Church Planting Thirty Years Later

In 1982 my wife and I planted our first church in Philadelphia – Faith Independent Baptist Church. The long church name seemed awkward back then but I wanted to be sure people knew up front where I stood. Fresh from eight years of ministry training at fundamentalist schools, I was a committed independent, fundamental Baptist. As extra insurance to validate my IFB credentials, I often added “militant and separatist” as well. The church’s doctrinal statement enshrined a dispensational hermeneutic essential for correct interpretation, the pre-tribulational rapture as the next event on the prophetic calendar, and the King James Version as the official translation. As a church we were known more for what we were against than for who we were.

Fast forward to 2011 where in the same city I am now working with a team of elders to plant another church in a spiritual wasteland where we parachuted in with a few families but without a significant core group. After thirty years of church planting I claim no special expertise, offer no guarantees of success, and sense an even greater dependency upon the Lord to build His church. Similar struggles, resistance to the gospel remain.

This one-year-old church is elder led, non-denominational, non-dispensational, and uses the English Standard Version. Much has changed. Most remains the same. I would venture to add that what is essential has not changed. In areas where change has occurred, thirty years of ministry, of study, of relationships, and of experiences have conspired to bring me to the place I am today. For many years IFB was all I knew or cared to know. Now I find myself rarely at home in this fragmented movement of competing networks. I find myself increasingly on the outside looking in. This is my journey, but I’m glad I was not alone.

After planting a church in Philadelphia from 1982-1987 my family and I went to France and then Romania in church planting and pastoral training ministry. Those years spent overseas provided opportunities for fellowship with believers from different horizons and spared me the need to engage in many of the needless conflicts being fought in the States. There was less need to conform to others’ expectations of what it meant to be safely within the fundamentalist orbit.

During that time overseas I pursued further studies with Reformed Theological Seminary’s extension in Budapest and in time completed a degree in theological studies. For the first time I was challenged from a different theological perspective by men with whom I had strong disagreements. Yet I was persuaded of their evangelical commitment, their love for God, and their commitment to God’s authoritative Word. I began to see that we could differ interpretatively and still enjoy fellowship in the gospel. I was moving away from former positions for which I could still argue but could no longer support biblically with integrity.

In late 1998 we returned to the States where I began a short residency in Deerfield, IL at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and where in 2004 I completed a DMin in Missiology. Once again I was struck by the combination of scholarship and godliness among the professors. There were differences in some areas but the centrality of the gospel transcended those differences.

From 1999-2008, I was missions pastor and director of church planting at a well-known suburban church. I travelled frequently and taught overseas in Russia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Peru, China, and several other countries. There were opportunities to teach in the area of missions and church planting at several schools and seminaries and invitations to preach at various conferences. My visits to China were especially revealing as we looked for house church leaders with whom we could partner for training purposes. I found myself looking for “significant compatibility” and agreement with the historic Christian faith rather than agreement with my convictions. My time in Lebanon among Arab believers caused me to look at Scripture afresh and contributed to modifications in my views on eschatology.

Some might find it surprising that personal experiences have influenced my theology to such a degree. In reality our experiences or lack of them have a great part to play in how we read Scripture. We read it with the eyes of those around us, those who trained us or those we look to for guidance. Our experiences should not determine our theology yet how we read and understand Scripture cannot be separated from our outside influences and experiences. Some may consider it a badge of honor to hold the same beliefs and convictions they held thirty years ago. While I can say that for the fundamentals of the faith, I must confess that second and third-tier commitments and interpretations are held loosely and are no longer a cause for separation or hindrance in partnership in the Lord’s work. Perhaps it’s partly due to the fact that I recognize it is His work not mine and that I labor in His vineyard not one of my creation.

On one hand, I have no argument with fellow believers who affirm their identity as independent, fundamental Baptists. I have no difficulty in seeing them as legitimate representatives of the diverse body of Christ. I have no reason to demean them or to expect them to cease being what they are. I have no desire to avoid fellowship and friendship with IFB men of integrity who are sound theologically and choose to remain within an IFB framework. On the other hand I find after all these years in ministry, with experiences and exposure to global Christianity, that IFB fails to describe how I see myself in my relation to the Lord, in relation to other believers, and in relation to the mission of the church.

