An Inside Look at MFI
Posted on September 26th, 2006 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryThe leadership of MFI is challenging the legal rights of the elders at Christian Life Fellowship to remove their senior pastor from his position of leadership.
A couple of weeks ago, the elders at Christian Life Fellowship in Aberdeen, Washington asked their senior pastor, Doug Cotton, to resign due to his anger problems. Mr. Cotton signed the resignation form and quietly left the church.
However, the leadership of MFI felt that this removal was unbiblical and not in compliance with MFI. And as such, Wendell Smith and Dick Iverson sent letters to the elders reprimanding them for their actions.
In addition, the former pastor of the church, Mr. Cotton, sent a letter to his congregation declaring that he is no longer leaving the church and is still their pastor.
This story is still developing. But a reader tipped me off to MFI's actions and also sent me a copy of the letters prepared by Mr. Smith, Mr. Iverson and Mr. Cotton. I will copy the letters in full in the comment section of this blog. But I want to share a few excerpts, so you can get a feel for how MFI controls churches within its affiliaition.
Mr. Smith writes to the elders:
I am writing to appeal to you as Elders of Christian Life Fellowship to reconsider the action you have taken against Pastor Doug. I am confident you could not find even three Pastors who would agree with what you have done in aligning yourself to remove your Pastor from his position based on your perspective. Not only is your decision weak legally and constitutionally but you have uncovered your congregation spiritually and this presumptuous step will certainly split the church.
Mr. Iverson sends a letter to the entire Congregation: (notice the veiled threat of legal action)
The Bible does say in 1 Timothy 3:19-20 not to receive an accusation against an elder except there be two or three witnesses and then if he has sinned he is to be rebuked openly that others may fear. Listening intesnely to the elders I found there is not anyone who has two or three witnesses that charges him with a sinful disqualification of his senior pastor position. No pastor is perfect but we must abide by the Scripture and the legal constitution which has also been violated.
Lastly, here is Mr. Cotton's letter:
Until I am directed otherwise, I am the pastor of CLF and will continue to lead this church with integrity and accountability.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:40 am
Letter from Doug Cotton to his Congregation.
Dear CLF Congregation,
I was hoping that, by this week, I would be able to address you from
the pulpit. However, this mode of communication will have to suffice for
now. There are many things that have transpired over the last three weeks and I fear that many of you are confused and that is understandable.
The truth is, it will be difficult to totally clear up all that has happened, if we want to cover each other’s transgressions. This message is to primarily let you know where things stand with me as your pastor. So here it goes.
God set me in this church over 30 years ago. Over the years I have
served the vision of this church and its people in many different capacities.
I have been blessed to serve you through CLF as your Senior Pastor for
the past fifteen years and I look forward to many years to come. I
believe God called me to this place, at this time, to serve you, to pastor you, and to love you. The last three weeks have been the most challenging of my life.
As I have walked through them, I have become more aware than ever of
the call of God on my life to Grays Harbor and beyond. I have also been
reminded of my great love for you - which has been the reason for
leading, pastoring and serving you to the best of my ability over the years.
I love you. I love you with all my heart - and I will always love you. I
love this church. I love this city and I openly declare my affection for you.
It was never my intention to resign as Senior Pastor of CLF. I didn’t
want to on Labor Day evening nor do I wish to now. I believe I have been
called and ordained by Jesus Christ to lead CLF. I am completely devoted to God’s standard of righteousness and integrity for His leaders, and I am
accountable and submitted to the apostolic (spiritual oversight) authority in my life and over this church.
I know it was communicated from the pulpit last Sunday that I would be
starting the Meier Clinic this week. I want you to know that it has been postponed as we work through some of the issues with our leadership.
I also wanted to address you before I move forward with the plans to
address the needs in my personal life and leadership. I believe it’s also
important for you to know that I do not agree with all the accusations
that have been levied against me and have been advised by apostolic
oversight to postpone this process until these internal issues are worked out.
Let me be clear, I am completely committed to the process of growth, change, and the working of godly character in my life. I am very aware of
personal needs and weakness. The apostle Paul spoke of his own weaknesses when he said, “I don’t mean to say that I have already achieved these things or that I have already reached perfection! But I keep working toward that day when I will finally be all that Christ Jesus saved me for and wants me to be.
No, dear brothers and sisters, I am still not all I should be,
but I am focusing all my energies on this one thing: Forgetting the past
and looking forward to what lies ahead, I strain to reach the end of the
race and receive the prize for which God, through Christ Jesus, is calling
us up to heaven.” (Philippians 3:12-14 NLT) While I may go forward with
plans to attend the Meier Clinic in the future, my highest priority is to
provide this church with strong, healthy leadership during this difficult
time.
