Why I Left Chesapeake Community Church in Joppa, MD

Nicole and I have left Chesapeake Community Church, and some of our friends have asked why. Considering the circumstances surrounding our leaving (and the confusion some friends have expressed regarding it) I’ve decided to address the matter here.

You see, I’ve been in discussions with the pastors (regarding tithing) since our pre-membership interview with Jason Reyes (soon to be the new senior pastor of Covenant of Grace Church in Akron, OH). Sadly, they didn’t bother to even try to answer my questions until they found out that I had posted my thoughts on the tithe here at my blog. Even then, I was met with a general unwillingness to discuss my questions and concerns; rather, the conversation was continually focused on challenging my lack of trust in and respect for them. They couldn’t understand how my trust was largely dependent on their actions and approaches to my questions. You see, I did trust them when I joined Chesapeake in November of 2005. It was only after months of evading and ignoring my questions that I began to get exasperated with them. In the meantime, other things appeared on the radar that only added to my unease and distrust:

  • The pastors paid themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2006 (according to their own financial statement), while giving roughly $18,000 as “benevolence.” When asked about this, their response was that the issued Statement was not an accurate reflection of their financial activity.
  • The pastors refused to support from the general fund–or even to collect a “special offering” for–a family in the congregation with known serious financial needs. Meanwhile, they collected a special offering to cover moving expenses for two pastors.
  • Jim Cannon (the senior pastor) personally told me in front of Jason Reyes and a Care Group leader that his preference was for my membership status to be reevaluated should I choose not to tithe to him. Later, to illustrate his rationale for this, he drew parallels with a wife not trusting her husband to handle their money. But when I pointed out that I wouldn’t/shouldn’t/couldn’t Biblically divorce my wife over such a matter, his response was that a church membership wasn’t like a marriage.
  • Jim also told me that in his study of the tithe, he had considered no extra-biblical writings on the subject of tithing penned before the Protestant Reformation. Thus, all early “Church Fathers” epistles, the Didache, Josephus’ writings, and any other works which could have shed first-hand light on how the early church viewed tithing… were ignored.
  • Jim’s response was to call me a “freeloader” and claim that I had “integrity issues” when I told the pastors that not giving to Chesapeake was a matter of conscience: they had collected over $850,000 last year with, as I said before, only $18,000 (2.5%) going to those in need. (I took the money I would have given them, and instead gave it to organizations like Compassion International and Blood:Water Mission.)

And in the midst of all this, the pastors tried to shut down an evangelistic effort from a Godly man in the congregation—to spend time with some other Christian men in a pub, where they could interact with people on “neutral territory” and begin to develop relationships with them. The pastors also forbade this man to pass out copies of a Mark Driscoll book to his Christian friends until Jim had approved it, and they almost banned the men in our Care Group from going on a camping trip they were organizing. Why? Because they wouldn’t get back in time for the Sunday morning service.

From what I’ve seen, Sovereign Grace Church in Joppa, MD (their new name, as of September 12th) isn’t a local church. It really bears far more resemblance to a cult:

  • The leaders are domineering and in some areas tyrannical;
  • they have tried in numerous ways to psychologically manipulate the congregation;
  • they demand trust rather than desiring to show themselves worthy of it;
  • they are frightened of “their” people being exposed to “non-approved” books and ideas.

So that’s why I left. I tried to reason with them for nearly two years, but it has proven fruitless. The pastors are content to continue as they have, and it’s just become too heavy a burden. It’s kind of depressing, because I love the people I know at Chesapeake, but with the mindset that many people seem to have (that “we must attend the same church or else we can’t be friends”) it seems it’ll be extremely difficult to maintain our relationships.

So where is the Seitler family headed? I don’t know, but I’m definitely scarred from (and scared of) this overbearing leadership, and so we’re probably looking more toward a house church than toward any other “model.” In the meantime, we’ve actually enjoyed greater fellowship with other believers in the past few weeks than we had when we were in “the club”–and it was mostly due to opportunities that wouldn’t have been available to us if we were attending Sunday morning meetings and Wednesday night meetings and…

UPDATE #2: The post I linked “moving expenses” to (on a blog written by Jason Reyes’ wife Laurie) has been removed since my post appeared here this morning. Just to show you there really *was* a post there (and to let you still read it), here’s a screenshot of Laurie’s Delete Post from within Google Reader. It was the only place with a copy still available.

