Been to several mega churches. It's an entertainment concert of sorts. My impression was it's the last chance for failed musicians to get on stage. Everyone jumping up and down clapping. They seemed to be overzealous or boastful, to show everyone their faith by dancing, singing very loudly and jumping with arms up in the air. I felt very uncomfortable in those places. It felt fake. I dont go to church to have fun. I go to learn and hear a qualified ordained teacher, teach.
A Mega-Church is defined as a church that has 2,000 or more people. This really is not that many people (especially when spread over several service). Churches with tens of thousands of members that are held in massive stadiums like structure are extremely rare and really represent a negligible part of global Evangelicals/pentecostalism. While I understand your critique and sympathise with aspects of it. There is nothing from a theological or historical point of view that would exclude the use of modern instrumentation or liturgical innovation. Gods people since the very beginning have always engaged in singing, dancing and even jumping, these things are just as important as silence, crying and kneeling in the worship of God.
I share your reaction to the megachurch industry. Have witness two "services", one a Christmas Eve service that were indistinguishable from a nightclub. Dark dim environment, flashing theater lights, leaping guitar gators, noise, happy-clappies. Yes I DO feel free to judge--not the hearts of people, but their FRUIT--in this case a madhouse nightclub for nitwits. Perfect for the flesh. . . but not what I see in the New Testament.
Coming from an "agnostic" family, I was the kid who revolted and took their parents to church. I then went to a highly Reformed college. My two apparent choices at the time were these overly emotional Evangelical mega churches or a slightly more "conservative" Baptist church. The similarities were a strong central personality that lead the church. I wasn't Baptist. I wasn't in agreement with the mega church model. I eventually found a confessional Lutheran Church (LCMS) which effectively solved the issues you cited here. Admittedly, I liked the strong male that berated me and offered the grace and mercy of Christ. As you mentioned, there's a lot of good with that, but a lot of baggage as well. Finding a litergical church with a statement of faith that is controlled by an outside body with the power to control the pastor, actually made it easier not to care about how "influential" the pastor is... It gave me peace that the doctrine will not easily shift, and I can more easily trust. There's a sense of emotional freedom in structure and liturgy (amongst other benefits, of course).
When you have the Bach chorale settings of "A Mighty Fortress" and "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" as the foundation of your musical traditions, why does anyone want to throw them away?
Praise God!! Preaching to the choir here!! Even if it be a choir of only one, but I praise God that it certainly is not!! I’m definitely grateful God has brought me out of that scene and into Confessional Lutheranism, oh what magnificent joy!! Soli Deo Gloria!! To God alone be the glory!!
Completely agree with you on culture! Classical Guitarist here...95% of music I listen to is Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Also agree on church music!. Please no strumming guitars in church.
The question of ordination in particular is really a tricky one for Lutherans. Some say its an adiaphora (in contrast to call which is necessary), others say its inherently implied in AC XIV's _rite vocatus_ (call, examination and ordination are a indivisible unit) ... still others cite Apology XIII to go so far as to call it a "sacrament" (including the laying-on-of-hands).... .... I think the issue is drawn out by Chemnitz and Gerhard helpfully. The Lutheran tradition does not and has not ever called ordination (itself) adiaphora -- Walther is wrong; however, the use of the imposition of hands is (while an apostolic custom) chosen of the church and thus "adiaphora" (in the loosest sense) -- making Loehe wrong. In other words, the rite of ordination (the confirming of the call by the ministers/bishop of the church and conferral of office) was laid out by Jesus when he breathed on his apostles, call and sending are _both_ necessary... but the ceremonial use of hands to perform/accompany this rite, is of human origin. (Interestingly, this is the exact position of Aquinas and Lombard before the Lutherans ever came around, they saw the bestowal of Eucharistic vessels as more inherently essential than the hands.) I hope this helps any who were wondering. It's tricky.
This is a very helpful summary, so thank you. As a follow up question, I want to ask more about who is qualified to do ordaining. Lutherans and Presbyterians both have some form of ordination council, which is seen as a necessity for ministering within the denomination. Makes sense to me. But theologically, how does that work in terms of an overall theology of ordination? Could a Lutheran look at a Presbyterian that was ordained by a different council and consider that person to be a valid Christian leader? So, move from that to other denominations. I presently am neither a confessional Lutheran or confessional reformed, even though I agree with massive chunks of those confessional statements. But confessions matter, and until I am fully on board with everything, I suppose I need to be where I am. As such, I attend a church that has leaders who could not have been ordained by either Presbyterian or Lutheran authorities. They could not have been ordained by Anglican, eastern Orthodox, or Catholic ones either. I think our leaders are at least recognized by other leaders within our denomination. So, who gets to ordain? Logically, it seems like this is either a necessity or it isn't. The options I am considering are: 1) it is a necessity from a specific organization (say an extension of the bishop of Rome) 2) it is a necessity as a practice, but not a specific authority (there could be valid leaders in multiple denominations, but it still requires accountability from existing leaders) 3) ordination is primarily the calling from God, so while it would be helpful and wise to have others confirm it, there could be situations where lone people start churches. 4) it is adiaphora to begin with (I probably don't take this view)
@@BaeGeeN258 Okay, so my position might be a little different from the ones you laid out: I believe that the WHOLE Church calls a man into the ministry, and this is by divine right not merely custom or "good order." By this I mean that the Church by definition is all of the clergy AND laity (in communion/fellowship with each other) operating as one unit together each doing their part-- 1) the laity electing/choosing the man to be their pastor/bishop, etc., 2) the educated within the church examining him to approve of him in matters of doctrine and life, 3) and finally the clergy ordaining him into the office (which is both a confirmation of call and a ritual bestowal of office) and installing him into his vocation at as particular place/congregation. Notice that in this sense of the "wholeness" of the church, I am thinking of congregations/pastors that are in formal _communion_ with one another and cooperating as a manifestation of "church" together in a way that is inherently trans-local -- this is called the "representative church" in historic Lutheranism and it exercises all of the rights of the local congregations (including the right to call a minister) but collectively -- this is an important feature of historic ecclesiology that many evangelicals forget and it's often connected to a theology of episcopacy. I believe that all of these three elements are non-negotiable and are clearly present in one form or another in the New Testament (the local church chooses a man and the Apostles/pastors approve and ordain them). Okay, with that out of the way... ... I think there are necessarily situations in which congregations are "stranded" from any broader church fellowship; (think of desert island Christians) of course in these situations the Holy Spirit can "fill in" what is lacking ecclesiologically in an emergency.. however, this is not the normal situation and thus the exception proves the rule. It sounds like you at least belong to a "denomination" and are not not simply a lone-ranger Christian/congregation. By definition that means that you have some kind of ecclesiological structure by which many churches are united in communion with each other -- that's the key. Whether your "representative church" has divinely called "bishops" or a board of ordained elders overseeing the structure isn't ultimately the important thing... what is important is that you belong to a fellowship where pastors aren't just ordaining themselves and congregations aren't on their own.
