Howard’s Response
Posted on April 6th, 2006 by Reformed Pope into the Pastoral Staff categoryJohnPaul (is JP your preference?),
Thank you so much for your email. I just got back from Nashville this afternoon and am now in the joys of "catch up".
First of all, I want you to know how I appreciate the wording of your email to me. I can see that you have thoughtfully and clearly shared your heart and perspective on those 7 points. I didn't take any "offense" to your comments - and hopefully that's a good start to our communication!!! J
Would you like to get together and talk about this? I'm not even sure if you are in Portland anymore, but would be open to getting together if you would like.
RE: you posting your letter - that is fine with me. Thank you for asking me beforehand!!!
May I give just some "general" comments to your points that, perhaps, can be cultivated with future email?
A "Preamble"…It is certainly a challenge to quantify "belief", "fact" and "Truth" (with a capital "T", denoting that there may be "truths" separate and distinct from "Truth"). "Belief" seems to be an outflow from "opinion" which many times may be formulated through experience. Unfortunately, experience is not necessarily equated with fact. And, belief does not necessarily generate action. Conviction generates action.
Then, there is the outworking of Truth, which may or may not be connected at all with our process of "belief".
For example, my sister died of cancer at the age of 39. The Bible seems to embrace "healing" as a doctrinal outworking of Christ's work on the cross. However, my "experience" with my sister was that of "non-healing". To confound and confuse me further, I have also experienced "healing". But it was my "non-healing" experience that entrenched me in a spiritual/mental/emotional dilemma. How do I therefore integrate "belief", "fact" and "Truth"?
How do I find the simplicity on the other side of complexity? How do I embrace "Truth"?
I have said all this because all your points began with - "I believe…" So, it becomes somewhat of a challenge to dissect, discern and provide dissertation on "belief" versus "fact" versus "Truth". It would be easy for me to comment my "belief" (which is also the outflow of my "opinion"). But, I'm not sure what could be accomplished, as it could be an exercise in futility trying to convince differing opinions to "convert"…
My apologies for this preamble… I shall try to communicate on each point in subsequent "journals" J
- 1. "I believe that City Bible Church is more focused on City Bible Church then on anything else. In other words I think CBC is self centered. The Forward Together campaign is a prime example, in it you have 4 steps of which none are focused on reaching the lost. Sure, a nicer looking building,a new building on the West Side, and advertising the CBC name could attract the lost but to me it sounds more like expanding the Kingdom of City Bible then the Kingdom of God."
Without arguing about the comment regarding "focus and self-centeredness", may I provide some comment to your statement regarding "Forward Together" - "…4 steps of which none are focused on reaching the lost…" As you know a "text" without a "context" is a "pretext". Our Objective is the Great Commission. Forward Together is not our Objective - it is our Strategy. A Strategy is game plan that enables an objective to be obtained.
Is there only one Strategy that a church could apply? Ahhh…Therein lies the conflict of the ages since the Early Church began. Of course, there is not just one Strategy for the church. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Strategies that can be implemented - encapsulating an extremely broad range of philosophies from "Assisi" to "Dominion Mandate".
It would be somewhat obtuse to think that CBC has the "right" or "only" Strategy. We don't. But we do "believe" we have the right Strategy for CBC - which we "believe" will enable us to accomplish the Objective of the Great Commission. Is it a "perfect" Strategy? NO…Hopefully our journey will enable it to be "perfected"…
As to the "lost" question, perhaps it would be more appropriate to determine whether CBC is "reaching the lost" by assessing the outcomes of its Strategy. And, if this was done, perhaps it would be discovered that there have been many hundreds of lives positively impacted with the love of Christ that enabled them to make that "Great Commission" decision.
Can CBC do better? Absolutely!!! Can I do better? Without a doubt!!! It's a little bit like Schindler's List, at the end, where he agonizes over not having done more.
Some may not feel comfortable with CBC's Strategy and may feel more comfortable with another Strategy. That is wonderful!!! But whether it be by fire or water…"Eternity Play shock" or "Neighborhood love", let's keep our eyes on the Objective. One of the working relationships I have cultivated is with a very prominent Hollywood influence that has had a Christ encounter. His words to me were, "I want to spend the rest of my life making it extremely difficult for anybody to go to hell". Sometimes our wording doesn't convey our intentions. However, let's agree we definitely need to stay focused on the Objective.
You are certainly entitled not to participate in "Forward Together" - and, maybe for all the "right" reasons. But, keep in mind, Forward Together is not an Objective - it is a Strategy.
Herein ends my brief "epistle" to point #1. Feel free to post it, if you want.
Thanks, JP, for allowing me to hear your heart and for allowing me to start sharing mine. Hopefully, this will be positive, productive and a step in being real!
Hopefully…more to come!