The last few years have been especially decisive in the direction I have taken. When I returned from Romania in 1998 I knew that both I and the spiritual landscape that I knew had changed. Then in 2008, while temporarily living in France and helping to plant a new non-Baptist church, I wrote an opinion article on Fundamentalism. It was my way of signaling at that time that although I was on a journey out of Fundamentalism as I had known it, I wanted to remain friends with Fundamentalists. I began to write, to challenge conventions and traditions. I have not always been irenic and have not avoided controversy.

When I described myself as a “soft cessationsist,” questioned elements of dispensationalism, took issue with unbiblical separation, did not clearly espouse literal six-day, twenty-hour creation days, expressed my dismay at the paucity of resources committed to church planting, or challenged traditional thinking in the church’s engagement with culture, I found more criticism than interaction with the ideas. The criticism wasn’t about the gospel. It was mostly about culture, tradition and even personalities who thought I was out of line and should keep a lower profile.

Whether or not I should’ve written some of those articles for publication is another story although I have few regrets. I know there are some who are so much surer in many areas where I have questions. I know others who do not want to rock the boat and, to mix metaphors, prefer to fly under the radar. I suppose that would’ve been a safer route for me but that bridge has already been crossed. I must confess that I have found somewhat amusing the wide range of men who have disagreed with me, attacked me, or separated from me. There has been something for many to dislike although certainly not the same things.

I have no one to blame but myself although these experiences reinforced in my mind how important agreement is to Fundamentalists in areas where I believe we have scriptural latitude to disagree charitably. The agreement demanded by many IFB gatekeeper leaders, churches, and institutions in order to play in their yard far exceeds biblical teaching. The loyalty required by many in order to be safe requires submitting to traditional rather than biblical standards. It is not a virtue to have an inquiring mind in much of Fundamentalism. I had to decide whether I would shut up or speak out knowing that speaking out might marginalize me.

There are a few glimmers of hope as some IFB brethren have begun to break out of their isolation. I think particularly of Northland University which has invited professors from outside IFB circles and of Calvary Baptist Seminary with Mark Dever at their ATC Conference. Of course these moves have triggered substantial criticism from within IFBdom which comes as no surprise. Many IFB factions, which contribute little to theological reflection, brook nothing which deviates from their long-held conventions. I encourage those who choose to stay within the movement to continue their pursuit of God-honoring unity with those outside the IFB pale.

As for me, the time has come to seek to identify with men and movements which demonstrate greater generosity with dissent and challenge than I have found in my IFB experience, to identify with those interested in productive gospel-centered, church-planting partnerships, and God willing, to seek teaching opportunities to train men for next generation church planting. I have no illusions that moving on will bring greater resources or guarantee success in church planting. I’m not looking for greener grass. At this point any grass will do. I still welcome friendship and even partnership with my IFB brothers who have not drawn unreasonable lines in the sand. But I’m too old to jump through all the hoops, too ornery to kowtow and prefer relative obscurity and a few warm relationships to playing ingratiating politics and pleasing men.

Much has changed over the years but God has not. He is faithful and He remains the Lord of the harvest in these challenging and needy times, the ultimate Judge who knows the hearts, and the Accomplisher of His divine purposes. Before Him only I lift my hands, bend my knees, and bow my head.

Discussion

Steve,

It’s always been fun when we’ve bumped into each other. It’s been a thrill to read you from time to time. God bless you my man as you follow the dictates of Scripture and conscience. You’ll be blessed to minister with different sections of the body of Christ. The good news for you is that you are not the only guy that will reach out to the IFB world while at the same time will reach out and be willing to work with different sub-groups of the body of Christ. We don’t need it to be the case but more good news is that the approach you are openly taking here is quickly becoming the approach by a “silent majority” within the non-KJV only orb of fundamentalism. This is really good news indeed! It is really the only way to go if one wants to embrace the spirit and I’d even say the teachings of the NT. You’re not going to be able to reason or work with a few who have placed their ecclesiastical grid over that of the spirit of Jesus or the teachings of Scripture. However, if you and I and others will be patient for those who are teachable and considering this approach, others…..many others will follow. Of course all of that is in God’s hands.