@@BaeGeeN258 As a sidenote, idk if I would phrase it as ordination "being necessary for ministering in the denomination"... At least in Lutheran and most "catholic" churches, ordination is not primarily a legal approbation whereby a candidate is formally admitted into a functional office as created by the denomination. Lutheran pastors are ordained into the "office of the holy ministry of word and sacraments in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church," and not "ordained as a pastor of the LCMS." We believe that there is only a single ministry to be ordained into, whether one is ordained in the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist, the Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, etc. the Lutheran position is that the man is only ever ordained into the office of the holy ministry -- this why (while formal colloquium/examination is important) Lutherans don't often practice "re-ordination" of a candidate from another tradition. The Ministry is the common property of Christ's Church and the Church is bigger than any denomination. Ordination is an act NOT of any denomination but of the Church (which is present in all denominations).
@@BaeGeeN258 Hey no problem. One thing though, I might add another nuance to what I said yesterday: I didn't mean to imply that the local is not church without the representative church, it's actually the other way around. The Lutherans absolutely insisted that the local church/pastor manifested the fullness of the church's marks (in contrast to the Roman view that the diocese/bishop was the fullness of the church and parishes/priests gain their reality as "church" through participation in the diocesan community). Every manifestation of the church is a composition-relationship between clergy and laity, whether this is local (parish/pastor), representative/regional (diocese/bishop), national (archdiocese/archbishop), and so on. The format remains the same and the smallest subdivision of ecclesial reality is the local assembly as per Lutheran teaching -- all others "build off" from the local but are no less the fullness of the church in their own right. This is not "congregationalism" so much as congregation-base ecclesiology (similar to presbyterianism). Due to the essential unity of clergy and laity for the church to exist, a congregation without a pastor is necessarily lacking a key component and must rely on support from communion with other clergy to remedy it. If however a congregation possesses a pastor, than they have authority to call and ordain another pastor and this would be valid by divine right (I say _valid_ though due to it being done apart from the consent/participation of the broader communion I would see in this action a breaking of covenant that makes the action highly irregular and potentially schismatic).
I think you see the celebrity virus in Lutheranism primarily online. Just look at how many Lutheran Facebook groups go bad due to a cult-of-personality of a leader/writer. Or going back a little bit in time, all the various blogs that people studying Lutheranism would go to and seek out guidance rather than developing a relationship with their own pastor. I've been guilty of feeding this mentality.
The talk on parachurch ministries IMMEDIATELY made me think of James White & his A&O ministries. While the man is absolutely brilliant, he’s never left the “cage stage” Calvinism you’re supposed to grow out of. It’s just White and his buddy Rich, and there’s nothing to check his narcissism or any of his opinions on things. Indeed, whenever Rich chimes in, he seems to get ticked off at the interruption. Joining Durbin, another narcissistic pastor, isn’t gonna help keep him within godly intellectual checks.
Thanks for the video, Dr. Cooper, from a faithful listener. This podcast was a key factor in bringing me into confessional Lutheranism. Also, awesome jacket.
My parents moved from California to Georgia in order to join my church. Oh, OK, the fact that I live out here might have had something to do with it too. But I don't think it was for our pastor as such--he is a big part of it (he's been leading the church for over 30 years, so of course he's been a big influence, but the church has been around for 265), but the church as a whole really attracted them, as it did me and my wife when we first attended. So I'm not sure I'd agree with *that* as a criticism of Doug Wilson.
Very good analysis. I started watching for the more general subject of megachurches/YRR, but ended up really appreciating your points about the personality focus in certain denominations. I particularly found your connecting this to the Reformed, Whitefield, the great revivals, etc, to be interesting.
Hi Dr. Can you clarify something you said at around 15 minute mark? It sounded like you said men attempting to emulate the Biblical patriarchy was extreme, and not good. Can you explain what’s happening exactly, and your position? I’ve not heard of anything like that, and I’d like to know why you seem to condemn it.
What I'm speaking about there is what is called the "Biblical Patriarchy" movement. If you look through the podcast archive, you can find a few programs I have done on the subject.
It definitely has a bunch of checks and balances. So it doesn't lend itself to those errors (our church has twice had to get the regional leadership involved in local church disputes. Unfortunate, but very thankful that option was there), but you could make other criticisms for sure.
I think it could be both. Churches can use music that have lyrics that highlight the person and not God (Big Me, Little God). But it could also be cultural like the consumer culture. Both can definitely tie in together.
There is nothing in the Bible that talks about the actual style or genre of music, so that is simply a personal preference issue. What you are singing is far more important than what genre you are singing in. I will say that we should always be aware of whether or not we are focussed on 'experience' or 'worship'. I see people of every style of worship chasing an 'experience', rather than engaging with God. I feel this is especially prevalent in in CCM concerts, but I know people who would equally do the same with gospel, or even organ lead worship music. We're not chasing a feeling, or a mood, or an experience. We are trying to collectively engage with God. Sometimes we can experience God through worship, but that isn't something that can be synthesised or deliberately re-created.
I wonder whether Marc Driscoll has even been ordained as a pastor or whether he took that office for himself. I cannot find any information online about he ever being ordained. Does anybody know about that?
I JUST heard out of his own mouth proudly declare that he ordained himself…look up Mars Hill Documentary on UA-cam. The upload I is about 3 months old though the content is older… It’s shocking what happened in the early days. Comment if you can’t find it I’ll return with a link…
@@Seeker0fTruth thank you for the reply. It's really astonishing to me how could anyone consider that Mark Driscoll was actually reformed. We reformed folks have a very clear doctrine of church offices and ordination.
