“The Anabaptists greatly err by opposing the baptism of infants…. Although they may not have faith with its effects such as those who are of age — they may, however, have the seed and germ of it; seeing that the Lord has sanctified them from the mother’s womb (First Corinthians 7:14)…. We presuppose in general that they are children of God — who are born of a believing father and mother, or when one of the two is a believer (Genesis 17:7). Further, as regards children born in the Church, one should presume the election of all of them, without limitation” Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith (1558), [emphasis added].
Reformed Churchmen
We are Confessional Calvinists and a Prayer Book Church-people. In 2012, we remembered the 350th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; also, we remembered the 450th anniversary of John Jewel's sober, scholarly, and Reformed "An Apology of the Church of England." In 2013, we remembered the publication of the "Heidelberg Catechism" and the influence of Reformed theologians in England, including Heinrich Bullinger's Decades. For 2014: Tyndale's NT translation. For 2015, John Roger, Rowland Taylor and Bishop John Hooper's martyrdom, burned at the stakes. Books of the month. December 2014: Alan Jacob's "Book of Common Prayer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Common-Prayer-Biography-Religious/dp/0691154813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417814005&sr=8-1&keywords=jacobs+book+of+common+prayer. January 2015: A.F. Pollard's "Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation: 1489-1556" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-English-Reformation-1489-1556/dp/1592448658/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1420055574&sr=8-1&keywords=A.F.+Pollard+Cranmer. February 2015: Jaspar Ridley's "Thomas Cranmer" at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Jasper-Ridley/dp/0198212879/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422892154&sr=8-1&keywords=jasper+ridley+cranmer&pebp=1422892151110&peasin=198212879
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Theodore Beza: Anabaptists' Great Error
“The Anabaptists greatly err by opposing the baptism of infants…. Although they may not have faith with its effects such as those who are of age — they may, however, have the seed and germ of it; seeing that the Lord has sanctified them from the mother’s womb (First Corinthians 7:14)…. We presuppose in general that they are children of God — who are born of a believing father and mother, or when one of the two is a believer (Genesis 17:7). Further, as regards children born in the Church, one should presume the election of all of them, without limitation” Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith (1558), [emphasis added].
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Bloodstained Ink: 4th Church Leaves Harvest Bible Fellowship
* * * * * * * * *
How Steep the Decline: James MacDonald, Bryan Loritts, and Sycophantic Uncle Toms
James MacDonald, the Elephant Room and the “Spinning” of the Truth
Harvest Bible Fellowship Takes Second Hit
A Third Church Leaves Harvest Bible Fellowship
The New Elephant In the Room: Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald and Authoritarian Rule in the Church
Does James MacDonald Possess Too Much Power?
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Infant Baptism by Professor John Murray
H/T to Andy Underhile on the sacrament impugned and oppugned by Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and the vast array of American evangelicals. Andy brings us a reminder from Professor John’s Murray, the old Scots divine from Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, in its better days.
http://andycontramundum.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-we-baptize-infants-by-john-murray.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FDofecr+%28Contra+Mundum%29
Why We Baptize Infants,
by John Murray
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Ana-Baptist & Semi-Pelagian Confession of Faith
Hat tip to Andy for his post on FB.
The "Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism"...(Author and source unknown)
1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian's chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.
2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.
3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord and Saviour
4. Q: At what time must thou perform this work?
A: I must perform this work at such time as I have reached the Age of Accountability.
5. Q: At what time wilt thou have reached this Age?
A: That is a trick question. In order to determine this time, my mind must needs be sharper than any two-edged sword, able to pierce even to the division of bone and marrow; for, alas, the Age of Accountability is different for each individual, and is thus unknowable.
6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner's Prayer in my own words.
7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.
8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.
9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.
10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.
11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.
12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.
13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!
14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!
15. Q: What witness aid hath been given us as a technique by which we may win souls?
A: The tract known commonly as the Four Spiritual Laws, is the chief aid whereby we may win souls.