Blessings,
Howard Rachinski
RSS feed for posts
April 6th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
How many churches have been planted, where the people said “as soon as we buy some property and put up a building, we’ll have what we need to reach the lost” … and then, as soon as that was done, it became “as soon as we put up a gymnasium, we’ll be able to reach the lost …”, ad nauseum …
For me, years ago, it was acquiring the ‘tools’ I thought were necessary for music ministry - an LP (yes, I’m old
), a bus with our name on it (think ‘Partridge Family’), etc. I wasted so much time chasing that crap. And then we just started doing free concerts and letting people record us - and in time, we did 3-4 concerts per week, from Bellingham to Portland, Aberdeen to Spokane. There was no need of a ‘vehicle’ to transport our ministry. Nor is there need for a building, advertisement, or any other crap like that to “reach the lost”.
My friend Michael Clark has a neat article and insight about the whole notion of vehicles for ministry … it’s called “The Trouble With Oxcarts” at http://www.awildernessvoice.com/Oxcart.html for anyone interested.
What are ‘buildings’ but some kind of modern oxcart, built to contain and transport the power or God - to package and deliver a measure of God to the masses … as if God needs our vain efforts to reach the lost.
A couple of other short articles that that speak to oxcarts / reaching the lost are: Fun With Numbers and Witnessing For Christ.
By far the best way of ‘reaching the lost’, is to do as the ‘Great Commission’ says and WE GO to them - instead of building an ivory palace and calling them to us.
Why can’t we just do what Jesus told us to do?
April 6th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Having spent many years at BT/CBC, I vehemently disagree that their objective is the Great Commission. I saw zero evidence that the Great Commission is the objective of that church, and much evidence to the contrary. So, please, Howard, if that is your assertion, offer some substantive evidence. Please do not insult us by offering “Eternity” as evidence; CBC doesn’t spend money on that plagarized play, it makes money from it. Furthermore, most who respond to altar calls at that fear-based play are merely “weak Christians” (as if we’re not all weak, but you know what I mean) who “recommit their lives” to Christ. Plus, the Great Commission is not about coercing people to say the “sinner’s prayer,” it’s about “making disciples,” and “disciples” are not merely those who, through peer pressure and behavior modification, live by lists of do’s and don’t’s in hopes of fitting in and climing the MFI ladder. I suppose you can “sense” my cynicism. I’m OK with being cynical, and don’t worry, I’m truly not “bitter.” I don’t know you personally, but I truly appreciate your willingness to dialogue with JP in this forum.
Also, Howard, the point you raised about experience conflicting with truth being a quandry…this is how I look at healing, which is the example you used: healing and wholeness (spirit, soul and body) is the Lord’s will, and all who know Him will have it…eventually…meaning that maybe some get healed physically in this life and some don’t get healed until they have their “new bodies.” Soul healing (of our minds, emotions, wills) is a process, and not likely complete this side of eternity. There are many complex factors here (fallen world, the wrestling between the sinful & redeemed natures, etc., etc.), but hopefully you get my gist, that regarding physical healing, it’s not a matter of “if,” but “when.” Once the Lord helped me look at it in this way, it has made a huge difference in how I view the Lord, view my own life’s experiences, and how I counsel/encourage others. In other words, I don’t demand healing from the Lord and I don’t look for sin in the lives of those who need it as an attempt to explain it or understand it or try to remove the barrier and thus “release healing,” or, out of some frantic dillusion that if I can somehow pinpoint why someone else is broken/suffering, I can try (without avail) to insulate myself from such pain. Instead, I pray fervently for healing, I pray for God’s will, and I put my trust fully in Him and His ways, which are higher than mine.
Shalom.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Dear “Free From The Matrix”
In attempting to reply to your comments, I tried to ignore your cynicism but, instead, found myself adding a little of my own. Please indulge me…
First, you have clearly misunderstood my reference to “Eternity” as an offering of evidence. My statement regarding “Eternity” was illustrative of one end of the “Evangelism Spectrum” just as “Agape” could be illustrative of the other end of the “Evangelism Spectrum”. It would indeed be blatantly ignorant and weak of mind to imply that someone could not or did not experience their salvation from either end of the spectrum. You would have to convince many hundreds of people that their “conversion” is not real. We are absolutely sure you would never mean that!!!
Secondly, your “money shot” regarding CBC profiting from Eternity is not only perhaps “cheap” but “incorrect”. I didn’t see you at the Budget Table making the decision to sow funds to this effort - I was there. So - you would KNOW and I would NOT??? Nope - that doesn’t compute. Sorry - you’re wrong (that was being a little “cynical”).
Thirdly, you are going to have to read the Great Commission again, cause you’re wrong again.
Matthew 28 gives reference to “teaching” nations (the Greek word means “discipling”). However, you forgot about Mark 16 where the Great Commission is also to “publicly herald the good message” (yup, there’s that “Greek” again). So, my friend, it just might be that the Great Commission is about “Evangelism” and “Teaching”.