Evangelicalism doesn’t help Protestantism at all, because I see that in classical Protestantism (Lutheran/Anglicans…) there actually is unity because of ecclesiology and confessions of faith. But the chaos that there is in evangelicalism is just insane at this point, the issue is more complex than “33 thousand denominations”, like, look at the “KJV only” issue, “dispensationalism”, “only follow Paul not Jesus to get saved, because Jesus earthly ministry was for Jews only”, Calvinism, charismatic non denominational, etc… really a disaster… I like Lutherans tho
Historic Protestantism is dead, from both a numerical and theological point of view. Church of England, Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, or the "Mainline" Churches in America are the clearest demonstration of this. Global Evangelicalism/Pentecotalism is now driving force within Christianity with already over a billion adherents. Yes, its ecclesiologically fragmented, but so is confessional protestantism. Furthermore, confessional protestantism was never missiologically successful in the global south as it's too dependent on the western European cultural and philosophical tradition (a tradition I deeply cherish). But I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I just fundamentally disagree that we can simply go back to an idealized classic protestantism and all our problems would be solved.
Enjoying this episode. Perhaps in the future you can do an episode with the problems you c in conservative Lutheran churches. And also address the issue of the poor sermon quality in Lutheran Church. how it’s basically a 10-15 minute devotional and not the preaching that one reads in Walthers sermons
Please, come on. How anyone, with any intellectual honesty could oppose biblical patriarchy is stunning. Of course Christianity is patriarchal, it is headed by "the Heavenly Father" for goodness sake. And, as you know, the classic, orthodox understanding of the divine Persons is rooted in the divine relations, hence the "Father" eternally begets the Son. So, these are essential, eternal names. All of Christian trinitarian orthodoxy collapses without the Father and divine patriarchy. The New Testament notion of gender relations is also overwhelmingly rooted in the creation assertion that woman was made for man and not man for woman. If anything we have learned from the debacle of Afghanistan is that without Christian benevolent patriarchy, society collapses into Muslim hyper-patriarchy or anarchy. The feminist paradigm of the last 50 years died in Kabul. There were no "girl-power" super heroes to rescue Afghan women, only Western men.
The Gospel declares all human individuals eqalitarian. Old testament make a difference between people which NT does not do. But, creation is not nihilated, thera are differences between men and women.
Question - does God ever use a process that is completely unrelated to the Lutheran process you outlined? The Lutheran process seems wise and has checks and balances, but has God ever done another method, for example in countries where there is no Lutheran church presence?
I wouldn’t lump John piper in with someone who played on celebrity… his book “brothers we’re not professionals” is a direct attack on these issues.. you had the same issues in the 80s and same issues in the 90s it’s just American style of leadership and that’s is a large part of the problem.. I wanted many times to say to the Podcasters that produced it, “ hey your egalitarianIsm is showing” .. the subtle and subversive way they approached that was distasteful.. having Counseled many single and married men over the years those issues are real for men I would agree.
High culture? Why did I think you liked punk rock music? Didn't one of your videos show that interest of yours? Lol. Just saying, we all like different things.
@M. M67 1. Dr. Cooper is just plain wrong that being Reformed is somehow more conducive to being sucked up into the “celebrity pastor” craze. He took a movement (The Young, Restless, and Reformed), found some bad eggs in that nest, and then pointed out that they “were ALL Reformed.” Cooper has a huge chip on his shoulder when it comes to Calvinists. 2. I could introduce you to a boatload of Calvinists who are some of the sweetest, kindest, warmest, humblest people you’ve ever met. And I could show you plenty of folks from other groups who are just plain ornery and insensitive and arrogant. As stereotypes go, this one is way less true than most and should be let go. No denomination or faith tradition has a monopoly on niceness…or meanness. Let it go.
@@HannahClapham your first point is well taken as I think it's American culture in general that like celebrity culture. On your second point you are engaging in the"you too fallacy" just because you can point to another group that did the same thing does not negate what is being said. With that said I would point out that stereotypes are usually obtained for a reason though they are often exaggerated.
@M. M67 I have rubbed elbows with thousands of Christians of every stripe imaginable. What I’m telling you is that it is incontrovertible that this particular stereotype (that the Reformed are ungracious) is not an “exaggerated truth,” but an out-and-out lie.
Respectfully, contra to your thesis, Dr. Cooper, regarding institutional ecclesiology and overall religiosity: Look at Europe, where Sacral Churches predominate and you find stale, dead religion with huge non-believing populations. In the opposite direction, the American South is the most Christian part of the country where Sacral churches never predominated outside of the landed gentry. There are problems with both models of Christian ecclesiology, so to blame what happened in New England on the Puritans is probably not accurate. I would say theological liberalism in the form of higher criticism was the biggest problem, which is why the low churches in the South have historically been most resistant to liberal drift due to lack of exposure to HC. Actual conversion does matter too, though I agree that we need more confessional and liturgical ecclesiology in the evangelical world to help mitigate celebrity culture.
I don't think he was saying that establishment state-religion is the ideal ecclesiology. Far from it, that simply avoids the question by relying on governmental sanction for validity. Dr. Cooper was critiquing a particular brand of low-church ecclesiology that does not value the the idea of an empirical church with various structures that pre-exists our monkeying with it. Men that "feel called" and so started a church without any call from that local congregation or ordination by the broader church (bishops, presbyteries), no accountability structural or doctrinal. That's what he's attacking.
@Dr. Bob Excellent observations. Megachurches and other celebrity-driven congregations tend to be led by Baptists, Charismatics, and Word-Faith practitioners…NOT Calvinists. If there is a unifying theme, it is modern Pietism/Revivalism, which tends towards an unbalanced focus on purely subjective aspects of the gospel. The First Great Awakening has virtually nothing to do with it. American Evangelicalism is much more a product of the emotion-driven Second Great Awakening. New England’s “burned over” character has to do with New School/New Light groups going liberal (as you pointed out) and by the excesses of Charles Finney and his ilk. Old School/Old Light folks and anti-Pietistic Lutherans (like Dr. Cooper here) have led to a great deal of “dead orthodoxy” in the Midwest. One corrective (for both extremes) might be the Puritan balance of head, heart, and hand: orthodoxy complemented by orthopathy rounded out by orthopraxy. As you mentioned, conversion IS indeed important. And by that I don’t mean hyper-emotionalism, but instead, authentic repentance and faith accompanied by a warmth of hospitality for the brethren and a fierceness of compassion for the lost and the hurting.
