As to why I am lumping these cases together, I am doing so because the common denominator (with the possible exception of Driscoll) is anonymous bloggers denouncing these men from the cover of their anonymity. That’s what I’m denouncing.

The Bayly commentary on the James’ is not anonymous. Both of their email addresses are freely available on their website, as are weblinks for their respective churches. Moreover, they have exhibited charity in their criticisms. Note this post and this. Compare this with the spirit evident in this post and its comments.

Also, it is beneath the dignity of the Church to engage in smear campaigns by assaulting another’s reputation. This does not prohibit the speaking of the truth, but it does require that we speak the truth in love. (Ephesian 4:15) I’ve read some of the blog posts of which I speak; there is not a spirit of love in them. Rather, there is a delight and glee in pursuing the downfall of Godly men, and that cannot stand.

Finally, I want to reiterate the point from my original post. These men are taking a stand regarding a subject that is controversial and yet oh so vital in our day and age. Martin Luther said, “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.” I know that you have accused these men of acting like the doctrines of sexuality, authority and submission are “the only issue in some people’s lives and their total focus”. But, the reality is that this is a battleground issue in our day, and as such, these men are right in giving it the attention that they are.

In closing, I also want to say this. As I mentioned in my original post, James McDonald is my elder. I attend Providence Church where he is a member and an elder. I also believe that we are working on becoming friends. Indeed, I’d say that this is an important goal at Providence Church right now: that we get to know and love each other better. I have an intellectual awareness of what is going on with these other men, but I also believe that it is the responsibility of their churches to love and support them during this time of testing. However, James McDonald is in my church, and, quite frankly, any attempts to disrespect him are my responsibility. So, to that end, if you have any issues with my friend, I suggest that you take them up with him or his elders. I can help you contact them, if you’re really interested. Otherwise, it’s time to back down and be quiet. (Proverbs 24:28)

And with that, I’m closing comments on this post. I’ve said what I’m going to say, so it’s time to move on.

I don’t imagine I have much to offer, in weighing in on the subject.

I am thankful you’ve been my friend, though, when you and I recently walked throught what I believe was a spiritually abusive environment.

I guess I do not have an “endgame”. I was merely responding to a number of assertions that you made that left me with even more questions. I was more looking for an answer to the questions your post left with me. You are the one who brought up Driscoll as coming under fire and you made it sound as if it was wrong. I was merely showing you that the “fire” he came under was good because it brought about repentence. I am not treating him in any fashion. I just do not think you were accurately handling the issue as a whole. His “own” did not hold him accountable as you stated. It was the blogosphere who is fed-up with such unbiblical and extrabiblical comments coming from the pulpits of people who represent Christianity to this nation that held him accountable. I was encouraged by Driscoll’s statement and that holding our leaders accountable for the public things they do and say works. I am treating him like a repentant brother. I am not going to act as if (kind of how you portrayed him) he was a victim of false and unfounded criticism.

My point is that it is a good thing when we hold our leaders to a standard and it is not just the job of “elders” because many times elders just turn a blind eye to their buddies. Also, there were MANY pastors who called Mark to repent for his comments but since these pastors were not considered to be as important as those pastors who were agreeing, they were ignored. I don’t see how you get that I am “treating” him as an unrepentant brother when it is clear the point I was trying to make.

I would rather not get emotional and get side-tracked with defending arguments I had not made.

And what was vague about what I said? I think I asked you a clear question. How do you expect us to do what our own leaders do NOT do? I am the one looking for specifics here and that is why I asked YOU the questions. How am I lumping each case together when it was you who lumped Sproul Jr, McDonald, the Bayly brothers and Driscoll together?

So, could you answer my questions? Why isn’t RC Sproul Jr submitting to his authorities in the way you would like everyone to submit to their authorities? There were many pastors and elders who do not think that RC Sproul Jr submitted to his authorities. What do you make of them? Why can we just dismiss a certain set of authorities then lift up another set as ones that are due obedience?

Also, have you ever experienced spiritually abusive environments? Where the leaders refuse to be accountable and they run rough-shod over the congregants? Or does that just not happen?

What I would like to see happen is that people are consistent with truth and not just pick and choose to creat their own alternative reality.

Could you please answer my questions concerning the treatment of Frank and Carolyn James by the Bayly brothers whom you have praised? How is their treatment towards the James’ any different than what you are rebuking in others?

I hope that is more clear for you. May I ask what your “endgame” is?

By the way, I’m looking for specifics here. Don’t lump each case together, and don’t say something vague. I want specific details.

Just wondering about my question concerning Carolyn Custis James and her husband? Why is that okay to rake another elder over the coals and accuse him of hiding being his wife’s skirt among other abusive slurs but it is not okay to hold people accountable for what they preach and teach and who they associate with? I am really trying to figure out what makes one right and the other wrong?
What makes the Baylys right for what they do to the James and all the other people who the disagree with but others wrong for bringing up concerns concerning those people who are public figures and are doing questionable things? Did you ever read through some of those threads on Frank and Carolyn James?

I was wondering if you could tell me how we, the sheep, are to obey our leaders when our leaders won’t even obey their own leaders? Case in point: RC Sproul Jr. Why didn’t RC Sproul Jr. feel the need to obey his own elders and heed their rebukes, even after admitting to the charges against him?