As far as “coercion” is concerned, as “coercive” as Eternity seems to be to you, it doesn’t hold a candle to God’s “coercion” (read about Saul becoming Paul). Whew, being struck with blindness seems a little “coercive” to me, but you’ll have to take that up with God…
Fourthly, your “explanation” regarding healing just doesn’t cut it. Without a doubt, healing is a mystery. But quite frankly, your explanation has, by others, been a typical theological “default” that can only be afforded those who don’t have an answer. I don’t have an answer. It is locked up for “this side of Eternity”. The experience is always with you, but the sting gets less. I still believe in healing, I pray for healing. Again, read the Great Commission (Mark 16) - “They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover” Healing is a work in the physical strata, which is tangible and finite (in other words, the Bible clearly references it as something for THIS physical life. It is highly doubtful that the Eternal strata requires healing - as it does not have “deterioration of sin”. I don’t get it, we need to get it. But, just as Calvinism and Arminianism has it’s “theories” - your explanation at best is just another theory. I don’t hold it against you.
I will not be cynical in my closing thoughts…I promise…
So…thank you for commenting. Maybe we have met in the “BT/CBC” life. I’m sorry your experience was disappointing. I hope you have found a place that is empowering your life. Keep your eye on the “prize”, which is a Biblical word.
And, I apologize for my cynicism!!!
Then again, my response is also only an “opinion”…
Bless you…
April 7th, 2006 at 5:51 am
Um Howard,
I don’t think the other pastors are going to be to happy about your responses here. Didn’t they teach you to respond to questions by saying “You know who you should talk to about that? Lanny Hubbard. He’s the expert in that area.”
Here I’ll help you out.
FFTM,
Healing huh, well you know who you should talk to about that? Lanny Hubbard. Man he has a lot of insite into healing…
Your a bold man Howard, and I respect you for it.
April 7th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Reformed,
Ha-ha. That made me chuckle!!! I guess I missed that class… Or, maybe we’re not as mindless as sometimes implied…Or, maybe we are!!!
April 7th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Lanny Hubbard is the exert on healing? The last service I attended at the old BT building on Glisan was his first wife Lynette’s going-home service. She was a high school friend of mine. Her death from cancer and the resulting questions surrounding healing was one of the three major reasons I left BT. Healings? Where are the healings? I saw no healings of substance while I was there. Oh, I have been present at healing services, which mostly consisted of legs being “lengthened” to the same size and that was supposed to heal all manner of illness. I heard the testimonies of healings, but from what? Colds, flu, headaches, sore fingers, back aches…not to minimize them, but those are things you usually just get over anyway. Where were…are…the big ticket items? I remember Laurel Lee and how God healed her cancer…that was an isolated incident and was the result of medical intervention, but her book was published and a movie made as a sign of God’s healing power. Back then if healing did not take place, we were to blame. Not enough faith. So…when cancer came to members of the congregation how did we handle it? Medical treatment (which shows our lack of faith) or withhold treatment and trust God. I could go down the list and name names (but won’t) of people at BT I always felt had faith enough to move mountains…much more than a grain of mustard seed. I remember signing up for the 24/7 prayers from the congragation. They never worked. I’m sure they made everyone concerned feel better, but the result was the same, and the next thing you knew it was another going-home service. And afterwards you heard the stories of how no medication was given to them to treat the disease or to ease their pain…and their last weeks were spent screaming out in pain. Seems to me no one could call it what it was and admit they didn’t have a clue why these healings weren’t taking place. It was always not enought faith, or sin in your heart you haven’t confessed…the blame was on us, not God. The healings of Jesus in the Bible sure weren’t as coerced as those we saw then with Kathryn Kuhlman and today with Benny Hinn. With all the members at BT/CBC you would think the odd’s would dictate that we would get a couple of the “big” miracles…blind seeing, lame walking, etc. But instead, we get “healed” after praying for days from infirmities that coincidently go away afther those same number of days. So how does all this make Lanny the expert on healing? Because it didn’t work on his first wife or his mother and now he has figured out a way to justify it or to explain it away. It’s nothing but bunk. I guess it is easier to believe that we will get rich if we tithe, then it is to believe that real, major healings can take place.
April 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Wow,
While reading your comment I couldn’t help but think that my poor eyesight might be healed if you would just use some paragraphs.
April 7th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Sorry…point taken. The paragraph didn’t look so big in that little box.
April 7th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Howard, are you going to offer evidence that the Great Commission is CBC’s objective, which was my challenge to you, or just tell me you think I’m wrong about Eternity generating revenue for CBC and Ed (which I’m not) or tell me my theology on healing in wrong???? I didn’t even catch your intial message’s reference to Eternity, so I didn’t misunderstand it, I didn’t see it. I only mentioned it in case you were planning to offer it as evidence of CBC’s commitment to the Great Commission (because it’s not evidence of that). Can you offer us any evidence that the Great Commission is CBC’s priority?