The reason European churches seem dead and stale is because people want to be entertained and have their ears tickled. They want to feel good, not admonished in a godly way. They want to get something out of it but are not willing to put anything into it. I see that happening here in the States as well. Churches are closing because people expect to be coddled and not instructed. These people have no clue as to who God really is and unfortunately, someday they will find out but it will forever too late.
The new centers of Christianity have already shifted towards Brazil, Nigeria, Korea etc...where denominational or independent Pentecostalism is the dominant tradtion. While I deeply value confessional protestantism (and even Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Its naive to think that we can simply pretend that we are in 16th century northern Europe (or even 4th century Asia minor).
I'm happy to support but God hasn't yet put me in the financial situation to do so. Might even have to cancel worldvision soon. Ah well. God's in charge.
Another church besides Wilson's group, that has people moving to from all over, is Jeff Durbin's Apologia Church. There are some big personalities in that church also. I do personally still listen to both of those gentlemen though, despite everything. There is something very enjoyable in the way teachers in those groups act and teach. It's probably the lack of nuance. I joke, but one has to admit that they are men who very boldly declare what they believe to be the truth. In every issue. There is no soft-pedaling. I find it very hard not to admire it even when I disagree.
I remember listening to one of apologia’s “cultish” podcast, and the guest said how he and his wife moved from Texas to Arizona. The reason was to hear pastor James white preach every Sunday and it was pretty disturbing to hear.
The paradox of a Lutheran critiquing Driscol or Wilson for celebrity mentality, institutions revolving around one individual, and aggresive self defense/attacking others is genuinely breathtaking----Martin Luther himself pioneered all these methodologies.
Hmm, it seems that at the time of Luther there were these other guys who engaged in revolving churches and dioceses around themselves, glorifying themselves, demanding obeisance to their theological whims, oh gosh, what were they called? Bishops? Cardinals? Something like that. Oh, and then there was the true narcissist among all those bishops and cardinals as I recall. He was called a pope or something of the sort.
@@felixguerrero6062 Yet it is still very true and completely accurate. You cannot call out Luther while ignoring the manifest self-aggrandizement and bastardization of the holy faith that the bishops and popes have perpetuated over time. There's really no comparison and waving it away by weakly offering up the lame non-argument of "whataboutism" is simply just another Roman apolgists burying his head in the sand to avoid dealing with the manifest, replete, and virutally pereptual errors of the papal aristocracy of Rome.
@@pete3397 "But, but Rome bad..." is not argument, it is just an attempt to derail the conversation. Cooper engages in a bad faith critique of Driscoll and especially Wilson, accusing them of the very defining features of the man that started his own tradition. While, I appreciated his broader historical analysis. These attacks are sloppy and demonstrate a lack of theological self awareness. God bless.
@@Athabrose Why does it matter? His influence through all the people he has led to Christ and taught will go on. The books he wrote will continue to be read, his sermons replayed.
I’m not at all sure that established, hierarchical ecclesiologies are not as rife with power-hunger, narcissism, inflexibility, and human imaginings as small fiefdoms ruled by a single celebrity. They’re all pretty awash in machismo and egotism and narrow-minded dogmatism.
For you taking on some dude like this ... i know it's close to your heart emotionally ... but at this point in your career taking on a guy like this is ... well punching above below your weight class ... this kind of reminds me of when Mike Horton went after Joel Osteen ... ok maybe that one was even worse, but you get my point. There are so many self-centered pastors even in small churches. I take public criticism of other ministers to be very harmful ... seems unnecessary. I mean if there are legitimate biblical charges that should be brought against them, then there are proper channels do deal with this. For someone of your caliber, I just feel topics like this are not edifying and are a distraction. Ok maybe the most appealing thing to our family about Lutheranism is it's devotional nature and not attacking other denominations or specific pastors. Your work is too important to be wasted on criticism of other ministers. They will answer to God for their ministries. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy. Keep focused on Christ crucified and resurrected for us.
Actually, public heresies or false teachings call for public rebuke. If these men had listened to private critiques years ago then that is preferable and awesome- the issue Is that they didn't. Paul explicitly tells us to call out charlatans and false teachers. Also, the very issue with churches with no Ecclesiastical structure is that they have no "proper channels" to handle or accept critique. That is the primary problem at hand, period.
I find it a bit ironic that you are a pastor of the church that started Christianity down this path. The fire of disunity that Luther lit was always destined to lead to this - and much worse such as heresies and liberal Christians that don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. Yes the Catholic Church in the 1,500s needed some reforms (which happened), but it did not need to be split.
The split was Rome's fault. Stop Blaming Luther! Blame the modern heretics don't blame Luther who wanted pure doctrine more so than Rome did. You're barking up the wrong tree
Been to several mega churches. It's an entertainment concert of sorts. My impression was it's the last chance for failed musicians to get on stage. Everyone jumping up and down clapping. They seemed to be overzealous or boastful, to show everyone their faith by dancing, singing very loudly and jumping with arms up in the air. I felt very uncomfortable in those places. It felt fake. I dont go to church to have fun. I go to learn and hear a qualified ordained teacher, teach.
A Mega-Church is defined as a church that has 2,000 or more people. This really is not that many people (especially when spread over several service). Churches with tens of thousands of members that are held in massive stadiums like structure are extremely rare and really represent a negligible part of global Evangelicals/pentecostalism. While I understand your critique and sympathise with aspects of it. There is nothing from a theological or historical point of view that would exclude the use of modern instrumentation or liturgical innovation. Gods people since the very beginning have always engaged in singing, dancing and even jumping, these things are just as important as silence, crying and kneeling in the worship of God.
I share your reaction to the megachurch industry. Have witness two "services", one a Christmas Eve service that were indistinguishable from a nightclub. Dark dim environment, flashing theater lights, leaping guitar gators, noise, happy-clappies. Yes I DO feel free to judge--not the hearts of people, but their FRUIT--in this case a madhouse nightclub for nitwits. Perfect for the flesh. . . but not what I see in the New Testament.