16. Q: What doth this tract principally teach?
A: The Four Spiritual Laws principally teach, that God's entire plan for history and the universe centereth on me, and that I am powerful enough to thwart His divine purpose if I refuse to let Him pursue His Wonderful Plan for my life.
17. Q: What supplementary technique is given by which we may win souls?
A: The technique of giving our own Personal Testimony, in the which we must always be ready to give an answer concerning the years we spent in vanity and pride, and the wretched vices in which we wallowed all our lives until the day we got saved.
18. Q: I'm so happy, what's the reason why?
A: Jesus took my burden all away!
19. Q: What are the means given whereby we may large crowds of souls in a spectacular manner?
A: Such a spectacle is accomplished by means of well-publicized Crusades and Revivals which (in order that none may be loath to attend) are best conducted anywhere else but in a Church.
20. Q: Am I a soldier of the Cross?
A: I am a soldier of the Cross if I join Campus Crusade, Boys' Brigade, the Salvation Army, or the Wheaton Crusaders; of if I put on the helmet of Dispensationalism, the breastplate of Pietism, the shield of Tribulationism, and the sword of Zionism, having my feet shod with the gospel of Arminianism.
21. Q: Who is your boss?
A: My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
22. Q: Hath God predestined vessels of wrath to Hell?
A: God hath never performed such an omnipotent act, for any such thing would not reflect His primary attribute, which is Niceness.
23. Q: What is sanctification?
A: Sanctification is the work of my free Will, whereby I am renewed by having my Daily Quiet Time.
24. Q: What rule hath God for our direction in prayer?
A: The rule that we must bow our heads, close our eyes, and fold our hands.
25. Q: What doth the Lord's Prayer teach us?
A: The Lord's Prayer teacheth us that we must never memorize a prayer, or use one that hath been written down.
26. Q: What's the book for thee?
A: The B-I-B-L-E.
27. Q: Which are among the first books which a Christian should read to his soul's health?
A: Among the first books which a Christian should read are the books of Daniel and Revelation, and The Late Great Planet Earth.
28. Q: Who is on the Lord's side?
A: He who doth support whatsoever is done by the nation of Israel, and who doth renounce the world, the flesh, and the Catholic Church.
29. Q: What are the seven deadly sins?
A: The seven deadly sins are smoking, drinking, dancing, card-playing, movie-going, baptizing babies, and having any creed but Christ.
30. Q: What is a sacrament?
A: A sacrament is an insidious invention devised by the Catholic Church whereby men are drawn into idolatry.
31. Q: What is the Lord's Supper?
A: The Lord's Supper is a dispensing of saltines and grape juice, in the which we remember Christ's command to pretend that they are His body and
blood.
32. Q: What is baptism?
A: Baptism is the act whereby, by the performance of something that seems quite silly in front of everyone, I prove that I really, really mean it.
33. Q: What is the Church?
A: The Church is the tiny minority of individuals living at this time who have Jesus in their hearts, and who come together once a week for a sermon, fellowship and donuts.
34. Q: What is the office of the keys?
A: The office of the keys is that office held by the custodian.
35. Q: What meaneth "The Priesthood Of All Believers"?
A: The Priesthood Of All Believers meaneth that there exists no authority in the Church, as that falsely thought to be held by elders, presbyters, deacons, and bishops, but that each individual Christian acts as his own authority in all matters pertaining to the faith.
36. Q: Who is the Holy Spirit?
A: The Holy Spirit is a gentleman Who would never barge in.
37. Q: How long hath the Holy Spirit been at work?
A: The Holy Spirit hath been at work for more than a century: expressly, since the nineteenth-century Revitalization brought about by traveling Evangelists carrying tents across America.
38. Q: When will be the "Last Days" of which the Bible speaketh?
A: The "Last Days" are these days in which we are now living, in which the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Thief in the Night shall most certainly appear.
39. Q: What is the name of the event by which Christians will escape these dreadful entities?
A: The event commonly known as the Rapture, in the which it is our Blessed Hope that all cars driven by Christians will suddenly have no drivers.
