Strategy, gaslighting, and manipulation in Calvinist churches
[I'll be posting the bigger posts every other week from now on for awhile.]
When a Calvinist church starts losing people because of things like bad theology (Calvinism), a domineering pastor with a negative and shaming tone, the same repeated sermons over and over again, gaslighting and manipulation, the suffocation of spirits and strangling of faith under the pastor's theology/leadership, etc.... what's a Calvinist pastor to do, especially when key people are leaving (central, well-loved, heavily-involved, long-term members/employees whom everyone knows, likes, and respects), and other people are starting to notice and talk about it?
I've got an idea, Calvinist pastor! You could strategically preach about "church hurt" around the same time (let's say, hypothetically, on a random date such as, maybe, May 11, 2025😉) which makes it seem like those who leave a church because of "church hurt" are in the wrong. That might work.
You could preach about...
... how when God calls us "sheep" it's not a compliment or a term of endearment, but it's an insult - because it means that we average church-members have a terrible sense of direction, wander away easily, have extreme herd mentality and will blindly follow others into even dangerous places, are extremely stubborn and very hard to get to turn around, are easily spooked, difficult to lead, easy prey for predators, are severe creatures of the moment, are the dumbest animals out there, and are terribly smelly. (You want church members to feel sufficiently ashamed of their dumb, rebellious, stubborn, stinky little selves so that they distrust other church members, themselves, and their own judgment - because then they'll more easily trust you to lead them and to tell them how to think.)...
... how those who've been hurt by bad leading in a church must remember that no one is perfect, not even church leaders...
... how dropping out of a church fellowship is sad, unfortunate, undesirable, risky... no, not strong enough, so how about deadly (yeah, let's go with deadly)! And remind them that those who leave a church are damaging themselves, their families, and future generations...
... how those who have been hurt by the church must repent of their bitterness towards the church and those who hurt them.
Make it seem like those who leave are the problem and can't be trusted - because then the rest of the church won't have to take their concerns or complaints seriously.
[And you could even give a sermon someday (maybe in, say, September 2019) about how we must be part of a local, officially-organized church, and about how it only qualifies as "a church" if we meet weekly, have leaders, collect tithe, practice baptism and communion and church discipline, and if we submit to the recognized leaders. And so Bible studies, watching online, small home-churches, and para-church ministries don't count. (Which would make me wonder, though, how you would judge Chinese underground home-churches?) You might even say - and this is just a suggestion - that we need to be "all in" with our local church, that we must come at least three times a month, that we must prioritize church events over non-church events (school activities, sports events, etc.), and that, once again, we must submit to the recognized leaders. In fact, keep the focus not on the responsibility of the leaders to shepherd the church wisely, according to God's Word, and not on the church members' responsibility to double-check the pastor against God's Word to make sure they are teaching biblical truth... but keep the focus on the church members' responsibility to submit to the leaders, regardless of what they teach and how they lead. Yeah, that sounds good.]
And, hopefully, most people in the church won't recognize it as a strategically-timed sermon with an agenda, or as damage-control, gaslighting, excusing bad leadership, manipulating people to be afraid of questioning/leaving their church, or preconditioning them to distrust and look down on anyone who does question it or leave it.
Hopefully, they'll simply think it's merely a coincidence that you're giving a sermon like that around the same time that well-loved, long-term members are leaving because of your theology and leadership (well, actually, because they were basically told they had to leave, hypothetically)?
But me? I would say:
2. This article says that if you agree with the non-Calvinist view of the Bible, you are "unsuspecting and uneducated" and are like those who "rely on the supermarket tabloids as your reliable source of news." (See "My review of a Calvinist review of an Anti-Calvinist book.")
3. John Calvin is even more harsh in his condemnation of those who disagree with his theology: "... what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God. [He's equating his doctrine of election with the authority of God.]... Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine." (Institutes, book 1, ch. 18, sec. 3)
4. And John MacArthur tries to top Calvin's harshness (in God's Absolute Sovereignty): "No doctrine is more despised by the natural mind than the truth that God is absolutely sovereign. Human pride loathes the suggestion that God orders everything, controls everything, rules over everything. The carnal mind, burning with enmity against God, abhors the biblical teaching that nothing comes to pass except according to His eternal decrees. Most of all, the flesh hates the notion that salvation is entirely God’s work... believers deserve no credit for their salvation."