Coming from an "agnostic" family, I was the kid who revolted and took their parents to church. I then went to a highly Reformed college. My two apparent choices at the time were these overly emotional Evangelical mega churches or a slightly more "conservative" Baptist church. The similarities were a strong central personality that lead the church. I wasn't Baptist. I wasn't in agreement with the mega church model. I eventually found a confessional Lutheran Church (LCMS) which effectively solved the issues you cited here. Admittedly, I liked the strong male that berated me and offered the grace and mercy of Christ. As you mentioned, there's a lot of good with that, but a lot of baggage as well. Finding a litergical church with a statement of faith that is controlled by an outside body with the power to control the pastor, actually made it easier not to care about how "influential" the pastor is... It gave me peace that the doctrine will not easily shift, and I can more easily trust. There's a sense of emotional freedom in structure and liturgy (amongst other benefits, of course).
When you have the Bach chorale settings of "A Mighty Fortress" and "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" as the foundation of your musical traditions, why does anyone want to throw them away?
Praise God!!
Preaching to the choir here!! Even if it be a choir of only one, but I praise God that it certainly is not!!
I’m definitely grateful God has brought me out of that scene and into Confessional Lutheranism, oh what magnificent joy!!
Soli Deo Gloria!! To God alone be the glory!!
I found the book “Let Us Prey” to be helpful on the issue of narcissistic pastors. And yes, listen to the Harris episode!
It was very helpful, as well as Redeeming Power and A Church Called Tov (both are quite new).
Completely agree with you on culture! Classical Guitarist here...95% of music I listen to is Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Also agree on church music!. Please no strumming guitars in church.
The question of ordination in particular is really a tricky one for Lutherans. Some say its an adiaphora (in contrast to call which is necessary), others say its inherently implied in AC XIV's _rite vocatus_ (call, examination and ordination are a indivisible unit) ... still others cite Apology XIII to go so far as to call it a "sacrament" (including the laying-on-of-hands)....
.... I think the issue is drawn out by Chemnitz and Gerhard helpfully. The Lutheran tradition does not and has not ever called ordination (itself) adiaphora -- Walther is wrong; however, the use of the imposition of hands is (while an apostolic custom) chosen of the church and thus "adiaphora" (in the loosest sense) -- making Loehe wrong. In other words, the rite of ordination (the confirming of the call by the ministers/bishop of the church and conferral of office) was laid out by Jesus when he breathed on his apostles, call and sending are _both_ necessary... but the ceremonial use of hands to perform/accompany this rite, is of human origin.
(Interestingly, this is the exact position of Aquinas and Lombard before the Lutherans ever came around, they saw the bestowal of Eucharistic vessels as more inherently essential than the hands.)
I hope this helps any who were wondering. It's tricky.
This is a very helpful summary, so thank you. As a follow up question, I want to ask more about who is qualified to do ordaining.
Lutherans and Presbyterians both have some form of ordination council, which is seen as a necessity for ministering within the denomination. Makes sense to me. But theologically, how does that work in terms of an overall theology of ordination? Could a Lutheran look at a Presbyterian that was ordained by a different council and consider that person to be a valid Christian leader?
So, move from that to other denominations. I presently am neither a confessional Lutheran or confessional reformed, even though I agree with massive chunks of those confessional statements. But confessions matter, and until I am fully on board with everything, I suppose I need to be where I am.
As such, I attend a church that has leaders who could not have been ordained by either Presbyterian or Lutheran authorities. They could not have been ordained by Anglican, eastern Orthodox, or Catholic ones either. I think our leaders are at least recognized by other leaders within our denomination.
So, who gets to ordain? Logically, it seems like this is either a necessity or it isn't. The options I am considering are:
1) it is a necessity from a specific organization (say an extension of the bishop of Rome)
2) it is a necessity as a practice, but not a specific authority (there could be valid leaders in multiple denominations, but it still requires accountability from existing leaders)
3) ordination is primarily the calling from God, so while it would be helpful and wise to have others confirm it, there could be situations where lone people start churches.
4) it is adiaphora to begin with (I probably don't take this view)
@@BaeGeeN258 Okay, so my position might be a little different from the ones you laid out:
I believe that the WHOLE Church calls a man into the ministry, and this is by divine right not merely custom or "good order." By this I mean that the Church by definition is all of the clergy AND laity (in communion/fellowship with each other) operating as one unit together each doing their part-- 1) the laity electing/choosing the man to be their pastor/bishop, etc., 2) the educated within the church examining him to approve of him in matters of doctrine and life, 3) and finally the clergy ordaining him into the office (which is both a confirmation of call and a ritual bestowal of office) and installing him into his vocation at as particular place/congregation.
Notice that in this sense of the "wholeness" of the church, I am thinking of congregations/pastors that are in formal _communion_ with one another and cooperating as a manifestation of "church" together in a way that is inherently trans-local -- this is called the "representative church" in historic Lutheranism and it exercises all of the rights of the local congregations (including the right to call a minister) but collectively -- this is an important feature of historic ecclesiology that many evangelicals forget and it's often connected to a theology of episcopacy.
I believe that all of these three elements are non-negotiable and are clearly present in one form or another in the New Testament (the local church chooses a man and the Apostles/pastors approve and ordain them). Okay, with that out of the way...
... I think there are necessarily situations in which congregations are "stranded" from any broader church fellowship; (think of desert island Christians) of course in these situations the Holy Spirit can "fill in" what is lacking ecclesiologically in an emergency.. however, this is not the normal situation and thus the exception proves the rule.
It sounds like you at least belong to a "denomination" and are not not simply a lone-ranger Christian/congregation. By definition that means that you have some kind of ecclesiological structure by which many churches are united in communion with each other -- that's the key. Whether your "representative church" has divinely called "bishops" or a board of ordained elders overseeing the structure isn't ultimately the important thing... what is important is that you belong to a fellowship where pastors aren't just ordaining themselves and congregations aren't on their own.
@@BaeGeeN258 As a sidenote, idk if I would phrase it as ordination "being necessary for ministering in the denomination"...