Also, I definitely agree with you that making disciplines involves evanglism and teaching. My point about making disciples vs. converts doesn’t preclude that by any means. My point is that making disciples does not involve creating “mini me’s,” “who, through peer pressure and behavior modification, live by lists of do’s and don’t’s in hopes of fitting in and climing the MFI ladder” (which is how I have seen “making disciples” lived out during my 20 years in the MFI world). Why didn’t you respond to that comment?
Re: healing, please don’t be condescending to me about my “theory.” I still think it’s correct. Yes, we will lay hands on the sick and they will be healed. Definitely. It doesn’t say “all” people or “every” time. Some will be healed on earth and some will not be healed on earth. That doesn’t mean we don’t pray and lay hands on the sick and believe for healing, anymore than we don’t preach and teach and evangelize and share the good news of the Gospel just because some will receive and believe and some won’t.
My “experience” with CBC was much more than “disappointing,” but I can’t delve into that becuase my specific last-straw experience was one of a kind, so I would disclose myself, which I have no intention of doing, not because I care what anyone there thinks of me but because the thought of being gossip fodder around there once again just does not sound like any role I wish to serve.
At any rate, if you’re not going to answer the questions I ask you, please don’t bother responding to my post. Your dissection of my beliefs/opinions is not what I’m asking for. Also, after telling me I’m wrong a bunch of times, please don’t say “bless you.” Let’s just be civil and agree to disagree, but let’s not couch it in pseudo-spirituality, OK?
Thanks.
April 7th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
P.S. You’ll notice that while my comments are Biblically based, I do not quote Scripture in my posts. That’s because I don’t believe that God intends or likes the “sword” of the Word to be used in verbal altercations between believers.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
As paragraph’s go, it’s pretty impressive.
Good use of initial capital and lower case letters, proper orientation, no sissy French accents, nice full justification and appropriate use of punctuation. A veritable monolith of characters, towering in heighth, intimidating in girth. Impressive indeed.
As for healing, I too have lost several friends to cancer in recent years. Within the last few weeks, have been praying for my brother-in-law who just had his cancerous pancreas removed. Biopsy showed no cancer in the other tissues they sent to the lab, so we’re hopeful the doctor got it all. He begins chemo (?) in a few weeks, through September. The prayers have been desparate - he has a wife and 3 teenagers.
Naturally, I’ve spent my time searching scripture for that ‘magic bullet’ to set the diseases to flight. I’ve concluded there are no ‘magic bullet’ scriptures, because it is the power of God that heals, not our rote/desparate recitations and proclamations of scripture. “Name it and claim it”, or “blab it and grab it” theology is bunk.
What few healings I’ve ever received / witnessed, have come through prolonged fasting and prayer … and that suggests to me the problem with healing today, is we are unwilling to put our flesh / carnal nature, in subjection to the Spirit. We treat God / scripture as a a power source at our disposal / beckon-call, rather than a right perspective of abject submission before God. We have so many worldly things in which we put our trust, and rarely fall helplessly on the mercy of God.
Whether it is the super-church who can’t “reach the lost” without a big building, gymnasiums, libraries, camp and conference centers, etc. Such implies their confidence is in real-estate and opulence rather than God.
Is it any wonder when we ask God to heal us, while we are still surrounded by and leaning heavily upon our materialistic idols, that we do not receive what we ask for.
Lately, I have been considering several scriptures and how they might pertain to healing today.
Matthew 23:13 … could it be that the religious leaders today, have “shut up the kingdom of heaven” just as the scribes and pharisees did in Jesus time on earth?
Luke 4:25 and James 5:17 - we believe in prophecy for today, prophets/esses bring forth words in our churches - but are they really speaking for God? Wouldn’t real prophets/esses be plugged into the heart of God, and be sickened by what goes on in the world today? If so, might they, like Elijah, pray that the heavens were shut up until men repent? Not in the sense of “rain and crops”, but against sinful men receiving the favor of God?
Mark 6:5 - could our “unfaith” as a people be so great, that the “big stuff” can not be done?
I have read a few things - here and there - that suggest healings and miracles are more prevalent in 3rd world countries. One can only guess at the reasons, but I suspect it has to do with poverty, and the people have no one to lean on but God.
Isaiah 58 also sheds light on fasting to break oppressive yokes … I think we have to want God / healing, etc., so badly, that we are willing to give up everything of this world for it. As long as we ask for healing like ordering a burger at the drive through, we shouldn’t be surprised to find God’s set against us.