5. Our pastor's adult Calvinist son gave a rather smug, condescending, preachy sermon about God's sovereignty on February 10, 2019: "[Some of you] cannot get past the troubling implications of this doctrine [of God's sovereignty]. [It's only troubling when you misunderstand it, like Calvinists do.]... The doctrine of God's sovereignty is not an easy one for me either... For one thing, if God is in control in the way I believe the Bible teaches, it must mean that I am not in control. And my sinful little self does not want to be told that. It turns out my sinful little self is quite infatuated with autonomy... The doctrine of God's sovereignty collides with my delusional love of me." [Well, Calvinist, then maybe you and your sinful little self need to get together and read the Bible more closely, without Calvinist glasses on, to see what the Bible really teaches about God and how He acts in His sovereign position! And how cute to keep saying "my sinful little self" when you really mean "your sinful little self" if we disagree with you.😒]
6. John Piper ("Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election") says this about those who resist the Calvinist "doctrine of election": "... [the doctrine of election] is one of the best ways to test whether we have reversed roles with God... The doctrine of election is one very effective test of whether you are being delivered from the indigenous ocean of arrogance in the modern world, or are still drenched to the bone."
8. From "Why do some people so passionately hate Calvinism": "they hate the idea that they are not in control... Simply put, they want to think that they are fully in control of their own eternal destiny."
9. J.I. Packer ("Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility") says that a root cause of why some Christians reject the Calvinist "doctrine of sovereignty" is that we have a "reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men" and that we subject Scripture to our own human logic and cut out things from the Bible that our "perverse minds" can't handle. He also says this to those who have a problem with Calvinism's contradictions: "What should one do, then, with [the Calvinist contradiction that even though God ordains/decrees sin, He is not responsible for it but man is]?... Accept it for what it is, and learn to live with it. Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real; put down the semblance of contradiction to the deficiency of your own understanding; think of the two principles as, not rival alternatives, but, in some way that at present you do not grasp, complementary to each other... To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable. It sounds like a contradiction, and our first reaction is to complain that it is absurd... [But] observe how Paul replies... he rebukes the spirit of the question. 'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'... Creatures are not entitled to register complaints about their Creator."
"'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?'... Creatures are not entitled to register complaints about their Creator"...
This is a Calvinist pastor's way of saying "Shut up, don't oppose me, and just fall in line with everyone else - because disagreeing with me is disagreeing with God."
And "Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real"?
"Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real"?
"Refuse to regard the apparent inconsistency as real"???
A textbook example of gaslighting!
In fact, it doesn't get more "gaslighting" than that!
And he even says that "those who continue to cavil against [Calvinism] and steadfastly refuse any part of the truth, are not entitled to be regarded as Christians."
Who's gonna question or disagree with Calvinism or stand up against a Calvinist pastor when this is how Calvinists precondition people to view those who disagree with Calvinism?
This kind of strategic shaming, manipulation, and gaslighting will effectively make most people fall in line, causing them to shut off their critical-thinking skills and just let the pastor tell them what to think, while they ignore or rationalize any alarm bells or red flags that pop up.
Because if they began to heed those alarm bells and red flags... if they began to analyze the Calvinist contradictions and take them seriously, instead of brushing them aside... if they began to deeply study the Bible for themselves, comparing what the pastor says against the plain reading of Scripture, in context... if they began to think through what the pastor is really teaching, carrying it all out to its natural and inevitable conclusions... then they might realize that they actually disagree with the pastor, which could result not only in others thinking of them as a bad Christian, but it could also result in them having to relearn everything they thought they knew, having to take a stand against church leaders and friends, and, potentially, having to walk away from their church and their whole social circle if they realize that they cannot stay in a church that teaches those things.
And they just can't risk it. There's too much to lose. It's easier just to shut up and fall in line and not think about it too much.