I think this would be good to explain to us, the mere underlings and mute sheep. We are only following the example of the many renegade elders who are leading our churches. When they don’t like the warnings, rebukes and pronouncements from their own authorities, they leave and they start up a new one where they can have authority which they have taken up themselves.

BTW, the only reason why Mark Driscoll even repented of his unsavory words is that others held him accountable. His own winked at him and made excuses for him. His words are not those of a gentleman nor were they fitting with the truth. He cried about the dangers of pastors being seduced away by sexy women and then he cried about the all the fat, ugly, lazy pastors’ wives who make it hard for their husbands to stay faithful. He can’t have it both ways, can he? Or maybe he can because he is an elder whose main empahsis is on gender roles and that makes him untouchable by those whose main emphasis is on gender roles? He then preaches about how he made his wife go shopping because she looks too much like a mom (she is a mother of 4). The women in our conservative churches would not pass the muster of Driscoll’s standards for a woman. He wants his wife to look sexy and wear clothing that mothers don’t wear (I assume he wants her to look like single, childless women of the world?) but then condemns the women he sees as looking too matronly for his tastes as being the cause of their husband’s infidelity and then he condemns all those sexy women who are always after him. It certainly is hard for us women to know how to walk the virgin/whore dichotomy and the mixed messages we receive from our “elders”. Completely nonsensical.

Yes, he apologized and that is great. But, it wouldn’t have happened if the blogosphere hadn’t kept him accountable. And hopefully he has learned from his renegade tongue and has found wisdom in the rebukes of his fellow Christians.

So, explain to me why we still have RC Sproul Jr. speaking at our conferences when he has been defrocked by his own seminary and refused to submit to his God-ordained authorities? McDonald has been stripped of his credentials by the RPCGA and did not listen to his authorities, either. What makes you think that these two men will listen to their authorities now when they haven’t in the past? And I see no evidence of Tim or Dave Bayly taking a rebuke from anyone they haven’t deemed worthy of listening to. The way they deal with people is despicable. Just look at the latest thread on denominational seminaries. As the old saying goes “I can’t hear you because your actions are speaking louder than your words.” Anyone who has rebuked the Bayly brothers for being unloving (a truckload of evidence in their posts and comments sections) or not acting in a gentle manner that fits the position of an elder, is castigated and accused of being feminized.

Can elders just keep on changing authorities at will when they don’t like what their authorities are saying? It would seem the emphasis would be to clean up the leadership and its rebellion against lawful authority before you start upbraiding the sheep. Christianity isn’t a “do what I say and not what I do” sort of thing. It is the leaders showing by EXAMPLE and deed. The words aren’t matching the deeds.

Or, “Fixed it!”

Regarding Mark Driscoll, read this, this, and this. He has publically repented for his sins of the tongue which he has actually committed. Also, in the first link, notice the discussion with his friend. There are those around him who have both the authority and candor to hold him accountable, and they are doing just that.

Indeed, this applies to all the men that I have named. I know first-hand that James McDonald has other men surrounding him to whom he is accountable and who are perfectly willing to rebuke him if necessary. I also know that this is true of R.C. Sproul, Jr. and, I presume, Doug Phillips as well. In the post that I linked, Tim Bayly also said as much: “Speaking for myself, I regularly receive correction and rebuke from my mother, brother, wife, daughters, sons, fellow elders, older women of our church, other pastors, and the civil authority. I praise God for surrounding me with faithful brothers and sisters who serve God by giving me what I need. You think I’m kidding? Ask them.”

So then, why is there the need to appoint oneself as the “guardian of the truth”, “exposing” some supposed “dark underbelly” of these ministries? If you want to engage the ideas being espoused by these groups, that’s fine, so long as you are speaking the truth and are willing to be accountable for your own statements. When Doug Phillips or Mark Driscoll or Tim Bayly says something, I know where to express my concerns. I can contact them or their church leaders, should I so desire, and address the issue. But what about “Frank Vance” or “Ministry Watchman”? Who are these people? To whom are they accountable?

Moreover, quite honestly, the men who are under attack are elders of the Church of God. Paul wrote, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19) This hearkens back to passages like this:

A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:15-21)

So, how have these witnesses “appeared before…the judges”? Their anonymity disqualifies them from being witnesses. Moreover, the venue that they have chosen is illegitimate. If they were to appear within the courts of the Church to present their accusation, then that would be one thing. However, this is not what they have done. Rather, they have chosen to try their case in the public arena, sniping from cover while impuning both the motives and reputation of these men. “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness.” (Exodus 23:1)

Of these things, these elders are innocent. Their accusers are not.

To speak the truth and to denounce error is the job of the elder. It is the job of the congregation to test what the elder is saying by the Scripture, seeking humbly to understand and be led by the Spirit. This can lead to a rebuke to one in authority, but this must be done in love and respect. That is my measuring stick. In this, these anonymous bloggers are coming up short.
“The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people. But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned. ” (Titus 3:8-11)

pid pid

Seriously though, the amount of time that I see Christians spend attacking other Christians disgusts me. Just like the fights between homeschoolers and private schoolers. The reason is of course that it is easier to attack each other rather than actually going out into the world and, I don’t know, following that whole Great Comission thing?