MacDonald: Congregational Government is From Satan

There is nothing new about Elder Rule. Its first major proponent was a guy called Cyprian - only back then it was called “Bishop Rule.” The problems were centered on the humanity of the church back then too - pastors were not trained well enough, heretical teaching was growing, etc. In order to protect the churches, Cyprian developed “bishop rule,” placing the authority of the church in the bishops in the local church. That developed into monarchial bishops - bishops overseeing numerous churches in a locality. That then developed into a single bishop - today we call him the Pope.

But this will never happen in evangelicalism! Oh, wait, how many churches is Mark Driscoll the bishop over? 11 now? and more to come?

[Greg Long]
I have no idea what “Neo-Reformed/Neo-Puritan” has anything to do with this. Just so you know, Jonathan Leeman and his church (senior pastor, Mark Dever), run in the same so-called “Neo-Reformed/Neo-Puritan” circles as does James MacDonald. Both Dever and MacDonald spoke/participated in panel discussions at the Gospel Coalition Conference. I could be mistaken, but I think Leeman’s church is probably more Calvinistic than MacDonald’s. (If not more so, than at least just as.)

Having been a member at Dever’s church, “Neo-Puritan” is a downright perfect term for Mark Dever. The man was born in the wrong century. He’s one of the better scholars of the Puritans out there. :-)

[Alex Guggenheim] Regardless of one’s view of church government, the claim that congregational forms are “from Satan” is simply nauseating to read. But this is not surprising coming from the Neo-Reformed/Neo-Puritan quadrant where their theological views are often treated among each other and then articulated to those outside the camp as sacrosanct. And this is what you get with elitist mentalities in theology or any other organization which is nothing but more self-aggrandizing posturing which one will find in other locations such as the KJVO groups where all other translations are from the devil or Pentecostals who swear Lucifer invented pants on women.

There is such thing as doctrines of demons and it is a serious matter. In fact it is the seriousness of it’s reality that belies this man’s outrageous and downright juvenile claim of Satanic inspiration for congregational government.

And lest someone protect this foolish claim by pleading the man is simply overstating the case I would and do respond, shame on him for stating otherwise thereby lying in his opening paragraph, if that was his intention.

The rebuttal by Leeman at 9 Marks is very good.

A side note worth considering. There is a thread http://sharperiron.org/filings/6-8-11/19175] “Why I Walked Away From Evangelicalism” . This author’s approach in the article represents, IMO, the very kind of atrociousness in theological expression to which he was referring.

**This post is not intended to be a reflection of my own view of church government. It simply addressed the claim of Satanic inspiration for the congregational form.

I would have to agree with what Alex has said. This kind of language and conclusion actually undermines the authors credibility.

Here is MacDonald’s update to his blog. I think it is helpful in clarifying his position…one that he thinks isn’t really too different from Dever’s as MacDonald believes in “congregational confirmation. Here is the quote:

[James MacDonald] While I disagree with the 9Marks post’s rationale for congregational government, even in the moderated form they describe, I do deeply appreciate the exhortations for updated church membership roles, active church discipline by elders, and men who fear God more than man. Further, I think their “congregational government” under elders is not very far from our “congregational confirmation” at Harvest. What I am repudiating is not that, but as stated above, the Robert’s Rules of Order, “every man does that which is right in his own eyes” form of congregationalism that destroys pastors and divides churches.

Here is the link for the blog post:

http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/?p=7592

If something is from Satan, then isn’t it still from Satan if it’s in a moderated form?

is a good thing twisted. Even the temptation of Christ was a play for Jesus to do things that were permissible, but at that moment it would have been for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time.

[Shaynus] If something is from Satan, then isn’t it still from Satan if it’s in a moderated form?

[Susan R] is a good thing twisted. Even the temptation of Christ was a play for Jesus to do things that were permissible, but at that moment it would have been for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time.

[Shaynus] If something is from Satan, then isn’t it still from Satan if it’s in a moderated form?

But can something good be a bad thing twisted? I guess that’s my point.

[Susan R] is a good thing twisted. Even the temptation of Christ was a play for Jesus to do things that were permissible, but at that moment it would have been for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time.

[Shaynus] If something is from Satan, then isn’t it still from Satan if it’s in a moderated form?

I don’t think this is exactly accurate. Everything? What good thing is twisted in murder? Rape (if you believe rape is not about sex)? Theft? I think the list could go on.

[Chip Van Emmerik]
I don’t think this is exactly accurate. Everything? What good thing is twisted in murder? Rape (if you believe rape is not about sex)? Theft? I think the list could go on.

Well, I think we have to acknowledge that in some sense, the taking of a life (in the absolute sense) is not evil, otherwise the passages that mention that God “slew” someone would indicate that He is evil, which of course, He isn’t. God indicates in scripture that He at times is jealous, angry, exhibits hate toward something, executes violence on humans, and so on, which means that those can’t always be wrong.

I would argue that it would be difficult for a human to have righteous jealousy, righteous anger, righteous hatred, and so on, and God has made it clear that vengeance is for Him alone (though again, it must not be evil in and of itself if He can do it).

So you might be right that not ALL actions are twisting of something good, but it’s a lot more than we would like to believe or are comfortable considering.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Susan R] is a good thing twisted. Even the temptation of Christ was a play for Jesus to do things that were permissible, but at that moment it would have been for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time.

[Shaynus] If something is from Satan, then isn’t it still from Satan if it’s in a moderated form?

I don’t think this is exactly accurate. Everything? What good thing is twisted in murder? Rape (if you believe rape is not about sex)? Theft? I think the list could go on.

I agree with Bro. Dave, but I would take it further. If God is the only entity that existed in eternity past, then everything He created that was corrupted is by default a good thing twisted. Which is… everything.

Your examples- rape, for starters. If is it about sex, then a sacred God-created act reserved for marriage has been perverted. If it is about power and control- well, is there anything wrong with power or control until is it used inappropriately or excessively? Theft - I’m to rejoice in the blessings of others, not covet them, and theft is simply covetousness acted out. Also, it isn’t wrong to own things, but it is wrong to obtain something by force or fraud.

What was the difference between Christ turning rocks into bread and turning water into wine- one would have been sin while the other wasn’t?

The problems that eventually appear with any form of gov’t are rooted in excess, IMO. Too much of one (authority) or the other (democracy) not balanced with each other and guided by Biblical principle - and Bob’s your uncle.