"Oh, but it doesn't really matter what we believe about these 'minor, secondary' issues, does it? And isn't it like a top commandment or something that we shouldn't be divisive over 'little' things, that we should all be unified no matter what?"
And so no one speaks up. They all just sweep it under the rug, ignore the elephant in the room, and put their arms around each other and sing "Kumbaya" in united bliss. [It seems to me that the ones who call the most for "unity" are the Calvinists, because they need us to shut up and stay in the church long enough for them to brainwash us into Calvinism.*]
And because it appears that everyone else agrees with the pastor (those who disagree have either quietly left the church or they're quietly staying, or maybe the church is blocking opposing views, like how our church blocked a friend's comments and deleted my comment where I disagreed with the pastor's view of predestination)... and because the pastor's so confident about his "high view of God/Scripture"... and because all the theologians he quotes (the so-called "spiritual giants of the faith") say the same things he does... and because he reminds us all the time how depraved we are, how we can't really understand anything anyway, and how we simply have to trust him and accept the contradictions even if they seem wrong and don't make sense... and because it's only bad, unhumble, rebellious Christians who disagree with him... then those still in the church, especially those who are silently struggling with what the pastor's teaching, begin to doubt their own hearts, minds, and judgment (and possibly even their faith), making it harder for them to feel like they can disagree with the pastor, and even harder to speak up about it. And the church gets more and more entrenched in Calvinism.
The desired result of shaming, gaslighting, and manipulation!
I mean, obviously, the problem must be me, right? Everyone else seems to agree with him, so there must be something wrong with my faith, with my ability to understand the Bible. I mean, how else could I have thought that the Bible said something totally different all these years? Surely this means that I don't have the ability to understand the Bible as well as everyone else does! And so since I can't trust my own thinking, I'll trust our pastor's thinking and education. After all, he's been to seminary. He's learned Greek. He's visited Israel. And so he can't be wrong. And so I'll let him teach me the "deeper truths" of Scripture that I can't see for myself. I'll let him strategically lead me through Scripture, alongside a nice big Systematic Theology book (surely anything that big, with all those huge words and lofty ideas, must be correct, right?), letting him help me "connect the dots" until I see things his way and become (mostly) convinced that it really does make sense (even when it doesn't). And I'll just chalk up any lingering confusion, doubts, or concerns to "mystery" (note: Calvinist "mysteries" are not true biblical mysteries at all - things God didn't clearly reveal - but they are contradictions and conundrums they create when they take Scripture out of context or when they twist or add secondary layers to clear passages, trying to make it say something it doesn't, in order to better fit their views) or to my own dumb ignorance or rebellious pride. Because I'm nothing more than a depraved, stupid, stubborn, biblically-illiterate, stinky sheep.
[*Sidenote: One thing to be aware of - about why Calvinists sometimes seem more "unity, tolerance, Kumbaya" than non-Calvinists - is that Calvinism has a luxury that non-Calvinism doesn’t have, which allows them to be more “compromising” with non-Calvinists than non-Calvinists can be with Calvinists.
And it's this:
Non-Calvinists have one level: the plain reading of Scripture.
But Calvinists have two levels: the surface-level plain reading of Scripture (which is how they trap us), but also an additional secondary "deeper truths" level (which contradicts, negates, alters, or qualifies the surface level).
And all non-Calvinist beliefs fit into Calvinism's surface level, making it appear that anything we believe, they believe too. But the thing is: Calvinism's secondary, deeper level doesn't fit into non-Calvinism anywhere, and it actually contradicts non-Calvinism's only level.
Therefore, Calvinists can cry for unity and tolerance more than non-Calvinists can - they can claim "We believe all the things you believe!" - but non-Calvinists cannot say it in return because of Calvinism's deeper level which corrupts the surface-level.
For example: Non-Calvinists say “God loves all people.” Calvinists say “Of course He loves all people. We believe that too! But He’s actually got two different types of love: a saving one for the elect and an 'I-won't-save-your-soul-but-I'll-give-you-food-and-sunshine-and-breath-while-you're-alive-on-earth-before-I-send-you-to-your-predestined-damnation' one for the non-elect.”
