In that: so-called "Gospel" ministries in which the workers and especially the leaders are outside of the protection of the church, and are not accountable to the church for their actions, are problematic. It's not enough to say that they are members in good standing at their local church: if they are doing the work which is prescribed for the local church but they are not under the authority of the local church, they are either robbing the local church or scoffing at it, or both.
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2013/07/running-around-without-church.html
My last objection to AHA is that it is NOT a ministry that flows from the local church. T. Russell Hunter has stated openly and unapologetically that AHA comes under the sole authority of Jesus Christ. When asked if AHA is under a local elder board or a local church, he ignores the question. I have tried to find a local church associated with AHA on their website and their Facebook page. I have also tried to convince Russell to share with me privately the Church that he is affiliated with and he has consistently stiff-armed me at every turn.
http://reformedreasons.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-abolish-human-abortion-coalition.html
Scroll down to find Dingess on the faculty page:
Next: try to find a local church associated with Telos Biblical Institute. Is the parachurch ministry Dingess teaches at controlled by the elder board of a local church? I don't find that on their website. Remember, "It's not enough to say that they are members in good standing at their local church."
Running out of arguments I see. First of all, I am a guest professor of biblical languages. Secondly, what makes you think that Dr. Henebury does not have a board of elders and pastors to include men from his local Church who provide oversight and care? Westminster Theological Seminary is run in a very similar fashion. No session of elders or pastors sent Hunter out. In fact, they asked him to pull it in and change some things and worked with him to get AHA to a better place, but he rebelled. He went AGAINST his spiritual leaders and stuck out on his own contrary to those over him in the Lord. Defend it as long as you want Steve. You are the one who suffers when you try to defend the indefensible.
ReplyDeleteEd Dingess
Delete"Running out of arguments I see."
Measuring you by your own yardstick.
"First of all, I am a guest professor of biblical languages."
Ed's ad hoc self-exemption.
"Secondly, what makes you think that Dr. Henebury does not have a board of elders and pastors to include men from his local Church who provide oversight and care?"
You said you "tried to find a local church associated with AHA on their website and their Facebook page." Well, I applied the same standard to Telos. You keep imposing rules on your opponents while you bend or break your rules where you and your buddies are concerned.
Ed Dingess
Delete"Secondly, what makes you think that Dr. Henebury does not have a board of elders and pastors to include men from his local Church who provide oversight and care? Westminster Theological Seminary is run in a very similar fashion."
Is that a fact? As I recall, the Westminster board fired Peter Enns. Are you saying Henebury's session can fire him and hire a new president of Telos?
"No session of elders or pastors sent Hunter out. In fact, they asked him to pull it in and change some things and worked with him to get AHA to a better place, but he rebelled. He went AGAINST his spiritual leaders and stuck out on his own contrary to those over him in the Lord."
That's a puzzling charge. On the one hand, you and Frank complain that AHA lacks transparency. You can't track down contact info for their elders. On the other hand, you act as though you have the inside scoop on what was said behind closed doors. Do you have the office bugged? A wiretap on the residential line? Have you hacked Hunter's email?
Do you actually have firsthand information, or are you just peddling gossip?
There is no local Church supporting AHA. The Church Hunter was part of was working through issues related to AHA's method and Hunter become obstinate as I understand it and set out on his own. BIG DIFFERENCE Steve! More apples and oranges. Like I said, it is in your best interest not to defend the indefensible. I understand we all like a good challenge, but this is like sending the local youth football team out to play the Baltimore Ravens. There is no defense for the approach and structure of AHA.
ReplyDeleteGossip? One of the reasons discipline becomes public is so that we can know these things. It is first for them, and second for the body, and third so that the world can see the standards to which we hold. I presumed you were PCA but your ecclesiology doesn't seem to resemble PCA ecclesiology.
You seem to have an answer for everything and will stop at nothing to defend Hunter. Hunter himself could put an end to this by being straight up with every one. I think you're referring to Frank's post. I was able to track down Hunter's church after the fact and I will leave it at that. I did get to the truth about the goings on out there. I would presume you would demand to know this since Hunter's behavior would be a reflection on you because he is one of your associates. Knowing what I know, Hunter would not be involved in any ministry until he reconciled with his leaders and demonstrated a sincere desire to submit to their guidance around those activities of AHA. Apples and oranges sir. It's apples and oranges.