40. Q: When is Jesus coming again?
A: Maybe morning, maybe noon, maybe evening, and maybe soon.
41. Q: When the roll, roll, roll, is called up yonder, where will you be?
A: There.
42. Q: Hallelu, hallelu, hallelu, hallelujah!
A: Praise ye the Lord!
43. Q: Praise ye the Lord!
A: Hallelujah!
44. Q: Where will we meet again?
A: Here, there, or in the air.
45. Q: What can a pastor say while all heads are bowed?
A. Yes, I see that hand.
46. Q. How is a person saved?
A. If you walk this aisle…”
47. Q. And what requirement is there if you should fall into sin?
A. You just need to rededicate your life to God.
48. Q: Can I hear an Ay-men?
A: Ay-men..
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Jeremy Walker of Ref21: A Recommendation for Lent
http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/03/this-lent-i-am-giving-up-retic.php
This Lent I am giving up . . . reticence
Posted by Jeremy Walker
I will make no bones about it: I am an Old World (for which please read 'continental European') Christian, of Puritan inclination, and a Dissenter - specifically, a Particular or Reformed Baptist. That means several things. By conviction and heritage I belong to those who left the Anglican communion as a matter of conscience, sick of its halfway reformation and unwilling to conform to the general shabbiness and unscriptural demands of the Act of Uniformity. My conscience with regard to the extra-Biblical trappings of mere religiosity is tender. My attachment to simplicity of worship as a gathered church is sincere. I am sensitive to those doctrines and practices over which my forefathers spent their energies and shed their tears and sometimes their blood, both from within and then from without the established folds of their day. I see things with an awareness tuned by walking the streets, graveyards and memorials of men and women who suffered and sometimes died for conscience' sake.
Out of such an atmosphere I cannot help but be sickened by the seeming obsession with Lent and Easter at this time of year, and Christmas at the end of the year. Please do not misunderstand me: conscience also demands that - where the cultural vestiges of a more religious society patterned to some extent on the significant events of the life of Christ provide for it - I take every legitimate opportunity to make Christ known. If an ear is even half-opened by circumstance, I willingly and cheerfully speak into it, and seek to make of it a door for the gospel. I do not see the point of making a point by not preaching about the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord if some benighted soul wanders into the church with at least some expectation of hearing about his humiliation and exaltation.
But what chills my blood is the unholy elevation of things not mandated by the Word of God. I find it odd that some of the very people who obsess about contextualization and resist 'religion' have swallowed hook, line and sinker the empty traditions of men, that the men who wear Mickey Mouse T-shirts (quite literally) all the year round besides dress in sombre suits every April, telling us with one breath that all of life is worship and so tending to level out our experience and the Biblical rhythms of our relationship with God (especially dismissing the one-day-in-seven pattern established at the first and the new creation), and with the next telling us that this is Holy Week, and we are somehow falling short if we do not build it into some unholy jamboree. Meanwhile, those who trumpet their credentials as the true heirs of the Reformation either seem willing to stop with the house half-clean or seem quite keen to redecorate it with the junk that their more enlightened forefathers were in the process of throwing out (establishing the principles of the matter even if they never quite got round to that corner of the attic themselves).
Whether or not it is a vestige of the Emerging/Emergent appetite for a range of 'spiritualities' or an enthusiasm for an over-ripe liturgical renewal, I cannot say, but I wonder if it is in part a matter of distance both of time and space. This alleged 'recovery' of Lent and Easter is not actually a matter of historical sensitivity and an inheritance regained but of historical unawareness and an inheritance lost. Whether or not it is the high-grade muppetry of entire churches being urged to tattoo one of the stations of the cross on some part of their anatomy, or some gore-drenched re-enactment of the unrepeatable sacrifice, or some spotlit image-fest in which a total insensitivity to physical representations of the Christ - the image of the invisible God - is displayed, or some be-robed priest-figure half a step away from incense and obeisance, it does not come from Scripture and it does not belong in Christ's church. It is a replacement of God's order with man's notions, a disruption of God's regular rhythms of true religion with the unholy syncopation of mortal religiosity. As John Owen somewhere says, where genuine spirituality is substantially absent, men will turn either to fanaticism or to ritual - or perhaps to both - in an attempt to fill the void. Whichever way you sniff at it, and whichever way the wind blows, to the trained nostril it all begins to smell a touch Romish.
