The Wartburg Watch: When They Get It Right

When TWW gets it right, they are spot-on. This is a great example of when they get it right.

Before I elaborate, we need to list some stipulations. I know this seems redundant, as we’ve done this before, but I’ll do it for the sake of someone potentially reading this who is not a regular here:

(1) There is a huge difference between Calvinism as a hermeneutical model (good) and Calvinism as a systematic dogma (not so good). Hermeneutical Calvinism, simply put, means taking the Scriptures at face value. It is not the same as taking all Scripture literally–which many fundamentalists do–but rather taking the Scriptures as literally as the text requires. This is a good common-sense approach to Scripture that one can reasonably take without arriving at the same dogmatic conclusions at which the hard Calvinists arrive.

(2) You cannot have a church without discipline. There is no getting away from that fact. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, commands them to “expel the immoral brother”. The Corinthians, as you may recall, had many serious discipline issues, not the least of which included rampant sexual immorality, including one among them who was sleeping with his own stepmother.

So yes, there is a place for the “nuclear option”–excommunication.

At the same time, throughout the New Testament, most of the discipline is exhortation and admonition. The nuclear option is reserved for the most egregious sins: those involving malice, deceit, immorality, and neglect of family.

(3) The Church ought to err on the side of liberty while admonishing against license. The problem with many of the NeoCalvinist churches is that they fail to learn from the abuses of others–particularly the Shepherding Movement–who have attempted to implement the degree of micromanagement that they seek.

And that’s what this is all about: micromanagement.

At my church, people come and go all the time. People leave for varying reasons: they might prefer a different style, they might like a particular pastor more, they might have different location preferences, they might have job changes that require geographical relocation. The reasons are varying.

Unless a member is “under discipline”–which is extremely rare, and we have only had two people in the nearly 8 years I’ve been there to whom this applied (it was a case of flagrant immorality)–then they should be free to leave as they wish. This is how it works at my church.

So yes, TWW is correct here about the potential disaster looming in churches that adhere to “covenant membership”. Done rightly, it is very good. Done wrongly, it can be disastrous.

Personally, I think the NeoCals need to get their heads together and arrive at a framework that properly defines the functionality of “covenant membership”. This would allow for churches to avoid the near-catastrophe that required a prompt, public apology from Matt Chandler. It would also help protect those families who wish to move on from abusive situations.

3 thoughts on “The Wartburg Watch: When They Get It Right

  1. I think it would do that people are put to the test. Especially when put under stress where very often the true nature of the person comes out.

    Character tests should be done to screen out certain people from marriage so as to minimize situations where abuse even occurs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.