At least in Lutheran and most "catholic" churches, ordination is not primarily a legal approbation whereby a candidate is formally admitted into a functional office as created by the denomination. Lutheran pastors are ordained into the "office of the holy ministry of word and sacraments in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church," and not "ordained as a pastor of the LCMS." We believe that there is only a single ministry to be ordained into, whether one is ordained in the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist, the Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, etc. the Lutheran position is that the man is only ever ordained into the office of the holy ministry -- this why (while formal colloquium/examination is important) Lutherans don't often practice "re-ordination" of a candidate from another tradition.
The Ministry is the common property of Christ's Church and the Church is bigger than any denomination. Ordination is an act NOT of any denomination but of the Church (which is present in all denominations).
@@vngelicath1580 That's a very nuanced and detailed explanation. I have a lot to think about. Thanks for taking the time to write it out!
@@BaeGeeN258 Hey no problem.
One thing though, I might add another nuance to what I said yesterday: I didn't mean to imply that the local is not church without the representative church, it's actually the other way around.
The Lutherans absolutely insisted that the local church/pastor manifested the fullness of the church's marks (in contrast to the Roman view that the diocese/bishop was the fullness of the church and parishes/priests gain their reality as "church" through participation in the diocesan community).
Every manifestation of the church is a composition-relationship between clergy and laity, whether this is local (parish/pastor), representative/regional (diocese/bishop), national (archdiocese/archbishop), and so on. The format remains the same and the smallest subdivision of ecclesial reality is the local assembly as per Lutheran teaching -- all others "build off" from the local but are no less the fullness of the church in their own right.
This is not "congregationalism" so much as congregation-base ecclesiology (similar to presbyterianism).
Due to the essential unity of clergy and laity for the church to exist, a congregation without a pastor is necessarily lacking a key component and must rely on support from communion with other clergy to remedy it. If however a congregation possesses a pastor, than they have authority to call and ordain another pastor and this would be valid by divine right (I say _valid_ though due to it being done apart from the consent/participation of the broader communion I would see in this action a breaking of covenant that makes the action highly irregular and potentially schismatic).
I think you see the celebrity virus in Lutheranism primarily online. Just look at how many Lutheran Facebook groups go bad due to a cult-of-personality of a leader/writer. Or going back a little bit in time, all the various blogs that people studying Lutheranism would go to and seek out guidance rather than developing a relationship with their own pastor.
I've been guilty of feeding this mentality.
The talk on parachurch ministries IMMEDIATELY made me think of James White & his A&O ministries. While the man is absolutely brilliant, he’s never left the “cage stage” Calvinism you’re supposed to grow out of. It’s just White and his buddy Rich, and there’s nothing to check his narcissism or any of his opinions on things. Indeed, whenever Rich chimes in, he seems to get ticked off at the interruption. Joining Durbin, another narcissistic pastor, isn’t gonna help keep him within godly intellectual checks.
Thanks for the video, Dr. Cooper, from a faithful listener. This podcast was a key factor in bringing me into confessional Lutheranism. Also, awesome jacket.
Not this podcast episode but the Just and Sinner podcast in general :)
Do the church leader narc podcast, pls.
Calvanism without confessions is the problem .
Nailed it.
or you could just take out the 'without confessions' bit.
Thank you for this! Super interesting! It would nice get more content like this 👍
My parents moved from California to Georgia in order to join my church. Oh, OK, the fact that I live out here might have had something to do with it too. But I don't think it was for our pastor as such--he is a big part of it (he's been leading the church for over 30 years, so of course he's been a big influence, but the church has been around for 265), but the church as a whole really attracted them, as it did me and my wife when we first attended. So I'm not sure I'd agree with *that* as a criticism of Doug Wilson.
Very good analysis. I started watching for the more general subject of megachurches/YRR, but ended up really appreciating your points about the personality focus in certain denominations. I particularly found your connecting this to the Reformed, Whitefield, the great revivals, etc, to be interesting.
Hi Dr.
Can you clarify something you said at around 15 minute mark?
It sounded like you said men attempting to emulate the Biblical patriarchy was extreme, and not good.
Can you explain what’s happening exactly, and your position? I’ve not heard of anything like that, and I’d like to know why you seem to condemn it.
What I'm speaking about there is what is called the "Biblical Patriarchy" movement. If you look through the podcast archive, you can find a few programs I have done on the subject.
Thoughts on Presbyterian structure? Would you consider their ecclesiology good?
I think the distinction between teaching and ruling elders is problematic.
@@leepretorius4869 just curious , why so?
@@jgeph2.4 it makes for leadership that are not Primarily teachers
TULIP is false
It definitely has a bunch of checks and balances. So it doesn't lend itself to those errors (our church has twice had to get the regional leadership involved in local church disputes. Unfortunate, but very thankful that option was there), but you could make other criticisms for sure.
Boy is this good Dr. Cooper! Thanks.
Very well stated. Thank you and God's peace be with you
53:33 more Christians need to hear this. It’s pervasive where I live.
Is the type of music used in worship more a theological issue or a cultural issue.
I think it could be both. Churches can use music that have lyrics that highlight the person and not God (Big Me, Little God). But it could also be cultural like the consumer culture. Both can definitely tie in together.
There is nothing in the Bible that talks about the actual style or genre of music, so that is simply a personal preference issue.
What you are singing is far more important than what genre you are singing in.
I will say that we should always be aware of whether or not we are focussed on 'experience' or 'worship'. I see people of every style of worship chasing an 'experience', rather than engaging with God. I feel this is especially prevalent in in CCM concerts, but I know people who would equally do the same with gospel, or even organ lead worship music.
We're not chasing a feeling, or a mood, or an experience. We are trying to collectively engage with God. Sometimes we can experience God through worship, but that isn't something that can be synthesised or deliberately re-created.
I wonder whether Marc Driscoll has even been ordained as a pastor or whether he took that office for himself. I cannot find any information online about he ever being ordained. Does anybody know about that?
I JUST heard out of his own mouth proudly declare that he ordained himself…look up Mars Hill Documentary on UA-cam. The upload I is about 3 months old though the content is older… It’s shocking what happened in the early days. Comment if you can’t find it I’ll return with a link…
I found it: ua-cam.com/video/VuCuMEQXRq0/v-deo.html
@@Seeker0fTruth thank you for the reply. It's really astonishing to me how could anyone consider that Mark Driscoll was actually reformed. We reformed folks have a very clear doctrine of church offices and ordination.