But there is a solution. This year there are - if you wish to see it this way - fifty three Easters. Most years there are fifty two. Each is a high and holy day, an opportunity to remember and rejoice in the one thing that the saints of God are commanded to remember and rejoice in: the Lord of Glory - the incarnate Son - who was crucified but who rose again, in whom we live eternally, and for whom we perpetually look with eagerness, our eyes straining for the first glimpse of the one whom not having seen, we love, who will shortly appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Each is a day of sober and grateful remembrance and recollection of his being and his doing. We have our regular (if not all of us a weekly) meal at which we remember the Lord's death until he comes, celebrated usually on the day of resurrection. On these days, putting aside the trappings of the world, we begin the cycle of time on our weekly peak, equipped by communion with God in Christ by the Spirit for the challenges and the opportunities of the days ahead.
Frankly, it seems odd to me that many of those who have proved very quick to abandon all manner of patterns and habits and convictions of Christians over decades or centuries, retain Lent, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter (Resurrection) Sunday as set in stone in the calendar, one of the high points of the Christian year (which pattern, we are informed, provides the central event in the church year - the climax of worship, expectation, and celebration, an exercise of the church's discipline). If you're not sold on Easter, you might be dismissed as one of the "diehard Reformed" for whom "this [Easter] Monday is like every other Monday because Easter Sunday is like every other Sunday." To say that Easter Sunday is like every other Sunday is not to suggest an upgraded view of Easter Sunday but a downgraded view of every other one.
I try not to be a Scrooge (although I cannot help but shed a silent tear that I am now literarily reduced to trying not to be a Grinch, but it's only a silent one and fairly dry, because Dickens' plotting makes many modern soap operas look like masterpieces of restraint and reason). I try not to be whatever is the Easter equivalent of a Scrooge or a Grinch (probably something that destroys bunnies or steals eggs). Again, for the record, I delight in the incarnation, and love to explore the excellence and wonder of Christ's coming into the world. I love to do so at any time of year, and find it grievous that I am sometimes not expected to handle those truths or sing incarnation hymns apart from at the dead of winter. Neither do I for one instant deny the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the only Redeemer of God's elect, in the glorious good news that the church of Christ declares.
But when we are told that this is the time of year when Christians begin to think again about the death and resurrection of Christ, does it not prompt the question of what we are supposed to be doing for the rest of the year? When men speak after their so-called Holy Week of the abating euphoria of the resurrection, surely they are explaining why a merely annual remembrance is insufficient? Christ Jesus is the risen Lord for 365 days of every year (plus the extra one when required), and we have a weekly opportunity for the distinct recollection of his death in an atmosphere conditioned by his resurrection. To flatten the whole year, perhaps rising only to a few unnatural annual peaks, is to miss so much, to lose so many things, to gain so little.
Christ died to set us free from empty things. Men died to liberate us from the rigamarole of unscriptural traditions and man-made routines and performances of religiosity. I hope that you will hear a voice from the blood-washed streets of the Old World, where those battles and the cost of their victory are ground into our consciousness, where the issues and enemies are neither distant nor tame, and where the lines remain clearly drawn in the collective memory of some of the Lord's people, and consider whether or not the prizes so hardly won ought to be so quickly abandoned.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Horton: Church Membership Requires Affirmation of Covenant and Infant Baptism
Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children (Belgic Conf., Art. 34; cf. Heidelberg Catechism Q. 74).