You claim to know very little about AHA but your defense of it either puts you in the position of being dishonest and knowing more than you are willing to admit or of adamantly defending something from ignorance. From my point of view, neither behavior is recommended.
There is no local Church supporting AHA.
DeleteThat is false, and you've been corrected on that before.
The Church Hunter was part of was working through issues related to AHA's method and Hunter become obstinate as I understand it and set out on his own.
Actually, the elders were in unrepentant sin and so Hunter couldn't take it anymore. Neither could I. I watched it firsthand. Ed has heard thirdhand about carefully-selected factoids.
Hunter himself could put an end to this by being straight up with every one.
He already has been. He is one of the most honest people I know.
I did get to the truth about the goings on out there.
That's doubtful. Who has the vested interest in telling the truth here? Do you have any idea what Hunter sacrificed in leaving that church? And what are the elders of that church defending and attempting to preserve? Hmm?
Hunter's behavior would be a reflection on you because he is one of your associates.
To my knowledge, Hunter and Steve Hays have never corresponded.
What a blowhard you have proven to be, Dr Dingess. I pray you repent right soon.
Maybe Hays and Hunter should speak if Hays is going to be his greatest apologist. Maybe? I know I would.
DeleteAs for the rest, I have said enough. The issue at stake here is the authority of the Church. I will continue to defend the biblical position.
All the elders were wrong and Hunter was right. Wow. Now that is possible. I cannot say that it is not. But the proper thing to do would have been to reconcile, disagree respectfully, and find another session and church to which AHA and Hunter could submit. To my knowledge, that is not what happened.
DeleteIn addition, AHA's contention that they only submit to Jesus Christ is highly problematic. Enough said.
Maybe Hays and Hunter should speak if Hays is going to be his greatest apologist
DeleteMaybe Hays just thinks the critiques of AHA offered by the likes of you and Turk are ridiculous.
Besides, we've spilled quite a bit of pixels at our own blog explaining why those critiques fail, for our own part.
The issue at stake here is the authority of the Church. I will continue to defend the biblical position.
Yet you can't see how Steve has twisted your position up into self-contradiction here.
All the elders were wrong and Hunter was right. Wow. Now that is possible
It sure is. Especially since I don't have to hypothesise since I saw it with my own eyes.
But the proper thing to do would have been to reconcile
When the elders won't repent, that makes it difficult. If you had more knowledge, perhaps you wouldn't speak like this.
To my knowledge, that is not what happened.
We all pray the elders will repent and seek reconciliation. When and if they do, we'll be glad to extend forgiveness.
AHA's contention that they only submit to Jesus Christ is highly problematic.
Quote?
Dear Accuser of the brethren,
ReplyDeleteWhen have you ever tried to contact me about these things?
What is your motivation in all this?
Would you please conduct a full interview with me regarding all of these things. I will subject myself to all of your questions and cross examinations (so long as it is recorded).
Please tell me how we can speak together. It can be public or private.
Russell
And who is Steve Hays?
ReplyDelete-Russ
Steve Hays is the guy who posts the majority of the time on Triablogue. :-)
DeleteSo he is just familiar with Dingess and his diatribes and coming to the defense or cross examination of AHA? Cool.
DeleteSorry Steve. Just wondering if we had talked before.
Russ
Steve and Dingess have interacted many times before on this blog.
DeleteThe power of your accusations rely on their shadowy nature. I’d love to have a public discussion about everything you say. How can we set it up. Skype? Until then, I will repost some old comments made elsewhere in public to shed a little light on the situation. The following was originally posted on my facebook wall after a little wolf had been going around telling friends and coworkers that AHA leadership was under church discipline in an effort to gain adherents to his slander mongering para-ministry. “The church where AHA was first born did practice a form of church discipline on five college students who I stuck up for and then left over, but they were not even put under formal discipline and they were never brought before the elders or congregation in line with any biblical proscriptions. They were "disciplined" and "removed" for speaking out against rampant gross sexual sin in the college ministry and asking questions about the elders covering up the anti-biblical ministry choices, lifestyles, and activities of a few church staff members and an associate pastor.
ReplyDeleteBasically, they were not content to help cover up sexual relationships and known sexting and pornography addictions running rampant in the college group. They wanted to restore a brother who was a leader in the college who had begun sleeping with an incoming freshman and daughter of a well loved sunday school teacher and lay leader in the church. They also did not approve of the relationship between an older and spiritually immature grad student and the teenage daughter of one of the elders. They brought their concerns to individuals first, and then took these concerns to college pastors and associate pastors. Their concerns were spurned after multiple attempts. (Matt 18)
They were told to cease this type of behavior and then sent letters of removal from the church when they asked questions about whether the command of their elders to cover up sin was biblical or not. (questioning the interpretation and application of the elders use of “love covers a multitude of sins” and so forth).