Straight Ahead and God Speed!

Joel

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Indeed, I might ask what you were thinking (when you wrote this). Wink I didn’t really label him at all, I said maybe he’s a newcongelical. I admit my label isn’t catching on. Sad
Yes I quoted you but I was also including those who are picking at Steve as well. Maybe not you, but a few others have labeled Steve as a neo-evangelical.
I have a personal letter from an evangelical leader, in defending his joining with the apostate Church of Scotland, in which he cites John Stott as saying that the thing that mattered is the “formal and official doctrines” of the Church, even if “senior leadership” denies “Christian faith, morality, and convictions.” “Yes, sir (or ma’am), I know you and everyone else running your denomination are apostate, but since you haven’t bothered to change your denominational documents, I can still give credibility to you by coming along to your conferences or making joint statements with you.”
Love to see a primary source, rather than a secondary source in this situation. I have seen too many fundamentalists quote other people quoting other people in order to separate from certain evangelicals when it didn’t turn out to be true……..Not saying you are not telling the truth about Stott, by the way…….


I did not say they were fast going down the tubes, nor getting more liberal, nor anything about them being on a slippery slope. I hope your exegesis of Scripture is better than your reading of my words. Smile
was not referring to you…..probably got on a soapbox that I didn’t need to get on. Sorry about that…….
It would be good if you found a better place to publish your article. Most fundies would think that Lausanne’s organizations and publications should be given a wide berth, and for good reason. It doesn’t mean we hate them or think they aren’t doing some good things. They are evangelicals, after all. They are together for the Gospel, for crying out loud.Smile Let them serve the Lord as they see fit, and pray that He’ll use them for His glory and the salvation of souls. But don’t join in, because the errors matter too much and dishonour the Lord. Their ministry will go forward just fine without us, and ours can go forward just fine without them. There is no Biblical warrant for joining with that kind of compromise, but it doesn’t mean they are our enemies. Nor does it mean someone hates them if he mentions the problem.
When it comes to publishing articles about missions there aren’t a whole lot of choices that are much different than World Pulse. Lets see…. you have Evangelical Missions Quarterly……they are connected to the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton. I guess that eliminates them. Missions Frontiers…..they are the magazine for the U.S. Center for World Mission started by Dr. Ralph Winters, which eliminates them because Dr. Winters taught for many years at Fuller Seminary, the neo-evangelical flagship seminary. How about Global Missiology? too neo-evangelical because they have Chuck Van Engen from Fuller on their advisory board……. There are many more missiological journals and missions magazines around in evangelical land, but not in fundy land. What about fundamentalist magazines such as the Baptist Bulletin (GARBC), The Voice (IFCA), Frontline (FBFI)? Well, I am not apposed to it. I actually wrote a magazine article for the Baptist Bulletin that was published in the May/June. I especially enjoyed connecting with the editors from the GARBC and found them incredibly supportive and helpful. However, the the missions articles that I am writing don’t necessarily fit the topics that they want for their magazines. I understand this because they aren’t set up as a missiological journal. That brings us back to World Pulse, EMQ, Missions Frontiers and the plethora of missionary journals that are led by neo-evangelicals.

I don’t necessarily see it as a problem interacting with neo-evangelicals by writing a journal article published by them. I guess I reflect my mentor’s attitude, Dr. Paul Beals. Dr. Beals was comfortable as the chairman of Evangelical Missions Society, writing for EMQ and other neo-evangelical publications, yet held fast to the fundamentals of the faith while serving Christ…first as a Baptist-Mid Missions missionary in the Central African Republic, then as the missions professor at Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary as well as in his GARBC church of Northland Baptist Church in Grand Rapids.

