who is in heaven. . . Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’but come on in anyway!

Matt 10:32-33 – “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown acknowledge him anyway before my Father in heaven.

Matt 12:36-37 – But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemnedsent to time out until you learn better.”

Matt 13:28-30 – “…The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
” ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds proto-wheat, you may root up the now-wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds proto-wheat and tie them in bundles to be burnedput in time-out; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”

Matt 13:43 – “As the weeds proto-wheat are pulled up and burned in the firesent to time-out , so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed tather out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw gently sned hem into the fiery furnacetime-out, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but they will eventually see the errors of their way and join the wheat. Then the righteous they all will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Matt 13:50 – “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad awayin time-out. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked naughty from the righteous and throw gently, but firmly, place them into the fiery furnace, into time-out where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, but they will get over it.

Matt 18:7-9 – “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away just don’t wash it for a few days. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled with dirty hands than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal firethe heavenly time-out. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it awaycover it with a patch. It is better for you to enter life with the use of just one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of helltime-out.

Matt 24: 31-46 – “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats proto-sheep. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats proto-sheeps on his left. “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. . . .

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, naughtly into the eternal fire temporary time-out prepared for the devil and his angels. . . .”Then they will go away to eternal punishmenttemporary time out, but eventually with the righteous to eternal life.”

Next, I would note that (unlike some other topics I’ll not mention, so as to not start them back up again) I would normally let a discussion about this die and try to actively stamp it out. However, I don’t know that such an effort would be all that successful, or that it would be prudent.

Why?

We often get asked by ADM’s & ADM-types if there are any topics/movements that we consider to be dangerous to the Christian faith. Usually, the first one we bring up is the Word-Faith/Prosperity Gospel movement, which is little more than materialism (thinly) wraped in the garb of Christianity. Some of us also bring up the phariseeism and nastiness brought into the church by the hyper-exclusivity of certain systematic theological views (pointing to quotes like “There are two views concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. First, there is what we call Calvinism. Then, there are varying degrees of unbelief”).

I would include one more movement in this list of gospel perversions, that being universalism – the belief/teaching that all roads (eventually) lead to heaven, and its subset which says that all roads will (eventually) lead to heaven, through Jesus, with most conversions happening after death.

While systematic theologies primary sin is one of hyper-exclusivity, succumbs to the draw of legalism by drawing boundaries far tighter than those drawn by God in Scripture, “Christian Universalism” errs in an equal, but opposite measure, via hyper-inclusivity which succumbs to the draw of hedonism by drawing boundaries far beyond those drawn by God in Scripture.

Where Hyper-Systematology (HS) focuses on the eternal to the neglect of the temporal, CU does the opposite.

Where HS focuses its view of eschatology by “who’s in” (almost nobody), CU commits the equal-but-opposite error by focusing its eschatology by “who’s out” (nobody – eventually).

Each has good and noble intentions – HS with a focus on personal holiness and basis of faith in Scripture – CU with a focus on loving your neighbor and worshiping God in a manner that fits the culture. But each is damnable in its own way – HS with its “the world be damned” attitude that drives people away from the church (much like the Sadducees’ temple practices which led to Jesus’ turning tables); and CU with it’s “heaven be damned” attitude which “loves” people to hell (much like all of the false Greek and Roman gods of Asia Minor in Jesus’ day).

Part of being “in the word (kosmos) but not of it” means avoiding being corrupted by its dominant systems. Each of the three ‘false gospels’ mentioned is representative of the church’s capitulation to a system of the world – materialism (WF/PG); post-modernism (CU); and modernism (HS).

And that’s why I care about this one a little bit more than most…