And here’s larger versions of the six pictures from that post (including the last one, which Jason’s actually in): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

I guess this is just another example of their tendency to cover things up instead of dealing with them.

UPDATE #2: Laurie now has a video on YouTube showing the house.

UPDATE #3: What do I mean by “cult”? Find out here.

To submit every tradition

"The hallmark of an authentic evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions, but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh Biblical scrutiny and, if necessary, reform" (John Stott, "Basic Stott," Christianity Today, Jan.8, 1996)

This quote was cited in The Problem With Preaching, a year-old article I just discovered. The author says this:

"Preaching" as it is practiced in churches today (& in the past) has little biblical basis—the "preaching" that occurs is extra-biblical (outside the bible). In the New Testament, preaching was always linked to preaching of the gospel or kingdom to those that are outside or on the edge of the kingdom—the Greek verbs used in the NT to portray preaching are found overwhelmingly in situations which are outside church meetings and evangelistic in nature. In contrast, in our churches today we "preach to the choir"—most people sitting in churches listening to sermons are Christians, and most have been there listening to sermons for many years—our preaching is actually teaching about Christianity to a predominantly Christian audience, week after week for the rest of their lives.

He lays out a pretty strong case for his stance, and I’d recommend y’all read this article—if for nothing else than to get a fresh perspective on something we typically take for granted in the Church.

The Saints are Kings and Priests

It is a severe violation of the adult conscience to treat the saints as children under the over-lordship of elders. The ultimate effect of treating the saints as children is that they will either remain children in their understanding as they submit to bondage, or they will rebel. Elders exercise appropriate authority as fathers within their own households, but their role in the assembly is not as fathers and lords over children and servants, but as elder brothers in the faith and humble servants to the whole.

Source: Steve Atkerson, New Testament Church Leadership

What Makes for a Strong Leader?

Then the Elder continued, “What if a truly strong leader is one who is un-threatened enough to actually, honestly listen to the input of those around them, precisely because (a) they are secure in their identity in Christ, and (b) they know they need the voices of others to adequately hear what God is saying to the whole group? What if the ‘weak’ leader is really the one who insists on his or her own personal vision, and is too threatened to consider the voices of anyone else?”

“Maybe it takes more cajones to NOT insist on the leader’s ‘vision’, or ‘strategy’, and to trust that the Spirit speaks through the Body, hmm?”, he asked, gesturing with open hands.

Source: Robby Mac, Through The Looking-Glass

Our Modern Way of Meeting (NTRF)

A buddy of mine pointed me to this house-church website, and I found quite the funny (because it’s so true) paraphrasing of the meeting regulations in :

How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, the pastor hath a doctrine, and the minister of music hath psalms. Let all things be done unto edifying. If anyone besides the pastor hath a doctrine, let him not speak; let him hold his peace. Let him sit in the pew, and face the back of the neck of the person which sitteth ahead of him. Let the people keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith church tradition. But if they will learn anything, let them ask their pastor after the service, for it is a shame for a layman to speak in the church. For the pastor, he hath a seminary degree, and the layman, he hath not so lofty a degree. If any man desire to remain a church member in good standing, let him acknowledge that what I write to you is the command of the denominational headquarters. But if any man ignore this, he shall be promptly escorted out the door by the ushers. Wherefore brothers, covet not to speak in the church. Let all things be done decently and in the order in which it hath been written in the church bulletin.

How to Have a New Testament Church Meeting

Mother’s Day Weekend

Relaxing on Mother's Day Weekend

We had a really nice Mother’s Day weekend this year! On Saturday, we bundled up the kids and a picnic lunch and moseyed on over to Spring Lake Park. We’d only ever been to the “lake” side of it before, so the open grass and the quiet creek were wonderful. (More photos at Flickr.)