[Joel Shaffer] Love to see a primary source, rather than a secondary source in this situation.
I could look for a primary source, but does it matter? He appeared to be referring to either a personal conversation or something Stott had said during speaking. We can see, by Stott speaking for the WCC and staying in the Church of England, that the quote was consistent with his practice. And I have no reason to question the honesty of the man who wrote me. He certainly wasn’t trying to say something bad about Stott, he was using Stott to support his own accommodation practices. The sense was, “Stott says this is ok, so I’m sure it’s fine.” Even if Stott never said it, his actions did say that practice was “fine”. I didn’t question his assertion, because if he was looking to Stott for approval, he was going to find it in Stott’s actions.

Here’s a source mentioning his evangelical/liberal dialogue (that’s the original neo- manifesto), his dialogue with Roman Catholicism (that’s an additional step for many neo’s), his drift towards social gospel (they don’t call it that, this is a hagiography ;)), etc. http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=645 “He was loyal as an Anglican and against any separatist movements.” That fits with the quote I was given.

Gives new meaning to “death by fishing.”
There was an old meaning?

Enjoyed that.

I was a bit busy and couldn’t keep up with the thread but a quick scan suggests that while there is a good bit reacting going on, there is some reflecting also.

For those who are fond of intimating that SI has “gone neo” and the like, just a reminder that the aim here is to give you stuff to think about.

And there’s nothing to think about if all you ever read or here is what you already know and agree with.

I know most of you already get that.

For me, all of IFB’s problems were old news by the time I was 14. So there was not much that could disillusion me later! But at the same time, always in the mix, were these ideas that were being well articulated, well defended, well lived. These are very likely to go with me to my grave.

Edit: I mean not “die with me” but “still be with me with I die” :)

Gotta toss this in: for me, attending BJU broadened my horizons. I met a fair number of non-Baptists there as well as students who did not have the kind of upbringing I did. Several of these were miles further than me down the road of what a Christian ought to be.

(And of course, if one reads even a little bit, one discovers that not everything of worth God is doing is happening among fundamentalists!)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

I am a pastor at a non-fundamentalist church, but count me in with those who struggle to find the value of this article. Steve, brother, I think by now most of us know you are no longer a fundamentalist, and you seem to enjoy letting us know that. Your articles on here seem to be mostly about stirring the pot (although the pot does need stirred sometimes).

But I join those who wish God’s blessing upon your church planting work, and would love to visit it should I visit Philly. (My dad grew up in Coatesville, so we are HUGE Phillies fans. Now that they have another bat in the lineup they just might go all the way again this year.)

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Historic fundamentalism was an ecumenical movement of believers in mainline denominations who banded together for the fundamentals of the faith. They were alarmed by the falling away that was taking place in their respective denominations. [Together for the Gospel seems to be a similar movement among conservative evangelicals/historic fundamentalists today.]

Only after some “fundamentalists” came out of their denominations (withdrew, resigned, forced out) did separation rise to the issue that it is today. Those who stayed in were accused of not being “come outers.” Yet, as has already been mentioned in this thread, Riley stayed in until just before his death. Those who left and railed might have been called “bitter.” [Ironically, anyone who points out his disagreements with fundamentalism today is accused of being bitter. But I wonder who was bitter first.]

For whatever reason, those who came out made it their number one goal to rail against their former fundamentalists friends for not coming out as quickly as they did. As this effort reached a fever pitch, some of the younger fundamentalists became uncomfortable with this approach. They accepted the fundamentals of the faith but they did not see any reason to separate from their friends who remained inside the mainline churches. They could understand why a fundamentalist would remain within instead of coming out. [A lot of fundamentalist did remain inside their denominations. Otherwise, there would be no fundamentalist opposition in the Episcopal church, American Baptist Convention, etc. as there is today.]

When a group of fundamentalists decided to dialogue with liberals, the name they took for their movement was neo-evangelical. Their mission or strategy was a clear break from the battles waged a few years earlier.

On one side, there were the separatistic fundamentalists, on the other side, the neo-evangelicals. But there was also a vast middle group consisting of fundamentalists who held to the fundamentals of the faith, separated from apostasy, refused to dialogue with liberals, but also refused to separate from those who continued to fight for the fundamentals of the faith within the mainline church. These fundamentalists chose to band together with all who would stand together for the fundamentals of the faith wherever they might be found, both within and outside the mainline denominations. Their position reflected the early ecumenism of the fundamentalist movement in the late 1800s!