How I come into this: When I agreed that the group was in the right to be concerned about sin and applauded their willingness to go to their brothers and then point it out within the local body, I determined to look into the matter fully. While I believed that these students could have done a better job calling out sin, but believed that part of the problem with their group stemmed from a lack of any discipleship or church approved teaching in this area. What I found was disheartening to me. These student were being actively discouraged from doing anything about the sin that was choking out the spiritual life of their college ministry and even being asked to refrain from calling out sin and help keep it covered up. They were being told that a believer cannot rebuke another believer unless he or she first has permission from them to do so. They were being instructed to believe things that when someone sins in your church, you go to their elders first, not to them.
ReplyDeleteI disagreed with these teachings. They were not biblical and they are the nuts and bolts of worldly dealing.
I then examined the letters of removal these students received from the elders and disagreed with the passages of scripture being cited as justification for immediate removal without trial or examination. These five students were removed and charged with being the men Paul warned of in Roman 16:17-18 (a passage the explicitly urges the brethren to watch out for people who cause divisions and create obstacles by speaking smooth things in order to deceive naive people and feed their own appetites and teaching doctrines contrary to what the Apostles taught). But they were not being "disciplined" for any doctrinal issues and I did not see them creating divisions unto themselves by doing the hard thing of calling sin, sin.
These young people may have been overly zealous in their desire for holiness in the church but they were not smooth talkers deceiving people with false doctrine. (They were pretty much exactly opposite of that).
So I, as a member in good standing with the approval and commendation of elders and pastors to teach and lead in the church body, went and met with the elders about these students and their letters. During my meeting I was told that the letters did not say what I thought they said, or used the scripture I said that they did. (But I called them on this lie, for I had read them with my own eyes and retained pdf copies of all them). I was told that this group was given every opportunity to meet with elders before they were removed by letter, yet one of the elders himself told me that he did not even see their letters of removal until after they were signed by the head pastor and sent out. I was told many things that I knew to be false about these zealous college kids.
When I called them on these things, they turned on men asked me if I believed that there were any nominal Christians in the church to which I answered, "Of course I do." (this was a church of 250 -300 attending members.
ReplyDeleteThey flipped out at this and accused me of being a part of this little faction because they (most of them) were pretty active in the abolitionist society of Oklahoma which I was directing.
Upon my attempting to keep us on topic, and returning to the subject of whether Titus 3 was a better text to remove these students with than Roman 16:17-18, they started yelling (yes... yelling) quotes from Abolitionist Posters that I had made for facebook and accused me of defending these students because they were abolitionists and the rest of the church was nominal. They started telling me all sorts of things that they had long despised about AHA that they had never once brought to my attention. Indeed, they had been telling me how much they supported AHA and when they removed these students even asked me not to invite them to meetings and bribed me with money that I could use for printing propaganda and so forth.
The point is, it turns out that these pastors (including the elder who was on the board of AHA) seriously disliked all the constant abolitionist activity going on in THEIR church and they just hadn't let me know until then and were not going to let me know about it if I sided with them against these rabble-rousing-sin-detecting college students.
It was a trip.
To put it simply, the head pastor accused me of rewriting church history by saying that the first christians rescued babies from the trash heaps and river ways of Rome. The music minister accused me of being a fraud because I had not adopted as many children as he had and that he was pro-life before I was born. While a third elder just sat by AMENing them as they harangued me. A forth elder wasn't there. This elder was rarely at TBC. He lived primarily at his second home in another state where he helped run a para ministry organization.
Well, the meeting ended when I caught the head elder in another lie and he got flustered and went to his computer to print out my removal letter. I told him that he needn't bother and that I needed to find a church body with elders and pastors that I would want to follow as they follow Christ. Because I did not want to emulate any of these men, I informed them that my wife and I would be leaving the church and that we would like to be taken off the member roll.
All I asked was the right to be able to speak with the one elder who had not been present for any of this ordeal. They told me this would not be allowed and that they all thought and acted as one. To quote one of the elders in regard to the head pastor, "I take what he says as Gospel truth!"