Non-Calvinists say “God wants people to seek Him and believe in Him." Calvinists say “Of course, we totally agree! But that doesn't mean we have the ability to seek or believe.”
Non-Calvinists say “God calls all people.” Calvinists say “Yes, He does. But He gives two different kinds of calls: an irresistible one for the elect that they must heed and a resistible one for the non-elect that they can’t heed.”
Non-Calvinists say “Jesus died for all people.” Calvinists say “Of course He did. But while His death was sufficient for all, it's only efficient for the elect.” (This means His blood was enough to cover all people's sins, but He only applied it to the elect, kinda like having enough food to share with all starving people but only giving it to ten. {It's ironic that Calvinists say that non-Calvinists waste Jesus's blood when we say that He died for all people, even those who reject Him... and yet Calvinists waste His blood when they say that He had more than enough blood to cover all people, but He only applied it to a few.😕})
Non-Calvinists say “It’s God’s will that all people are saved and that no one perishes.” Calvinists say “Yes, true. But He has two wills, a spoken one (wants all people saved) and a hidden one (wants to have sinners to punish in hell so that He can show off justice and wrath against sin).”
Calvinism “agrees” with non-Calvinism on the surface, making it seem like they can be tolerant of us, mesh well with us. But non-Calvinism cannot agree with Calvinism's "deeper truths." In fact, we must reject its "deeper truths"... or else it will take us down with it.
And this is why non-Calvinists sometimes appear more rigid, narrow-minded, and uncompromising than Calvinists. It's why we have to take the stronger, more divisive stands, refusing to compromise or be "unified," exposing the fact that Calvinism's agreeable, biblical surface-layer is simply a cover-up for their disagreeable, unbiblical "deeper truths" layer. A worm on a hook.
Because Calvinists won't expose themselves or call for division - because they benefit from the unity, relying on it to give them time to indoctrinate people into their views. Whereas non-Calvinism only suffers for it.
Calvinism is like a parasite, a cancer, that attaches itself to a non-Calvinist host and lives happily and harmoniously united to it while it sucks the life from the host. And while the Calvinist-parasite thrives and grows, the non-Calvinist host suffers, starves, suffocates, and fades until it's fully taken over by the parasite and becomes one of them.]
13. In July 2018, my ex-pastor gave a sermon on the "doctrine of sovereign election" that was chock-full of manipulation and gaslighting (he's done this sermon regularly, just like all his other sermons). He taught that if we disagree with his (Calvinist) view of sovereignty/predestination, then we're letting our emotions get in the way, and distorting the Bible/reading it wrong, and putting our own ideas and our love of "freedom/choice" above God's truth, and being too American, and being unhumble, and dishonoring God, and accusing Him of being unjust, and we're probably not even a Christian anyway:
"The Bible teaches that God sovereignly chooses some and not others... This is the doctrine of predestination, what the Bible calls the doctrine of election. [No, it doesn't. There is no phrase "doctrine of election" in the Bible.]
... The first question when it comes to Bible study is not 'Do I like this?'... The first question is "WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY?" If this is not your first question, your first burden, there is concern if you really know Christ as Lord and if you honor Him. If all you accept is the stuff you like and what is convenient for you and emotionally comfortable for you, then there is a real question whether you know Christ, if His Spirit lives in you.
... Once you grasp the...wickedness, evil, corruption, rebellion on the human heart, the real question is not 'Why didn't God elect everybody?' The real question is 'Why does He elect anybody?'... The creation has no right to question the Creator's ways... You have no right - I have no right - to call God unjust. How dare I! How dare you!... God hardens whom He wants to harden and has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy... Who are you, adult; who are you, teenager; who are you, kid; who are you, a mere human being, to talk back to God?
... When you preach on this, there are usually 3 responses to the doctrine of predestination: anger... avoidance... appreciation. [No disagreement allowed!]