Today, this appears to be the position of the conservative evangelicals and the “historic” fundamentalists of the fundamentalist movement. The EFCA is a movement that bands together for the fundamentals of the faith and separates from apostasy while giving latitude on secondary interpretive issues. It is fundamental through and through and reflects the non-separating fundamentalist position.

Those who argue that separatistic fundamentalism (practicing secondary separation) is the only true fundamentalist position is arguing against history. It appears that the larger movement within fundamentalism is the non-separating branch. This branch is conservative evangelicalism. And it is to this branch that self-identified fundamentalists trained in fundamentalist institutions are moving to in droves.

They band together for the gospel. They fellowship around the fundamentals of the faith. They work together where they can in unity. They appreciate the diversity that exists in the body of Christ and take real encouragement from the fact that there are ardent believers in every denomination. Perhaps this is the purpose of the article. That we miss opportunities for growth and service when we demonize those we disagree with. Steve appears to be saying that he longs for unity among the brethren and sees this as a possibility if we would only stop dividing over secondary issues.

Personally, I am grieved when brothers and sisters in Christ separate from me and reject my presence because I don’t agree with them on every issue even though I hold to the fundamentals of the faith. It hurts, and I am man enough to cry over it. Jesus prayed that we would reflect the unity that we have in Christ by being one.

Come on Greg. I thought you were brighter than that. Seriously, I don’t expect that everyone will find the same value or any value. It seems some have. It’s not a popularity contest. One has to decide whether to not write anything which is of no value or write something of maybe some value to some. I choose the latter. For those who find no value I await something of value other than their no-value findings.

Steve

This is off topic, but some of the comments on this thread are disgraceful. These little side insults and slights which do anything but address the point being discussed are solely aimed at insulting or personally undermining an individual in a feeble fashion to discredit their position. I would not appreciate going to a church, whether newly planted or in existence for an extended period of time, which is lead by anyone who talks in this fashion. It is far from Christian although the attempt is occasionally made to wrap the insult in nice flowery language or make it slightly less obvious.

Sorry for the off topic post, but this is one of the worse threads I have read in a while.

[Joel Tetreau] Steve,

It’s always been fun when we’ve bumped into each other. It’s been a thrill to read you from time to time. God bless you my man as you follow the dictates of Scripture and conscience. You’ll be blessed to minister with different sections of the body of Christ. The good news for you is that you are not the only guy that will reach out to the IFB world while at the same time will reach out and be willing to work with different sub-groups of the body of Christ. We don’t need it to be the case but more good news is that the approach you are openly taking here is quickly becoming the approach by a “silent majority” within the non-KJV only orb of fundamentalism. This is really good news indeed! It is really the only way to go if one wants to embrace the spirit and I’d even say the teachings of the NT. You’re not going to be able to reason or work with a few who have placed their ecclesiastical grid over that of the spirit of Jesus or the teachings of Scripture. However, if you and I and others will be patient for those who are teachable and considering this approach, others…..many others will follow. Of course all of that is in God’s hands.

Straight Ahead and God Speed!

Joel
Joel:

Thanks for your affirmation. It makes up for all the grief I’ve gotten from others :-) Really I do appreciate what you wrote and am looking for more fellowship, more unity, more partnership in the gospel, not less.

I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself. However I have received emails from guys who agree with much of what I say but for one reason or another would rather not write on a forum. For those who strongly objected to what I wrote there were few surprises. I could’ve prophesied who’d they be since they are so predictable. I don’t think there’s any question that Fundamentalism will continue its decline or at least those segments which insist on separation that goes beyond what is written.

Grace & Peace,

Steve

I think if folks really believe that Bro. Davis needs to be ‘corrected’ and ‘restored’, there was a better way to do it. The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking.
Gal 6:1-5 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.
Funny how Scripture tells us in one verse to bear one another’s burdens, and then two verses later tells us that every man has to bear his own.

Steve, I don’t think Greg said “no value.” He said he struggled to find the value.

James: there’s really nothing insulting about that. It’s just more direct. Steve has been pretty clear about what he thinks lacks value in much of “IFB.” It’s OK on both sides.