There are a lot of star priests. Barron is a good example. But here in Brazil is terribly full of super-mega priests and mega Romanist church.
Evangelicalism doesn’t help Protestantism at all, because I see that in classical Protestantism (Lutheran/Anglicans…) there actually is unity because of ecclesiology and confessions of faith. But the chaos that there is in evangelicalism is just insane at this point, the issue is more complex than “33 thousand denominations”, like, look at the “KJV only” issue, “dispensationalism”, “only follow Paul not Jesus to get saved, because Jesus earthly ministry was for Jews only”, Calvinism, charismatic non denominational, etc… really a disaster… I like Lutherans tho
Historic Protestantism is dead, from both a numerical and theological point of view. Church of England, Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland, or the "Mainline" Churches in America are the clearest demonstration of this. Global Evangelicalism/Pentecotalism is now driving force within Christianity with already over a billion adherents. Yes, its ecclesiologically fragmented, but so is confessional protestantism. Furthermore, confessional protestantism was never missiologically successful in the global south as it's too dependent on the western European cultural and philosophical tradition (a tradition I deeply cherish). But I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I just fundamentally disagree that we can simply go back to an idealized classic protestantism and all our problems would be solved.
Wait... white robe? I usually associate Lutherans with a black robe more than a white one
Excellent!
Enjoying this episode. Perhaps in the future you can do an episode with the problems you c in conservative Lutheran churches. And also address the issue of the poor sermon quality in Lutheran Church. how it’s basically a 10-15 minute devotional and not the preaching that one reads in Walthers sermons
Please, come on. How anyone, with any intellectual honesty could oppose biblical patriarchy is stunning. Of course Christianity is patriarchal, it is headed by "the Heavenly Father" for goodness sake. And, as you know, the classic, orthodox understanding of the divine Persons is rooted in the divine relations, hence the "Father" eternally begets the Son. So, these are essential, eternal names. All of Christian trinitarian orthodoxy collapses without the Father and divine patriarchy. The New Testament notion of gender relations is also overwhelmingly rooted in the creation assertion that woman was made for man and not man for woman. If anything we have learned from the debacle of Afghanistan is that without Christian benevolent patriarchy, society collapses into Muslim hyper-patriarchy or anarchy. The feminist paradigm of the last 50 years died in Kabul. There were no "girl-power" super heroes to rescue Afghan women, only Western men.
The Gospel declares all human individuals eqalitarian. Old testament make a difference between people which NT does not do. But, creation is not nihilated, thera are differences between men and women.
Question - does God ever use a process that is completely unrelated to the Lutheran process you outlined? The Lutheran process seems wise and has checks and balances, but has God ever done another method, for example in countries where there is no Lutheran church presence?
I wouldn’t lump John piper in with someone who played on celebrity… his book “brothers we’re not professionals” is a direct attack on these issues.. you had the same issues in the 80s and same issues in the 90s it’s just American style of leadership and that’s is a large part of the problem.. I wanted many times to say to the Podcasters that produced it, “ hey your egalitarianIsm is showing” .. the subtle and subversive way they approached that was distasteful.. having Counseled many single and married men over the years those issues are real for men I would agree.
High culture? Why did I think you liked punk rock music? Didn't one of your videos show that interest of yours? Lol. Just saying, we all like different things.
Yeah. I'm just weird.
@@DrJordanBCooper We all are. All good. I still appreciate your perspectives and what you share. Keep on.
Personally I like rock and metal. Not satanic stuff of course. But for church I prefer hymns. Not contemporary.
That is one of my biggest issues with the Reformed, for having the "Doctrines of Grace" they have very little grace.
@M. M67
1. Dr. Cooper is just plain wrong that being Reformed is somehow more conducive to being sucked up into the “celebrity pastor” craze. He took a movement (The Young, Restless, and Reformed), found some bad eggs in that nest, and then pointed out that they “were ALL Reformed.” Cooper has a huge chip on his shoulder when it comes to Calvinists.
2. I could introduce you to a boatload of Calvinists who are some of the sweetest, kindest, warmest, humblest people you’ve ever met. And I could show you plenty of folks from other groups who are just plain ornery and insensitive and arrogant. As stereotypes go, this one is way less true than most and should be let go. No denomination or faith tradition has a monopoly on niceness…or meanness. Let it go.
@@HannahClapham your first point is well taken as I think it's American culture in general that like celebrity culture. On your second point you are engaging in the"you too fallacy" just because you can point to another group that did the same thing does not negate what is being said. With that said I would point out that stereotypes are usually obtained for a reason though they are often exaggerated.
@M. M67
I have rubbed elbows with thousands of Christians of every stripe imaginable. What I’m telling you is that it is incontrovertible that this particular stereotype (that the Reformed are ungracious) is not an “exaggerated truth,” but an out-and-out lie.
@@HannahClapham ok well I'm glad where you live the Reformed are more charitable than the places I have lived.
Would you say MacArthur is apart of that new calvinism movement?
Respectfully, contra to your thesis, Dr. Cooper, regarding institutional ecclesiology and overall religiosity: Look at Europe, where Sacral Churches predominate and you find stale, dead religion with huge non-believing populations. In the opposite direction, the American South is the most Christian part of the country where Sacral churches never predominated outside of the landed gentry.
There are problems with both models of Christian ecclesiology, so to blame what happened in New England on the Puritans is probably not accurate. I would say theological liberalism in the form of higher criticism was the biggest problem, which is why the low churches in the South have historically been most resistant to liberal drift due to lack of exposure to HC.
Actual conversion does matter too, though I agree that we need more confessional and liturgical ecclesiology in the evangelical world to help mitigate celebrity culture.
I don't think he was saying that establishment state-religion is the ideal ecclesiology. Far from it, that simply avoids the question by relying on governmental sanction for validity.
Dr. Cooper was critiquing a particular brand of low-church ecclesiology that does not value the the idea of an empirical church with various structures that pre-exists our monkeying with it. Men that "feel called" and so started a church without any call from that local congregation or ordination by the broader church (bishops, presbyteries), no accountability structural or doctrinal. That's what he's attacking.