... Just because you don't understand a doctrine is no excuse to speak ill of God or to take a clear teaching in the Bible and mangle it to say something I'm emotionally comfortable with." [Calvinists never consider that it's their doctrines that are the problem, not the people who speak against them!]
Once you hear the strategic shaming, manipulation, and gaslighting, you won't be able to unhear it. And you'll never hear Calvinist sermons the same way again.
[Thankfully, I noticed the manipulation very early on after this pastor was hired (probably because I'm a licensed counselor with a Master's Degree in Counseling Psychology). And so I knew right away to listen very closely and critically to what he was going to preach and teach - because anyone who needs to lead with manipulation, shaming, and gaslighting is going to try to sell you something you don't want, something they know you'll resist.]
The scary thing is, Calvinists don't think that they're spreading errors and heresy or deceiving people into a false gospel. They truly think it's biblical truth and that they're being good, faithful Christians for teaching it to others. And that's why it's so dangerous and effective!
Furthermore, as if all that's not enough:
Be aware that some Calvinist churches go even further by pressuring people to leave or kicking out those who disagree with the pastor. Or (as happens in 9Marks' churches), they might discipline - maybe even publicly discipline - those who disagree with or try to leave their Calvinist church.
According to 9Marks' "A Church Discipline Primer," two reasons to discipline members are if they deny biblical doctrine (which, to a Calvinist, is Calvinism) and if they stir up division (which would be when we start telling others about our concerns or disagreements with the pastor's theology).
In fact, if we begin telling people our concerns, the leadership might accuse us of violating our membership contract and being resistant to correction, putting the blame on us. They often view church membership like a marriage covenant, and so if we start to oppose the leaders or try to resign from membership for any reason they don't approve of, they'll consider us as being unfaithful, rebellious, non-submitting (not a real word, but that's okay), and having illegitimate reasons for leaving. (And some Calvinist churches don't stop there, but they'll even try to control which church we attend after we leave theirs.)
It seems to me that Calvinist pastors tend to mix up the capital "C" Church (the body of believers around the world) with the small "c" church (the small, local, organized, institutional churches in our communities). They act like if you don't join and submit to a local, officially-organized, Calvinist church, then you're not part of the capital "C" Church, as if they are the gatekeepers to the Church and get to judge who's in and who's out, who's saved and who's not, who gets to be baptized and who doesn't.😕
Here's an example from someone in the reddit post "They won't let me leave" about when they tried to leave their Calvinist church (I fixed the typos): "Earlier this week I finally found the courage to send my resignation letter... I did however have to meet with some elders. They stated that I can't leave because the Church Order (not the bible) states: 'Church members cannot escape the authority and oversight of the consistory by an act of resignation. Jesus Christ gave the keys of the kingdom to the church. He ordains elders to establish and terminate membership in the church....' So basically I don't get to decide to remove myself. They get to decide and will continually 'reach out' (harass me) until my faith is restored or until they come to the conclusion that I am a lost cause and so sentence me to eternal damnation. Because they obviously have that power. Any advice? They won't acknowledge my withdrawal and will continue to harass me for who knows how long.... because, you know, they care."
[Also see this Wartburg Watch article about Calvinists thinking they have the "keys to the kingdom".]
And some Calvinist churches not only try to stop people from leaving, but they even try to stop non-Calvinists from getting in. The 9Marks' article Build Fences Around Your Flock emphasizes the importance of keeping "the wolves" out of your church, which (reading between the lines) includes non-Calvinists. It says that if a prospective member doesn't understand what the gospel really is (and according to Calvinists, the gospel is Calvinism), then they send that person to a class that studies a Mark Dever book (big time Calvinist!) until they "understand the [Calvinist] gospel." And only then are they allowed to become members. And so obviously, if you're not a Calvinist, you're a wolf who puts the flock at risk and will not be admitted into membership. As the article says, "our sheep aren't safe if we've allowed false teachers to slip in among them."
And going through a Calvinist Indoctrination Class pretty much guarantees you'll become a Calvinist. There's really almost no way someone can escape the Calvinist brainwashing when soaking themselves in big Calvinist theology books that weave such a tight theological web that few can escape it.