On Sunday we decided to pass on message #2 of Chesapeake’s building fund series and instead visit a nearby congregation. (See, we’re really bad about driving 30 miles to attend Sunday services and not having a clue who the believers are within a 2-mile radius of our apartment.) Timonium UMC got the short straw, so we went over there and checked things out.

Wow.

It’s one thing for a church to think it’s okay for women to serve in pastoral roles… but I saw a number of appointed leaders in there yesterday morning, and not a single one was a man. (The men were either in deacon roles or just not there.) If that wasn’t enough of a shocker for me, they had the kids come up for a kiddie sermonette on Acts 16 where they were told that Lydia had her husband and kids baptized and pastored a church in her home. Needless to say, Katie got some of Papa Bear’s personal commentary on that passage at lunchtime. Maybe I’ll post my thoughts on it later, but suffice it to say, I think there was no small part of eisegesis in what was told to the kids.

The really nice part about visiting that church, though, is that we were back home by 11am (where we usually get back after 1pm). We couldn’t get over how much longer the day felt because of that, so we went driving around later, looking at houses for sale.

Mini-Review: Confessions of a Reformission Rev.

There is much in this book that is edifying. It helped me understand Mark Driscoll and showed how he grew a megachurch in a largely unchurched city in only eight years. He is clearly a passionate, focused man who is genuinely seeking hard after God. He has much to offer the church. I wonder, though, how long his message will be heard as long as it is wrapped in a sometimes vulgar, always sarcastic, package. It may endear him to some, but it will surely alienate him from far more. —Tim Challies @ Challies.com

Driscoll seems very reflective on the way his church runs. He writes about his epiphanies he has and how things in the church needs to change. He certainly is dynamic, not in his writing, probably in his speech, but more so in the way he kicks the church into movement. —Kevin @ Tension Treatises

After the firestorm that erupted among Godbloggers last year over some of the contents of this book, I’ve been following Mark Driscoll (and listening to his sermons via podcast). The guy who I used to know only as “Mark the Cussing Pastor” (thanks to Blue Like Jazz) is quite a character, but this book showed me just how much he’s gone through. This ain’t no spring chicken on the church growth scene; he’s perhaps been through fiercer battles than most small-town preachers will ever see. In and through all of that, he’s being forged into a pillar of the Church, mark my words.

And that’s what this book is all about: it’s an autobiographical take on Mark’s work with Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. He walks us through the good an bad times he’s experienced during his tenure there. I’d say not only is this book great for pastors looking for some inspiration or encouragement, but church members would do well to read this and understand just how rough it can be to pastor a church.

Some people have complained about how Driscoll talks about some things in the book, but honestly? I consider the transparency in here a breath of fresh air – it’s a level of authenticity rarely reached by clergy, who all too often seem to prefer erring on the side of hypocrisy. I mean, the way I see it discretion is just plain way overdone among pastors these days. (It’s worse than the upper management in large corporations, where every little statement has to be scrutinized by a team of lawyers before it’s released to the public.) Driscoll just isn’t afraid of the potential backlash for telling it like it really is, and I respect him for that.

What Does the Bible Say About Tithing?

That’s a question I’ve been asking over the past year. I basically grew up with a “10% of all gross income goes in the offering plate” understanding of Christian giving… but that changed about a year ago, when I began to study the topic in earnest.

For instance, one thing that constantly trips up modern-day Christians is that we fail to remember that the Law given to Moses did not merely outline a religious system… it was a constitution establishing a nation’s government. Thus, we need not only to discern which laws were sacrificial in nature (as Christians, we hold that Jesus Christ is our atonement and makes all other sacrifices—and thus all laws requiring sacrifices—moot), but also whether certain laws were governmental or sacramental in nature. While this may be a simple process with the laws of a “secular” nation, it can get difficult when you’re dealing with a theocracy.

My studies keep drawing me to the same conclusion: God’s eternal Law of Love compels us to serve the poor, but the tithe laws were a form of taxation, and served as the welfare system for Ancient Israel. Thus, these laws only apply to those under the Old Covenant living in geographical Israel.