We concur. Mike Horton offers his gracious but firm response to modern Anabaptists, Baptacostals, and other Revivalists.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/05/membership-requires-affirmation-of-infant-baptism-a-presbyterian-and-reformed-response/?comments#comments
Membership Requires Affirmation of Infant Baptism: A Paedobaptist Response
The renaissance of evangelical Calvinism today is a marvelous gift of God. Yet as many across widely varying denominations embrace the doctrines of grace, the tendency is often to downplay their distinctives as relatively unimportant. Especially as people move back and forth not only between local churches but denominations, often simply looking for a church that preaches the Word faithfully, there can be an impatience with honest scruples. It's often said that baptism is a "secondary issue." Traditionally, both sides in the debate have wrestled over whether they can even accept each other's profession of faith as valid for membership. That's hardly secondary.
Baptism itself has become so secondary in evangelical circles that the most outrageous view in many minds is one that makes this issue decisive in church membership. However, Baptists and paedobaptists are stuck. If our conscience is bound by Scripture, then we can hardly consider as indifferent something Christ' ordained as essential in the Great Commission. So I respect Baptist brothers who would not admit me into membership or to the Lord's Table. They are following what they believe Scripture to teach in this matter and for that submissiveness I respect them.
Historically, Reformed and Presbyterian churches have required professing members and their children to be baptized. In the former, arising from Continental Reformed sources, all church members confess the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Canons of Dort) as the faithful summary of Scripture. What this means is that in Reformed churches historically, only those who affirmed the inclusion of children in covenant baptism could be members. Especially in the U.S., Presbyterian churches came to require only officers to subscribe the Westminster Standards. In Presbyterian churches, it has meant that all of the children of members should be baptized. What to do if they're not is a matter of some debate and variation.
I affirm, on the basis of Scripture, the traditional Reformed and Presbyterian view that it is "a great sin to condemn or neglect" baptism (Westminster Confession, Ch. 28.5) and that "also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized" (Ch. 28.4; cf. Shorter Catechism, Q. 95). The Belgic Confession adds,
All of this entails, of course, that those who wish to become members must at least be willing and ready to present unbaptized children for baptism. Any who refuse to do so are in violation of what we are convinced is the express command of our Lord. Church discipline always begins with gentle admonition and instruction, usually in private, leading hopefully to repentance. However, it would be unwise to admit into full communion believers who are already in principle unwilling to change their mind on the matter.
Some in our circles have suggested that this disciplinary action pertains only to those who are actually violating Christ's will. In this view, someone who remains convinced of adult-only baptism (but is not withholding the sacrament from his or her own children) may be a member (though not an officer). I have heard good arguments on both side of that difficult pastoral issue and remain open on the point. The crucial concern is to ensure that members recognize their children as the Lord's heritage and not withhold the sign and seal of his covenant blessings. Baptism is not just an interesting doctrine we discuss, but a practice that shapes our life---personally and corporately.
To some brothers and sisters (Reformed/Presbyterian as well as Baptist), all of this may sound somewhat jarring---and exclusionary. However, there are a few things to bear in mind:
- Baptism either is or is not to be administered to the children of the covenant; if it is, then it is a sin not to do something God has commanded. The Baptist position at least historically is to consider it a sin to baptize infants (and to practice an alternative to immersion). Presbyterian and Reformed churches confess that baptism is a means of grace and that it is a sin to withhold the sign and seal of the covenant of grace from our children. Of course, it is not a sin of intentional rebellion. Nevertheless, both sides have regarded the rival decision as a transgression of God's will. That follows inexorably from the conviction that God does clearly reveal what we are to do on this question. My Baptist friends believe that I am not only doctrinally in error but am doing something against God's will when I baptize covenant children. Although I disagree, I applaud their consistency. It's beyond the scope of your question to defend covenantal baptism here (though I do in various places, especially The Christian Faith). However, if there is truly a parallel between circumcision and baptism as the signs and seals of the same covenant of grace, then it is a serious sin to withhold it from our children (Gen 17:9-14).
- The consistent Baptist view is actually more exclusionary. We accept as valid all baptisms performed with the Word and the water (whatever the mode) in the Triune Name. Those from a Reformed or Presbyterian church who wish to change membership to a Baptist church are required ordinarily to renounce their baptism as invalid. To reject the validity of one's baptism---and, by extension, the validity of baptisms administered in another communion---strikes at the heart of the church's unity.