This is why I wrote a long letter to the pastors at our new (non-Calvinist) church when I heard them using lots of Calvinist quotes during sermons, to alert them to how easily and stealthily Calvinism reforms our thinking if we're reading Calvinist theology books. (See "A Crash Course in Calvinism (A letter for pastors) ... and (Calvinist quotes)")
No way am I watching another church succumb to the hypnotic-pull of Calvinism while I sit by and say nothing!
It ended up being a 21-page letter.
The pastors of our new church:
Contrary to Calvinists who think that we must be a Calvinist to be a Christian or to be part of the Church and that we must basically be married to our local Calvinist church, I say that Calvinism is not the gospel (it is a huge corruption of the gospel) and we are not "married" to any particular church. Our loyalty is ultimately not to any particular local church - but it's ultimately to Christ, the capital "C" Church, His body of believers around the world.
And our duty as members of the capital "C" Church is to protect and stand up for God's truth, for the gospel, even if it means opposing our local church. Our duty is not to blindly and unreservedly "submit to the recognized leaders" of the local church, but it's to be good Bereans who study God's Word for ourselves and double-check everything the pastor teaches against it. And when needed, our duty is to take a stand against any heresy, lies, errors, or cult-like tactics when we see them, no matter how nice and well-meaning a pastor might be.
“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what [their pastor] said was true.” (Acts 17:11, slightly modified😉)
Sometimes it's not that speaking against or leaving a church damages us and our families and future generations.
Sometimes it's that quietly staying at a church damages us and our families and future generations... and the gospel, and the Church itself!
Unconvinced?
So, you're still not sure that Calvinists have an agenda, a deliberate strategy, for stealthily taking over our minds and churches? (More on this in a future post, or see "The 9 Marks of a Calvinist Cult")
A. Here's a 9Marks' article called "Church Reform when you're not (necessarily) the pastor" that teaches how to slowly, systematically turn a church Calvinist:
"Reforming a church can take years, and it is never something that happens easily. So settle in for the long haul... Church reform does not happen in business meetings. If church reform goes like you want it to, business meetings are just the moment of formalizing a congregational decision that has already been made... All the actual work of reform happened before the meeting—in conversations. That’s how church reform works. You change people’s minds and shape people’s views in private–over coffee, a good book, and a Bible [notice that it's not just the Bible, but it requires other books too, Calvinist books😕]... So make it a point to try to meet with as many people as your schedule will allow, and do it regularly. Read through [Calvinist] books with people and talk about them. Mark’s [Mark Dever, a big Calvinist!] Nine Marks of a Healthy Church would be a good place to start... You’re also going to have to be strategic in deciding who to try to meet with. Unless you’re in a really small church, you’re just not going to be able to meet with everyone. So try to figure out to some degree who the church’s opinion leaders are, who are the people most likely to spread enthusiasm for reform among other members, and who would really cause a congregational sigh of relief if it turned out that they agreed with the reform. [In the eyes of a Stealth Calvinist, we're either brainwashable sheep or tools to brainwash others... and hopefully both.] Then meet with those people, over and over and over. Be a friend to them, care for them, and at the right time, start asking questions and teaching about the nature of a Christian church. [So Calvinists are strategically making friends with you not for the sake of being friends, but with an agenda to reform you and to use you to reform others.] In time, you may find that you have more allies in reform than you thought—or, perhaps even better, you may find that you’ve created some... Reforming a church is a long process that requires a whole lot of conversations, a whole lot of persuasion... Once you’ve been recognized as a leader in your church, the next step is to work on discipling other men who could also be recognized as leaders, and who, eventually, could join you in forming a majority of the leadership that wants to press for reform..."
B. Here's an example of a sermon series from one Calvinist pastor who teaches other Calvinist pastors how to preach Calvinism's TULIP covertly - literally called "Covert Calvinism" - and it describes the sermons this way: "[this is] a prelude sermon to a covert series on Calvinism... This is the 'Total Depravity' sermon without using the stock theological labels. It is the first sermon in the series and it's covert because too many of our [listeners] will shut down their receptors when they hear the words 'Calvinism.'... [This sermon] focuses on God the Father choosing us to be his children. It uses biblical, not theological, language to teach about election."