Two weeks later, they held an open meeting in the church (press conference) to explain our leaving. For I was in no gross sin, had not been put under any form of discipline, and was basically a very active and appreciated member of the body. My leaving had to be contained.
ReplyDeleteIn the press conference they told the church that it was because I thought they were not abolitionist enough. They told the church body that AHA was explicitly non-gospel in our message (which was a crazy lie) and told people that while they could be involved with AHA, it was no longer a church approved group.
Shortly there after, they gave an associate youth pastor (Toby Harmon) and ultimatum forcing him to discontinue all abolitionist activity or be fired.
There were subsequent witch hunts and "removals" of abolitionists in general (Trinity made a church wide rule against being a part of AHA and they did recognize at least one sin that you could rebuke a brother or sister for committing: Wearing an AHA shirt!) but those do not figure into the reason that I am typing out this note.
The critics of AHA are jealous little men who want you to follow their facebook pages, youtube videos, and blog posts cannot argue with the content we put out and know that we are truly changing the way the world engages the evil of abortion. They will not engage us in personal discussion or pick up the phone when we call. They will not even read our blog posts and defenses against their unfounded claims and published misunderstanding. They know that we cannot be met on biblical grounds because we are in the right and we cannot be engaged biblically because we are fully justified in the actions we are taking regarding the culture at large and the culture's churches. They have turned to the world's ways of attacking a group or idea and they have covered it with a christian veneer.
They attempted first to straw man our views and misrepresent our approach but that has failed as we can combat and correct their misinformation campaign. They know that when wise people read both sides of the debate, they will side with us (Proverbs 18:17).
So all they have left at their disposal is to gossip about our characters and create rumors about our past (Proverbs 16:28 is their modus operandi).
The current popular attempt to destroy AHA centers on making a case that AHA is run by men who are under church discipline. This is not true for a number of reasons. 1. AHA is not simply run by that ASO. Don Cooper is the director of AHA and a majority of AHA's staff and board do not even live in Oklahoma and have nothing to do with the churches in Norman. 2. Of the primary leaders of AHA in Oklahoma only one of them (Grant Keeter) has ever been put under any form of church discipline and it was the ridiculous form discussed above.
ReplyDeleteToby Harmon was never placed under discipline. I was never placed under discipline. Alan Maricle (Rhology) was never placed under discipline. Matthew Martellus was never placed under discipline. We all formerly went to Trinity Baptist Church and we all freely left that assembly believing that it was not a church under the headship of Christ and the practice of faithful biblical leadership as proscribed the New Testament.
If the current attack against AHA is to be predicated on a retelling of the past or the credit of the elders who have determined to oppose AHA as much as the Babies are Murdered Here crew is... then the truth about Trinity's elders and the domineering lordship they take over their body will have to be brought out into the light and examined.
Most of what would have to be examined fits the category of things which should not even be named among you (Ephesians 5:3). And I want to avoid entirely the activity in Galatians 5:15. I don't want to fight a slander war with Babies are Murdered Here or any of the organizations who wished that AHA did not exist.
Trinity has rewritten the history of their involvement with AHA. When the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma was established, we had an elder on the board if it and the head pastor was approving and even praising the work we wet doing and the founding documents that I was writing.
It was after we started growing and really changing our culture that they started to oppose us. The attention paid to personal holiness and active evangelism among members of the Abolitionist Society of Oklahoma was well known and created an unwelcome discord in the church body between those who were being salt and light and those who were addicted to personal peace, comfort, and affluence (to quote Francis Schaeffer).
Trinity Baptist Church now believes and teaches from the pulpit a number of things which AHA is well-known for opposing. (IVF is a good Christians practice; the "rape exception" for abortion is equal to the "life of the mother exception"; Incremental abolition is better than immediate abolition; etc) When we were at that Church, Trinity was actually known as a bold witness in the culture and a strong voice against abortion. Today they are just another big brick building housing an organization of people who have the leaders they want and leaders who have the followers they desire. People who combat us in the culture hate us and do not have a clue who Trinity Baptist is and could care less whether they exist or not (like the other 63 Baptist churches in our dark city).
For anyone who has any questions about whether I have ever been under the discipline of elders in a church body I will gladly answer them and you contact me personally. I will not shy away from anything in my past. My redeemer lives and He is the Just Judge.
I post these things in public because they refute public accusations. I am happy to defend them in the light in order to dispel the darkness they seek to create.
Walk in the light. Abide in Christ,
Russell Hunter