@Dr. Bob
Excellent observations.
Megachurches and other celebrity-driven congregations tend to be led by Baptists, Charismatics, and Word-Faith practitioners…NOT Calvinists. If there is a unifying theme, it is modern Pietism/Revivalism, which tends towards an unbalanced focus on purely subjective aspects of the gospel.
The First Great Awakening has virtually nothing to do with it. American Evangelicalism is much more a product of the emotion-driven Second Great Awakening. New England’s “burned over” character has to do with New School/New Light groups going liberal (as you pointed out) and by the excesses of Charles Finney and his ilk.
Old School/Old Light folks and anti-Pietistic Lutherans (like Dr. Cooper here) have led to a great deal of “dead orthodoxy” in the Midwest. One corrective (for both extremes) might be the Puritan balance of head, heart, and hand: orthodoxy complemented by orthopathy rounded out by orthopraxy.
As you mentioned, conversion IS indeed important. And by that I don’t mean hyper-emotionalism, but instead, authentic repentance and faith accompanied by a warmth of hospitality for the brethren and a fierceness of compassion for the lost and the hurting.
The reason European churches seem dead and stale is because people want to be entertained and have their ears tickled. They want to feel good, not admonished in a godly way. They want to get something out of it but are not willing to put anything into it. I see that happening here in the States as well. Churches are closing because people expect to be coddled and not instructed. These people have no clue as to who God really is and unfortunately, someday they will find out but it will forever too late.
The new centers of Christianity have already shifted towards Brazil, Nigeria, Korea etc...where denominational or independent Pentecostalism is the dominant tradtion. While I deeply value confessional protestantism (and even Catholicism and Orthodoxy). Its naive to think that we can simply pretend that we are in 16th century northern Europe (or even 4th century Asia minor).
I'm happy to support but God hasn't yet put me in the financial situation to do so. Might even have to cancel worldvision soon. Ah well. God's in charge.
Another church besides Wilson's group, that has people moving to from all over, is Jeff Durbin's Apologia Church. There are some big personalities in that church also.
I do personally still listen to both of those gentlemen though, despite everything. There is something very enjoyable in the way teachers in those groups act and teach.
It's probably the lack of nuance.
I joke, but one has to admit that they are men who very boldly declare what they believe to be the truth. In every issue. There is no soft-pedaling. I find it very hard not to admire it even when I disagree.
I remember listening to one of apologia’s “cultish” podcast, and the guest said how he and his wife moved from Texas to Arizona. The reason was to hear pastor James white preach every Sunday and it was pretty disturbing to hear.
The paradox of a Lutheran critiquing Driscol or Wilson for celebrity mentality, institutions revolving around one individual, and aggresive self defense/attacking others is genuinely breathtaking----Martin Luther himself pioneered all these methodologies.
Hmm, it seems that at the time of Luther there were these other guys who engaged in revolving churches and dioceses around themselves, glorifying themselves, demanding obeisance to their theological whims, oh gosh, what were they called? Bishops? Cardinals? Something like that. Oh, and then there was the true narcissist among all those bishops and cardinals as I recall. He was called a pope or something of the sort.
@@pete3397
This is simply a whataboutism, I am afraid.
@@felixguerrero6062 Yet it is still very true and completely accurate. You cannot call out Luther while ignoring the manifest self-aggrandizement and bastardization of the holy faith that the bishops and popes have perpetuated over time. There's really no comparison and waving it away by weakly offering up the lame non-argument of "whataboutism" is simply just another Roman apolgists burying his head in the sand to avoid dealing with the manifest, replete, and virutally pereptual errors of the papal aristocracy of Rome.
@@pete3397
"But, but Rome bad..." is not argument, it is just an attempt to derail the conversation.
Cooper engages in a bad faith critique of Driscoll and especially Wilson, accusing them of the very defining features of the man that started his own tradition. While, I appreciated his broader historical analysis. These attacks are sloppy and demonstrate a lack of theological self awareness. God bless.
Except Saddleback is still going strong, and the young restlessband reformed movement is dead already.
When Warren retires it’s over…
@@Athabrose Why does it matter? His influence through all the people he has led to Christ and taught will go on. The books he wrote will continue to be read, his sermons replayed.
I’m not at all sure that established, hierarchical ecclesiologies are not as rife with power-hunger, narcissism, inflexibility, and human imaginings as small fiefdoms ruled by a single celebrity. They’re all pretty awash in machismo and egotism and narrow-minded dogmatism.
For you taking on some dude like this ... i know it's close to your heart emotionally ... but at this point in your career taking on a guy like this is ... well punching above below your weight class ... this kind of reminds me of when Mike Horton went after Joel Osteen ... ok maybe that one was even worse, but you get my point. There are so many self-centered pastors even in small churches. I take public criticism of other ministers to be very harmful ... seems unnecessary. I mean if there are legitimate biblical charges that should be brought against them, then there are proper channels do deal with this.
For someone of your caliber, I just feel topics like this are not edifying and are a distraction. Ok maybe the most appealing thing to our family about Lutheranism is it's devotional nature and not attacking other denominations or specific pastors. Your work is too important to be wasted on criticism of other ministers. They will answer to God for their ministries. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy. Keep focused on Christ crucified and resurrected for us.
Actually, public heresies or false teachings call for public rebuke. If these men had listened to private critiques years ago then that is preferable and awesome- the issue Is that they didn't. Paul explicitly tells us to call out charlatans and false teachers.
Also, the very issue with churches with no Ecclesiastical structure is that they have no "proper channels" to handle or accept critique. That is the primary problem at hand, period.
I find it a bit ironic that you are a pastor of the church that started Christianity down this path. The fire of disunity that Luther lit was always destined to lead to this - and much worse such as heresies and liberal Christians that don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. Yes the Catholic Church in the 1,500s needed some reforms (which happened), but it did not need to be split.
The split was Rome's fault. Stop
Blaming Luther! Blame the modern heretics don't blame Luther who wanted pure doctrine more so than Rome did. You're barking up the wrong tree
@@Dilley_G45 exactly.
It was already split by the Pope before Luther was born. Ask the Orthodox. They say RCC is in heresy. Repent!