Deuteronomy 15:7-11 (which I wrote about recently) provides the framework for all God-glorifying giving, and serves as the “spirit of the law” regarding money, possessions and neighbors:

If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye [be evil toward] your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be [evil] when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

The tithes, while a sacrifice to the LORD, were arranged in such a way as to serve as the particular fulfillment of this command with regards to the Levites (as God forbade them from owning land, cf. Deut. 18:1-8), as well as other poor in the Israelites’ midst (Deut. 14:22-29). Additionally, not only here but also in Nehemiah’s time (after two months of working daily with wood, stone, etc. to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem), the reinstated tithe consisted solely of agricultural produce (Neh. 10:35-39).

Now when you begin to question the tithe, the knee-jerk response you often get is a quote from The Most Overused Tithe Verse In The Bible: “Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions.” Congratulations, you have now been labeled a God-robber! However, this is neither faithful exegesis nor Biblical correction. It’s simply propaganda and browbeating. To show you that this is the case, let me share the entire passage with you, and pay attention to what I emphasize:

Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the LORD of hosts. Then all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land of delight, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:8-12, ESV)

Let me make it perfectly clear: the tithes were never about collecting money for the Temple. Tithing was the means by which a food bank was kept for the poor and needy in Israel.

There is only one passage in all of Scripture which speaks of money in relation to the tithe: Deuteronomy 14:22-29. However, the money is never actually given to the Levite. Rather, it is used only as a convenient form of transport for those who must travel a long distance. Once the tither arrives at Jerusalem, he is commanded to convert the money back into food, strong drink (beer), etc. and to consume these items with the Levite, sojourner, fatherless and widow (that is, those without such provision). And you know what? Jesus mentioned something much like this in Luke’s gospel:

[Jesus] said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:12-14, ESV)

Never, all in Scripture, is a tithe used to pay building and maintenance expenses for a meeting-house or clergy. The tithe is food, and it’s used to feed people—period. Freewill offerings (and/or perhaps a modern-day equivalent to Nehemiah’s “temple tax”) are the only Biblically-approved source of income from which such things as Equipment Upgrades, Insurance, Janitorial Services, Payroll Expenses, Repairs and Maintenance, Utilities, Mortgages, etc. are to be paid.

In contrast to the Old Covenant system, Paul set aside any pastoral “right” to live off the ministry and instead worked additional jobs to provide for his own expenses. He reasoned that he stood to gain no heavenly reward from “simply” preaching the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:15) and must go out of his way to make it a completely free gift if he were to receive anything from the Father because of his work. However, if Paul were simply a “New Covenant priest” he would have been leading the churches into sin by causing them to break God’s Law which required a community to feed its Levites (again, Deut. 18:1-8). Thus, we can infer that Paul did not believe these laws were binding for ministers of the Gospel.

That being the case, a Christian pastor ought not presume to live off of the tithes of his people. If a tithe is requested of the congregation, then Biblically it needs to be food, and it needs to be distributed to people who need food. (Which is to say, faithful application of the tithe laws requires the establishment of a congregational food bank.) Beyond that, there is no Biblical requirement to “lay [any] money at the [pastors'] feet.” (It is certainly encouraged as the decent thing to do for a chap who has given his whole lives to serving you and yours spiritually… but it’s not required.) In and 4, the money laid at the apostles’ feet was “distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-35). Likewise, the money collected on Paul’s behalf from the Church in Macedonia, Achaia, and Corinth was going directly to feed the Christians in Jerusalem who were suffering through a famine—not to line his personal “chariot fund.” And of course a meeting-house is nice, but depleting a collected tithe to fund it—or even to keep it lit and climate-controlled—is unbiblical.

So if I don’t think the tithe applies to us today, does that mean I can get away with not giving anything? God forbid! On the contrary, I believe Christians are to “sell [their] possessions, and give to the needy” (Luke 12:33), but are not bound by a 10-33% annual tithe to modern-day Levites per se. The sacrificial system is no longer binding, but I am still bound by the perfect Law of Love: specifically, to “love [my] neighbor as [myself],” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, etc.) and thus to “remember the poor” (Gal. 2:10), “open wide [my] hand to [my] brother, to the needy and to the poor, in [my] land” (Deut. 15:11), “bear with the failings of the weak, and not… please [myself]“ (Rom. 15:1-3, cf. vv. 25-27), and to “contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality” (Rom. 12:13) “that there may be fairness” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15). Sometimes fairness means giving 1%, sometimes 99%.