April 7th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
FFTM,
You’re right. My comments regarding “healing” did sound condescending. And for that I apologize to you. I guess there is still some sting in my spirit with the loss of my sister. Probably as with you, I have heard every “angle” of rationale applied to a seemingly unanswerable “reason” for the loss. Lack of faith, a casualty of war, lack of prayer, lack of discernment, sin, the will of God, the terminated use/existence of the gifts of the Spirit, etc.
I simply find your explanation to still be just one of the group of mindsets that exist. Maybe it contains some elements of truth, maybe it is no closer than the truth, maybe it is no farther away…
RE: your request for “evidence” of Great Commission. I’m not sure what exactly you are requesting as a basis of “evidence”. Number of people saved? Number of homes receiving food, clothing, financial support? I could give reference to our Assimilation/Prayer calls, our Celebrate Recovery, our Food & Clothing ministry, our Pregnancy Crisis support, our Community celebration days, our Stitches program…I could even reference my days as a Music Minister where we even had some people impacted for Christ through our Musical Dramas
. In any event, I have seen people’s lives touched…yes…for eternity…
But, I don’t think I could satisfy your request or refute your opinion.
Could we be more compassionate? Yes. Do we fail? Yes. Do we make mistakes? Yes. That is the agony of the journey…Sometimes our “human-ness” and “pride” interfere with our intent.
So…regretably…as you have said…maybe we should just leave it at that…to be civil and agree to disagree.
And, sincerely, I am not being condescending…
April 8th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I remember one healing that was pretty spectacular–and it was Howard’s daughter. As I recall, she was in high school and playing volleyball, had an accident which resulted in a bone sticking out of her skin and after a “Help me God” kind of prayer the bone went back and she was completely healed.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Kari,
Thanks so much for reminding me of that. I had totally forgotten about that experience. It’s kind of “human”, but I guess if we took time to add everything up, we would find that we had more good “healing” experiences that we had bad ones. Unfortunately, it seems like we only think about the bad ones…
April 8th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Thanks for your apology, Howard. And, let me say that I feel for you for losing your sister. Of course it still stings. That is huge. I have seen the Lord do miraculous physical healings…and I have experienced angst over death and other kinds of suffering. There is no easy answer, and I think that we just have to accept that life is not formulaic, that there are not easy or simple answers to life’s hardships, but that God is sovereign and His ways truly are higher than ours. That’s not a cop-out; I think it is faith and wisdom.
Re: my request for you to provide evidence to support your assertion that the Great Commission is CBC’s priority, I mostly asked because I think people should have reasons for saying what they do, that they should have something “behind” their statements, so my main question is why do YOU believe that is CBC’s priority? There are a couple of ways that could be articulated: quantitatively, i.e., what % of the total church’s resources (meaning financial, human, etc.) could truly be said to go directly towards reaching and discipling those who are still in darkness and unbelief? Our finances are one of the largest indicators of our hearts and our priorites, on an individual and collective/organizational level, yes? Like any other organization, I presume that CBC’s largest budget item is personnel. So, one way to determine how much of a priority the Great Commission is would be to look at what % of your overall FTE is devoted to it on an annual basis. How much “air time” during sermons? How much press? How much emphasis? You mentioned that CBC has a strategy to accomplish the Great Commission; what is that? What % of the church’s overall strategic plan is devoted to it? Using the quantitative approach is difficult for a number of reasons, but could certainly be useful to help flush out the church’s real priorities. Another way that you could get a true sense of how big of a priority the Great Commission is would be to look at more affective pieces, like how the church staff, leaders and congregation respond to unlovely unbelievers who they see through the course of their daily lives and who show up in the domes. Do they hug them? Smile at them? Talk to them? Or glare at them for looking funny or for sitting in “their pew?” Do they ever share their faith one-on-one (i.e., without a mike)? Does anyone besides Ray (and his small group) visit people in prison? You get the idea.
You’re probably right, you wouldn’t be able to convince me that the GC is CBC’s priority, because I saw the reality during my years there, and doubt the guts of the church have changed in just a few years. I share all of the views that JP outlined to you, and then some. It’s not likely that you will change my views of CBC by any “data” you post. You may, however, help me to see at least one of its leaders in a more positive light through your posts here. I appreciate that you are posting here and talking with JP, especially since you don’t have a personal history with him. You are one of the few from CBC who do more than read and gossip about this blog, and for that, I respect you.
April 8th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Howard,
It’s gracious of you to step up to answer for CBC, although I wonder if you do it alone or have input from the leadership cadre.
I think your answer to the first assertion missed the point. JP essentially said: “This is what CBC IS (self-centered)– therefore, this is what they DO.” In other words, their actions flow from their identity.
While you did a fine job of defending Forward Together, that was not the central issue. I think JP got it right: what is the focus?
The focus of the church will reflect the focus of the leaders, and what is their focus? From what paradigm do they live?