- Of course, many Baptists as well as Reformed and Presbyterians today downplay the significance of these arguments on both sides. Doing so allows for more flexibility in the movement back and forth between different communions. However, it cannot fail to impress upon the actual members themselves that their baptism (whether as adults or as infants) is of little consequence. At least from my reading of the New Testament, that would be the most tragic position of all.
-------------------------
Also in the series on baptism and church membership:
- "Sometimes Obedience Results in Painful Separations" by James Hamilton
Thursday, December 22, 2011
(So-called) Bishop Eddie Long's Wife Ditching Eddie (Second Divorce for Eddie)
http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/bishop-eddie-longs-wife-1248978.html
Bishop Eddie Long's wife decides again to seek divorce
"Mrs. Long continues to hope that this matter may be resolved expeditiously, harmoniously and fairly; however, she has determined that dismissal of her divorce petition is not appropriate at this time," Kilpatrick Townsend partner Michael W. Tyler said in a prepared statement.
"To avoid any undue confusion, Mrs. Long's future statements, if any, will be issued through her attorneys," he said. A spokesman for Kilpatrick Townsend refused further comment.
Three statements regarding the divorce were sent to media outlets Friday. In the first, Vanessa Long announced she was seeking to end her 21-year-marriage following "a great deal of deliberation and prayer."
Then, around lunchtime, in a statement sent through New Birth's public relations firm, Vanessa Long was quoted as saying, upon further "prayerful reflection," she was withdrawing the divorce petition.
"I love my husband," she was quoted in the second press release. "I believe in him and admire his strength and courage."
Long, a New Birth elder, said her decision to seek a divorce was driven by "years of attacks in the media that frustrated and overwhelmed me." She and her husband "mutually agreed to find healing," Vanessa Long is quoted in the release.
In the divorce filing, Vanessa Long, 53, said her marriage to the New Birth pastor was "irretrievably broken" and there was "no hope of reconciliation." The couple has been in a "state of separation," according to the petition.
"Vanessa is, and has always been, a loving, dedicated and committed wife and mother," Bishop Long said in a statement Friday night. "My love for her is deep and unwavering. It remains our sincere desire to continue working together in seeking God’s will in these circumstances."
Vanessa Long has kept a low profile since the September 2010 lawsuit filed against her husband by former New Birth members Anthony Flagg, Spencer LeGrande, Jamal Parris and Maurice Robinson alleging the bishop used his influence, trips, gifts and jobs to coerce them into sexual relationships.
Though she has never spoken publicly about the allegations, she provided her husband with a symbolic lift when she appeared by his side at New Birth the Sunday after the lawsuit was filed. The bishop, who told his congregation that day he planned to "vigorously" fight the allegations against him, reached a settlement with his accusers in late May after months of mediation.
A bio on New Birth's website describes Vanessa Long as "the quiet strength in the Long family ... an awesome woman of God in her own right. She is an inspiration to many of the women at New Birth as they watch her lovingly and quietly support her husband in every sense of the word."
This would be Bishop Long's second divorce. His first wife, Dabara S. Houston, alleged she was the victim of "cruel treatment" and claimed she was afraid of her husband's "violent and vicious temper," according to Fulton County Superior Court records. She and her son "had to flee [the couple's Fairburn home] in order to ensure their safety," the documents say.
The couple was married in 1981 and separated after a couple years, according to the documents. Long's first wife made the abuse allegation in a counterclaim after he petitioned for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Museum of Idolatry: Tone Deaf Michael Jackson Inspired Praise Catastrophe
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2011/12/tone-deaf-michael-jackson-inspired-praise-catastrophe.html
Tone Deaf Michael Jackson Inspired Praise Catastrophe
Belgic Confession, Article 36: The Civil Government
Belgic Confession
December 21, 2011Rick Warren to Too Excited to Sleep
Rick Warren
Saddleback Church
Purpose Driven Network
P.E.A.C.E. Coalition