And it isn't until the last sermon in the series that he reveals what he's been teaching: "This is the summary sermon where I finally reveal that this series covers the same material that is often called the '5 Points of Calvinism.'" He deliberately waits until after he stealthily indoctrinates people into Calvinism to reveal that he's been teaching Calvinism all along.
C. PJ Tibayan (in his 9Marks article) - the guy who says Calvinist pastors are "burdened by [the] biblical and theological illiteracy" of those who don't believe in Calvinism - shares his story of lying to a church about his Calvinism in order to get hired (my favorite example of Stealth Calvinism, which I wrote about in "Saint" PJ's deceptions and manipulations").
He says that when he was interviewing for a pastoral position at a new church, the interim pastor asked him this question: "Are you a Calvinist? If you are, this thing is dead in the water right here."
And in his article, Tibayan says, "I was taken aback. From my study and meditation on Scripture individually and in community I have deep convictions as a seven-point Calvinist. I wasn't sure how to answer. So I asked a question instead. 'What do you mean by 'Calvinist?'"
He's a self-professed 7-point Calvinist (who calls himself "saint PJ" on his blog and YouTube channel😕)... and yet he "wasn't sure" how to answer the question "Are you a Calvinist?"
But, no! He knew exactly how to answer it in a deceptive, dishonest way that would trick them into hiring him. He played dumb about the definition of Calvinism, and took advantage of naive, poorly-worded questions, and repeatedly told the interim pastor "No, I'm not a Calvinist" even though he is a 7-point Calvinist, in order to get hired at a church that outright said it didn't want a Calvinist pastor, tricking them into thinking he wasn't a Calvinist when he definitely was. Shameful! And even worse is that he did it deliberately, is proud of it, and is encouraging others to do it too. Even more shameful!
And guess what? It worked. They hired him. And, yes, they are Calvinist now (as evidenced in their Statement of Faith which affirms the Calvinist definition of election and regeneration), despite their attempts to prevent it.
As the article "The Subtle Secrets of the Gospel Project" warns: "[Calvinists] are prolific writers who are masters in propagating their doctrine without using recognizable Calvinist terms. Try asking one of these guys if they’re a Calvinist and you will probably get a 15-page essay about God’s sovereignty.... You most certainly will not get a direct answer to your question though and that is because they realize how unpopular it is to answer 'yes.' They’re banking on one thing: Given enough time and enough trust, they can sprinkle in the right amount of Calvinism to infect your brain and make you comfortable with their terms. Then it’s simply a matter of putting all the pieces together in their deranged puzzle... So don’t be surprised when you look around and discover a generation whose faith is built on the TULIP but they got there without ever hearing the label 'Calvinism.' We know what they’re doing. The evidence is undeniable."
[If you're not sure if The Gospel Project is Calvinist or not, see "The Gospel Project: Calvinist or not?" and "The Calvinist Gospel Project? (their podcast/the gospel)".]
Okay, so, landing the plane now...
"The Church Infected with Calvinism" shares this about how Calvinism so easily takes over churches: "While the Calvinistic pastor is crafting pulpit content to fortify his philosophical arguments, he will simultaneously be about the business of looking for and mentoring members of the congregation who are now open to Calvinistic logic. He'll slowly but surely transform as many of these folks as possible into full-blown Calvinists and, when possible, put them in places of church leadership, especially teaching positions... With the leadership of the church and a majority of the congregation now in league with him, the plan of transition is complete. The objectors, who are now in the minority, are powerless to reverse the Calvinistic course."
Yep, we've seen it happen.
It's how the church we left went from not-Calvinist-at-all (in 2013) to being so Calvinist now that they're basically not-so-indirectly telling long-term members/employees who disagree with the pastor's Calvinism that they need to leave - members who still agree with the church's official EFCA Statement of Faith, but who disagree with the pastor's own personal, non-official statement of faith/theology (which, in reality, means that the church has no right to kick the members out or to claim that they are "violating their membership contract").