I have looked at the Scripture and find out what motivated godly people, who they were at the core that caused them to do what they did.
– What revelation of the Lord caused them to abandon everything for an invisible God?
– What burned in their hearts that changed their personalities, and caused the fragrance of the fruit of the Spirit to emanate from their lives?
– What did they experience that made Paul say, “My goal is to know Him…”?
– What gospel did they understand that reduced them to “Jesus Christ and Him crucified”?
These things seem to be the focus of godly people. What do I find when I examine the focus of my own life? What do I find when I try to determine the focus of CBC?
JP says, CBC is self-centered. If they are not, then what ARE they?
April 8th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Anna-
“JP says, CBC is self-centered. If they are not, then what ARE they?”
My unfounded blasphemy-
Religious Humans with lot’s of power over people’s lives and minds.
My little off-the-top theory…
April 8th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
FFTM,
You said:
I just wanted to offer up a thought I had last night about “making disciples”, after reading and chuckling at your “mini-me” comment.
One of the ‘rules’ I have for understanding scripture is that scripture does not contradict itself. If it does seem to contradict itself, my understanding must be faulty.
One area of seeming contradiction has to do with our common understanding of “making disciples” (men teaching men) and 1 John 2:27 which says that we don’t need men to teach us because the Spirit does the teaching.
Trying to reconcile that apparent contradiction, I got to thinking simply “when does someone become a disciple”? Is it when they begin their training, or when they complete it? Or would it better to say when they begin following Christ, or some time later?
If it is not the “training” that makes them a disciple, but their committment to follow Christ, then we have accomplished the GC by simply introducing (bringing) people to Christ.
As I was thinking along those lines, I remembered the 2 pairs of brothers, Andrew and Simon Peter, and Philip and Nathanael (John 1:40-51). Andrew brought Peter to Jesus, and Philip brought Nathanael to Jesus. The only thing Andrew and Philip did, was testify about Jesus to their brothers. Once brought to Jesus, Jesus took over the teaching and equipping.
Letting my thoughts wander a bit - we often talk about the “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” - and yet, our teaching methods / programs / curriculum suggest that we do not trust that personal relationship with Jesus Christ to do the teaching and training suggested by 1 John 2:27. Is it possible that by teaching, we are usurping Christ’s authority / job?
Anyhow, I’ll be thinking and praying about this for awhile. Potentially, this fresh idea (for me) reconciles the apparent contradiction between the traditional way we think of making disciples (men doing the teaching) and 1 John 2:27 which says we don’t need men to teach us. Perhaps our mission is the same as it was in the beginning: tell them about / show them / bring them to Jesus, and let Jesus take it from there.
1 John 2:27
But as for you, Christ has poured out his Spirit on you. As long as his Spirit remains in you, you do not need anyone to teach you. For his Spirit teaches you about everything, and what he teaches is true, not false. Obey the Spirit’s teaching, then, and remain in union with Christ. (1 John 2:27 GNB)
April 8th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
FFTM,
Whew! You have given a ton of things to try to respond to. I’m not sure how “effective” I can be through blogging, so I’ll try to give some general thoughts - not to be evasive, but to at least conceptualize the basic questions.
Just to clarify one “small” point. Initially, I had referenced the Great Commission as our “Objective”. Somehow, this has now been referenced as a question of “priority” - to which there is a subtle yet distinct difference. What should the balance be between “discipling” and “evangelism”? The 5-fold ministry (which includes Evangelists & Teachers) was given for the perfecting of the saints. Interesting twist to think that Evangelism is for the “saints”… Nevertheless, it would be good to keep in perspective that the Great Commission is both “heralding good news” as well as “teaching/discipling/equiping”.
Having said that, I am very familiar with staffing percentages for “ministry/service” organizations. Typically, they range from 30-50% of a Budget. CBC falls within that range. Of the main organizational “sectors”, I would say that Evangelism/Missions seems to be approximately 15% - but you can get our annual report to confirm that. (I don’t have one in front of me - I’m “esti-guessing”). And, the annual report does provide a breakdown of funds for all the respective activities.
Although you haven’t asked this, some may wonder if the leadership is getting “fat” financially. I can speak with truth and knowledge on this question because I have been personally involved with the salary structure of the church. The answer is definitely “NO”. CBC conducts an annual survey of fair compensation plans for churches across the nation. At best, we are in the middle of the road. And, if there are “annual adjustments”, they are extremely modest, if not flat.
Another side note, it is interesting that “tithe” in the Bible had several components to it - one tithe was for the staff (Levites), and another tithe was for the service. (Boy that comment should agitate the “Non-Tithe Theologians!!!