But the most ironic thing about my tithe law studies is that some of those who are being commanded to “tithe” (give 10% of your gross income) to “the church” (really meaning “the pastors”) are actually poor enough that the pastors are required by God’s Word to be tithing to them.

So in conclusion: Christians are commanded to give to the poor and needy in our midst, but we are not bound by tithe laws. However, even if one were convinced that Christians must tithe, a faithful reading of Scripture insists the tithe be used to feed the poor. It is wholly foreign to the Word of God to use a tithe on buildings, utilities, vacations, insurance or even clothing.

Tritt for Sheriff 2006

Dave Tritt is a wonderful guy. We’re in the same care group at my church, and I’ve gotten to see up-close how Dave is with his wife, children and friends. He’s kind and gentle, but you can tell he’s got firm convictions. This guy ain’t no pushover! (He’s also a father of eight, so he knows how to handle large groups of people!) I’m always impressed with Dave’s eagerness to pray for anyone he can, and he’s definitely got a heart to serve.

Dave is currently running for Harford County (MD) Sheriff… as I’m a Baltimore County resident, it’s not looking like he’ll be able to get a vote from me. I figure maybe if I can at least get his site to show up on Google or something, that’ll make up for it. ;) If not, I guess I’ll just have to move to Harford County in time to update my voter registration…

The New Puritans? Not.

I was just reading an article on The Observer titled, “Just Say ‘No’, in which they claim a generation of “new Puritans” are rising up.

But can they really be called Puritans? Yes, they eschew certain pleasures; yes, they want others to do so as well… but the article is clearly playing off of the modern Puritanical stereotype, rather than what the Puritans really were.

In fact, just yesterday I passed along to David Gerstein a page about John Winthrop, which summarizes the “Puritan Distinctives” this way:

The Puritans’ devotion manifested itself in three important ways.

First, they believed that man should be in the world but not of the world. The believer’s true home is not on earth but in heaven, so he must be careful not to lose his heart to the all the things that this world has to offer–pleasures, material wealth, achievement, human love, and so on. On the other hand, the goodness of the things that God created should not be denied. There is nothing wrong with enjoying good food, music, love for your spouse, sports or recreation–as long as you don’t become frivolous and crowd God out your heart.

Second, they believed that man has a duty to use to the fullest extent all of the talents and abilities that God has given him. They were strong supporters of education. They worked hard in their professions and became doctors, lawyers, scholars, businessmen, and statesmen. They didn’t believe in doing anything halfheartedly. If something was worth doing, then the man should do it with his best effort for the glory of God.

The third conviction that made the Puritans unique was their belief that God’s covenant promises in the Old Testament did not just apply to ancient Israel, but to every society and every generation. These promises are well summarized in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” If any nation observed God’s laws and commands, God would give protection, prosperity, and the spiritual blessings of knowing him and living as his people. On the other hand, if a people rejected God’s decrees and turned to idolatry and sin, God would eventually reject them. The Puritans of seventeenth-century England were greatly concerned about the future of their nation; they saw the corruption of government and church officials, growing immorality, materialism, and lack of concern for the poor as signs that their nation would either have to repent or experience the cleansing fire of God’s wrath.

Why do the Puritans have such a bad reputation in modern times? [...] I believe the fundamental reason why the twentieth century looks down on the Puritans is that the secular mind cannot understand the satisfaction and joy that comes from serving God wholeheartedly. [...] Much of the modern criticism of Puritans stems from the American appetite for over-indulgence. It also stems from the fact that to those who have no hope in heaven, this world is all there is.

First and foremost, being a Puritan is about the supremacy of God. God is the “chief end,” the “be all and end all” of life. Thus, a Puritan will pass on things like getting drunk, sleeping around, cheating on his tax return, etc., because he knows those actions to be at odds with living a life dedicated to savoring and trumpeting the glory and majesty of Jesus Christ. No other motive leads to Puritanism.

I have some good news, though: there is a new generation of Puritans rising up. You won’t find them slashing SUV tires, though. You’ll find them here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.