As for value, I don’t usually link to this place because I’m not fond of increasing the traffic there but I think there is a segment of our readership that wonders if he’s right:

http://sharperironintheironskillet.blogspot.com/2011/08/si-is-fundament…

A brief response, because I don’t have time for a longer one:

SI has posted a wide variety of views on things from day one. We had an extended back and forth with Phil Johnson (look up “Dead Right”) way back in 2005. And the same week we published this perspective from Steve, we also published John Whitcomb’s call to avoid the central error of neo-evangelicalism (divorcing truth and love).

But the conservative stuff we’re posting all the time is never noted by the Skillet crowd. These people see what they choose to see not only here at SI but in the world they live in and, not infrequently, in Scripture as well. I personally find it hard to believe that they are always unaware that they are distorting the truth.

If I can help it, SI is not going to be a place where people only see what they already agree with… at least not all the time. There are already plenty of venues for fundamentalists to get together and hear how wonderful fundamentalism is and how messed up everyone else is and sort of silently jeer together. When you’re 20 or 30, that’s indescribably boring. Now, at 45, I still can’t fathom where the appeal in that is. I’d still rather fill out tax forms or get my teeth cleaned.

Maybe it will have some appeal when I’m 65, but I kind of doubt it.

It’s been just about universally affirmed in this thread that Steve is a good guy who loves the Lord. So why not try to understand where he’s coming from? It might be a shocker to some to consider this but—you can understand without agreeing. And understanding how people you disagree with think is one of the best ways to sharpen your own thinking.

OK, that’s my rant for the day (and it’s only 7:30!)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

…started to read the post and my first thought was “someone has nothing better to do with their time than write Anti-SI articles.”

THEN I got to the end of the article, saw who the author was, and it all made sense!

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

[JohnBrian]…started to read the post and my first thought was “someone has nothing better to do with their time than write Anti-SI articles.”

THEN I got to the end of the article, saw who the author was, and it all made sense!
HAHA that’s exactly what I did, John.

[Susan R] I think if folks really believe that Bro. Davis needs to be ‘corrected’ and ‘restored’, there was a better way to do it. The lack of compassion and humility in church leadership of any stripe is astonishingly lacking.
Gal 6:1-5 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.
Funny how Scripture tells us in one verse to bear one another’s burdens, and then two verses later tells us that every man has to bear his own.
Now comes the site administrator with some superior wisdom for the church leadership (Pastors) on here.

First, your scripture from Galatians would probably apply to the author of Galatians himself would it not?

Second, if you read the entire book you will find that Paul dealt with the Galatians in a direct and harsh manner. He also uses such in some other epistles. The burdens of Galatians 6 are not doctrinal error. Your use of Galatians 6:1-5 to rebuke Pastors here is entirely inappropriate. By the way, the reason there are two approaches to burdens there is that the english word is used of two different Greek words. One is a heavy load which requires more than one to carry. The other is a smaller soldiers back pack that is appropriate for one to carry himself. The subject begins with the concept of a man overtaken by sins of the flesh and needing gentleness in the approach to overcome. Doctrinal error was handled in a different manner in this epistle. In chapter 5 Paul has contrasted the works of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit. While one may characterize doctrinal error as sin, and maybe even of the flesh, it is handled in a special manner. This is not the subject of this SI thread. No one has accused Steve of sins of the flesh.

Third, the object of my replies to Steve Davis, an over age fifty, experienced Pastor, was primarily to expose the errors of his ways and the inappropriate ongoing compromises, and to warn others of what was and is occurring. There is little doubt that when one writes about the subjects Steve has, and in the manner he has, he is trying to influence others, especially those who are younger. I have seen the almost exact same thing, involving the same doctrines and views many, many, times over the last five decades.

Fourth, Your attempt to rebuke some who are Elders (Pastors) with such an off topic and inapplicable scripture to the situation here is probably indicative of one of the reasons why women are not allowed to serve as elders. Yes, I am aware that this is the internet, not church, and great latitude regarding gender roles is normally appropriate, But you are attempting to rebuke church leadership (Pastors) and you yourself have severely misjudged the situation.