)
In reading your comments, would it be fair to say that it has been quite a while since you’ve been to CBC? I only say that because of your questions about whether it has changed since you attended. I have been at BT/CBC since 1983. I was Music Minister under Pastor Dick Iverson’s leadership. He is still my spiritual “father”. I walked and worked through the transition of leadership, and am still with the leadership under Pastor Frank Damazio.
Without a doubt, the core of the church has changed - hopefully more postively than negatively as it pertains to the Great Commission. I would also say that more focus and resources have been devoted to Evangelism/Missions than during the BT days.
It would be my “opinion” that there is an “easier, relaxed” warmth that people can experience as a result of some practical changes to the facilities (i.e. tables, fellowship, coffee, etc) Hopefully this can be translated in “unlovely” (your term) people feeling welcomed. But I think only “they” can really make that determination.
I would certainly be interested in your thoughts if, after you visit (again?), you could share if there has been any change over the past 10-20 years.
End of my “babbling”…
April 8th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Anna,
To put your “wonder” to rest - No, I am not being provided “input from the leadership cadre”!!!
That gives me a chuckle…I guess I must be part of the “cadre”.
My thoughts are my own…I think…But then if I’ve been brainwashed, how would I know if my thoughts are my own or not?
Just a thought…I think…
April 9th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Howard, thank you for breaking the silence. I know that is completely cheesy, but I don’t understand the unresponsiveness from the leadership at CBC. Actually, I’ve never really understood the wall of silence that flew up every time someone questioned a decision, really anything, that came from the top. It conveys a lack of confidence, which is something I understand now that I’m out in the real world. If you are confident in your decision, people can (and will) question your decision and that’s okay. You have answers. You have a plan. But simply saying “this is the way it’s going to be and questioning my way is questioning God’s way” is really a way of saying “I have no idea what I’m doing but if anyone finds that out I’m totally screwed”.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Howard (as if you have nothing better to do)
I’m curious about this:
“Another side note, it is interesting that “tithe” in the Bible had several components to it - one tithe was for the staff (Levites), and another tithe was for the service.”
Would you explain how it’s possible to disregard all the “rules” about tithing with one exception…the tithe itself?
Seems like a bit of a stretch to ignore the “rules” but keep the “10%”.
Which is it Howard, the law or the cross?
April 10th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Perhaps Howard is a Levite, that he is entitled to the tithe?
Hebrews 7:5
April 10th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Howard, thank you for your comments.
I have to echo JP’s recent comment re: the tithe, as well as his point about tithing on his original list of CBC concerns. I guess that makes me a “non-tithe theologian,” and I’m OK with that. Here are some points for your consideration:
Did giving exist before the law? What did that look like for Cain and Abel? For Abram (specifically in his giving to Melchizedek)? For Jacob?
Under the law, each Jewish household was required to give THREE tithes (not one); two each year: one to the Levites (government), one for the temple (worship & community), so 10% of their income twice each year, and then another 10% every three years for the poor.
10%+10%+3.33%=22.33% annually. So, to use the term “tithe” as it is presently used by many churches, as synonymous with 10% of one’s annual income, is inaccurate/incorrect.
Drawing a parallel between the Israel nation of the OT and modern America is faulty. Israel’s “tithes” supported their entire nation, their government, those who needed welfare, and those who served religious roles (as religion was part of their government and culture).
Tithing was under the law. Under the new covenant which Jesus established through his death and ressurection, are we under the law?
What did Jesus say to the Pharisees who were obsessed with “tithing?”
Mt. 23:23
What is the New Testament model for giving, based on the practices and attitudes of the early church?
Proportionate (1 Cor 16:2)
Consistent (1 Cor 16:2, 2 Cor 9:7-8)
Liberal (2 Cor 8:2)
Sacrifice (2 Cor 8:3)
Eager (2 Cor 8:4)
Do you see any evidence in the NT for “tithing” (i.e., giving 10% of one’s annual income)? Any for compulsory giving? Any for formulaic giving? I do not see any evidence for any of these. ALL we have belongs to the Lord and comes from the Lord. Not only a % of it. We have a responsibility to seek the Lord for his direction as to how he would have us spend all of our money, including how much to give to our local church. On a corporate or systems level, cultivating and practicing NT giving results in higher levels of giving, i.e., more money, than practicing the faulty, flat 10% “tithe” model. Church leaders must trust the Lord to work in and through the local body to meet local needs. This contrast to the fear-based model of coercing 10% of members’ income changes the entire dynamic of the church. More importantly, removing the “give to God and God will bless you” nonsense from a church’s rhetoric and philosophy changes the dynamic between the members and the Lord.
