JohnPaul (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