Maybe if we had spoken up more when we left in 2019, it wouldn't be that bad now.
But we did try, just not enough. But even with the little bit that we did, we learned firsthand the hold that Calvinism gets on people's minds under a strong, domineering, aggressively-Calvinist pastor.
One example: As we were leaving our church, we heard that a friend who worked in the church in various roles (and who leaned more free-will than Calvinist) had just started taking Systematic Theology (Wayne Grudem) classes with the pastor... and so we decided to warn him about it, in case he didn't realize what he was getting into. (We were still a little naive back then about Calvinism's power to sway people. A little hopeful that we could make a difference.)
My husband sent an email warning him that Grudem was a Calvinist and that the pastor was immersing the church in Calvinism, encouraging him to be cautious and to research it for himself, even recommending some videos from Soteriology 101. My husband reminded him that we didn't leave the church for superficial reasons but because we really believe Calvinism is unbiblical. The strongest warning we could give.
We figured that out of everyone there, the one who already believed more in free-will would be the one most likely to heed our warnings and to recognize the errors of what the pastor was teaching. Maybe this friend would be someone we could "pass the baton" to.
And this friend sent back a reply thanking us for sharing our thoughts with him and admitting that he was a little apprehensive about starting a Wayne Grudem class because he knows it's reformed and because his training/understanding didn't fully support the 5 points of TULIP.
"However," he said, "truth is truth because God is truth, and we must not fear truth." [I knew right then that he was a goner.] He went on to quote a few verses about the truth making us free and about not quenching the Spirit. And he said that if these classes moved him to affirm Calvinism, then he praises God for it, admitting that he knows he still has growing and learning to do. He said that opening himself up to something uncomfortable makes him rejoice. It makes him thankful that "God has chosen to allow my flawed and finite mind to wrestle with and gain more understanding of His perfect and infinite ways." [It sounded to me like the pastor's words coming right out of his mouth.]
Years of the pastor's efforts had paid off!
Whole swaths of good, humble, God-fearing Christians (even those who should have been the most likely to question/resist him) are now enchanted by him, siding with him, and sounding just like him. And as I said, it's now to the point that the church is basically illegitimately kicking people out for disagreeing with the pastor, and yet hardly anyone is really investigating it, exposing it, or pushing back against it. At least not enough to cause a stir and make a difference.
My husband wondered if he should reply to our friend with something like "But what if it's not God's truth? What if you're being taught lies?"
I just shook my head and said, "Nope, he's gone. There's no point. He won't be able to hear it, not when he thinks he's learning 'deep truth' and humbly submitting to it."
[And although most people in that church are really good, nice, well-meaning people, it's kinda creepy to me now - when I visit that church occasionally - to hear people using the same phrases the pastor always uses, whether it's "my wife, my beautiful bride" or "what does the text say" or "land the plane," even wearing t-shirts with his quotes on them, as if he's some spiritual-guru cult-leader.]
Sadly, it took my husband and I several years after this pastor was hired to realize what his theology really was (because he came in stealthily) and how wrong it really is and to start warning people about it... but by then it was too late.
His years of manipulating, shaming, gaslighting, and strategic use of out-of-context verses, bad analogies, false dichotomies, etc. has successfully turned our formerly-non-Calvinist church into a fully-Calvinist church (in about 6 years, I'd say) that is now a member of The Gospel Coalition and 9Marks, that requires (from what I've heard) that new teachers be reformed in their views, and that is quietly blocking or weeding out those who disagree with them, while making it seem like those who disagree are the ones with the problem.
Way to go, stealth Calvinist pastor and the elders who hired him for his Calvinism without telling us!
You won this time!
But if it weren't for you, I'd never have started this blog or educated my kids about the dangers of Calvinism. So from the bottom of my heart, thank you!😊
(Am I sorry for being so blunt and harsh against Calvinism and stealth Calvinist pastors? No. I'm just sorry I wasn't blunter and harsher a long time ago - because maybe then we and our friends wouldn't have lost our church.)