Yes, I do believe in proportionate giving. People should give according to their ability…and by “ability,” I mean more than just their level of income, i.e., how many responsibilities for children and other family members and other matters someone has. And, I don’t believe it’s the church leaders’ jobs to get official documentation (or even ask a member) of members’ income (and “responsibilities”) so that a determination can be made of the % of income and thus a judgment as to the “faithfulness” of the member can be made so as to determine whether members are worthy of “ascension up the ladder of ministry hierarchy.” TRUST GOD. Trust God to work in and through his people. Trust God to provide for the needs of the local church. I just couldn’t address CBC’s philosophy of “tithing” without touching on the fear-basis of the whole thing. Fear is the basis of much of CBC’s philosophy; fear and performance, conditional acceptance and “love.” It’s extremely disturbing. But, perhaps we can delve into that in future posts. For now, I’ve said my piece on tithing. I would be very curious, Howard, to hear your thoughts on my points.
Thanks,
FFTM
April 10th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
haha…FFTM got pwn3d!!!
April 11th, 2006 at 7:24 am
Apparrently, Howard has his own cheering section! I’m not sure how FFTM got “pwn3d”, since all Howard has done so far is to give his spin on why CBC acts the way it does. In all his explanations, his statements show that he assumes that everyone believes, or should believe, the same way he does about things like tithing.
One thing that did clearly bother me, Howard, was your rebuttal for the “coercive” nature of the Eternity plays.
It was akin to saying, “Ah, you don’t like being slapped into submission? It’s better than getting kicked in the groin, eh?” That smacks of the same atagonistic attitude displayed by “leaders” like Pat Robertson whose statements portray a wrathful and unmerciful God, instead of the Christ who willingly laid down his life for us. As far as your specific example of Paul, I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. Paul’s conversion was a long process, even after he was healed of his blindness, and God never threatened to send him to Hell or condemned him for his actions. It was a personal plea: “Why are you doing this to me?”
I think the Gospel can be preached without elaborate plays that are emotionally manipulative (and perhaps abusive). The best testimony of the Gospel, in my opinion, is a changed life. (Paul is a good example in this case.) People who demonstrate the love and grace of God through their actions is a much more persuasive argument. You can call Eternity a strategy if you want. I think it is a fundamentally flawed one. Judge a tree by it’s fruit. Of all the converts and dedications resulting from the dozens of performances at CBC, how many of those thousands of people are still at CBC today? Of all the money spent on these plays, how much of it has brought real church growth of
tithingdiscipled believers?April 11th, 2006 at 7:30 am
What does “pwn3d” mean? Whatever it is, I don’t think “ha ha” is applicable. Plus, this is not a game, “Satisfied PBC Alumni” (although using the term “alumni” in re: to PBC seems like a stretch, especially for those of us who have “real” education and degrees).
FICM, I agree with you, both re: the faulty analogy between Saul/Paul’s conversion and Eternity, and re: Eternity.
Any comments on the substance of my post above?
April 11th, 2006 at 9:05 am
pwn3d
April 11th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Only this: to whom/what do you think people are to give “proportionately, consistently, liberally, sacrificially, eagerly”?
April 11th, 2006 at 11:28 am
uh…the poor
April 11th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Uh, yeah. I know dat … you know dat … but does FFTM know dat? FFTM seems to support giving to religious institutions and the task-masters thereof, based on the comment below …
The above doesn’t sound so ‘Free’ to me, but rather sounds like institution-speak.
Where did Jesus ever ask anyone for money? And if we really believe that “What Would Jesus Do” crap, why are people asking for money, when Jesus didn’t?
Da Bible says we are all priests now - and - like one old saying goes “the ground is level at the foot of the cross” … so where does it come from this silly notion of paid religious professionals that the flock has to support? Or buildings? Or programs? Let ‘em get a real job, like Paul told them to do, and present the gospel without charge.
If we are all priests, sons, temples of the Holy Spirit, and God is no respecter of persons (nor should we be), what is the basis for differentiating one believer from the other, and paying one and not the other?
…
RP said well - how can all the rules of the tithe (10%) be tossed, but not the 10% itself?
It is absurd that non-Jews in ministry, lay claim to that which was solely for the Levites. Are we s’posed to believe they are Levites?
Hmmm … that gives me a idea … perhaps I should claim to be the reincarnation of Moses and demand believers bring me the occasional side of beef or rack of lamb - I’ll toss it on the altar of my gas BBQ, waft a little smoke toward the offerer, absolve them of their sins, and then chow down … claiming I’m the modern Moses is no more absurd than pastors who lay claim to the Levite’s portion.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Dear Unscrupulous:
In response to your question–”to whom/what do you think people are to give “proportionately, consistently, liberally, sacrificially, eagerly”?”
The “mouth that feeds you” and then whomever the Lord directs you to give (i.e., and the Lord directs me to give to the poor and needy, NOT parachurch organizations).
:)
FFTM
April 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Hello, Howard, are you there? It’s me, FFTM. It’s been a week since my last post to you and I’m wondering why you haven’t responded. Sincerely, I am wondering. I hope you enjoyed Easter.
FFTM