Some may doubt my accountability in light of this action, however
there is no cause for doubt. I have been and will continue to be accountable to my wife, other pastors and apostolic leaders. The line of accountability has been strong throughout my ministry. There are many great friends and co-laborers in the ministry who have provided friendship, strength and personal accountability and I want to personally thank them for their kindness to Lois and I as they have loved, supported, and corrected us over the years.
I especially honor Pastors Wendell and Gini Smith of The City Church in Seattle, and Apostle Dick Iverson of Ministers Fellowship International (MFI). There are others, Pastor Dave Bryan, Pastor Marc Cargill, Pastor Rick Green and many others, are to many to list. I have opened my life to them as a book. They have helped me and walked with me through many decisions and challenges, including the challenges of these past few weeks. I have been accountable and open to them for many years and will continue to do so for years to come. They have confirmed God’s calling on my life to the ministry and to pastor this church.
Until I am directed otherwise, I am the pastor of CLF and will continue to lead this church with integrity and accountability. Let me also take this
opportunity to thank those who have sent us countless cards, letters, and emails of encouragement; this has impacted our hearts tremendously. Over these past weeks we have had the opportunity to experience firsthand what it is like to be loved by Jesus through your kind correspondences and the warm conversations of encouragement and support.
This next week, we are hoping the elders will agree to meet with us,
and with our spiritual/apostolic covering (Pastor Frank Damazio - the
co/vice chairman of MFI) to bring us back to the Bible and our by-laws as we all work through the process of restoration that was presented to you from the pulpit September 10th. We covet your prayers during this week.
As your pastor, I am asking you to hang in there with us. Continue to
support with your presence, your giving and your serving. The future
for CLF is bright! God has given us future and destiny. The prophet
Jeremiah prophesied about us when he said, “For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.” We have a hope! We have a vision! We will step out of this difficult season and into the glorious presence of God. God is gong to heal us, restore us and we will go forward into our future
with faith and hope. God is good and He does all things well. Jesus
Christ will build His Church and nothing will be able to stop it. We believe
that what is impossible with men is possible with God and that the end of
our story will be better than the beginning.
In closing, please remember that our battle is not in the natural, but
is best fought on a spiritual plain. “10 Finally, my brethren, be strong
in the Lord and in the power of His might. 11 Put on the whole armor of
God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For
we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against
spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.” (Ephesians 6:10-13) Please utilize the
spiritual gifts in prayer and intercession that God has showed to you during this important time of CLF’s history.
Thank you for listening to my heart. I love you and am praying for you, as I trust you are for us.
Gratefully,
Pastor Doug Cotton
P.S. We unfortunately do not have e-mail addresses for everyone in
the church. Please foreword this to as many people you know who consider CLF their home. I am also attaching e-mails from our pastoral oversight as confirmation of their support of the direction we have chosen.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Letter from Wendell Smith to the Edlers at CLF:
Dear Rick, Dan, Stan and Dan,
I am writing to appeal to you as Elders of Christian Life Fellowship to
reconsider the action you have taken against Pastor Doug. I am
confident you could not find even three Pastors who would agree with what you have done in aligning yourself to remove your Pastor from his position based on your perspective. Not only is your decision weak legally and constitutionally but you have uncovered your congregation spiritually
and this presumptuous step will certainly split the church. I fear the
very thing you wanted to avoid, you are going to produce.
Even if all the accusations you have raised are accurate, you have
foolishly exalted resolvable offenses to the level of pastoral
disqualifications. This violates both Matthew 18 and 1 Timothy 5:19.
If you proceed with this direction you will destroy both your church and
reputation in the community and damage the cause of the Gospel.
There are certainly alternatives- including greater accountability for
Pastor Doug, but I am confident this choice of yours is going to
backfire if you continue down this road.
As leaders in a church, you must act in faith and not in fear. Only
faith pleases God. I cannot envision this decision pleasing God or
bearing good fruit. There are other choices if you will humble
yourselves and admit it.
I know Pastor Iverson and myself (and I’m sure others) would love to
help you and Pastor Doug and we were deeply disappointed that you did
not consult us before making something like this public. We pray you
will humbly reconsider your actions, take biblical and Christlike
leadership and work toward reconciliation for the sake of your church
and the Gospel.
Sincerely,
Pastor Wendell Smith
September 26th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Letter from Dick Iverson to the Congregation at CLF:
To the congregation of Christian Life Fellowship:
I greet you all in the name of Jesus who is Head of the Church who He loves and for whom he died.
My heart was deeply grieved when I spoke with all of the elders a few days ago. I spent over an hour on a conference call because I had heard they had confronted Pastor Dough with a dismissal charge removing him from the pulpit.
The Bible does say in I Timothy 3:19-20 not to receive an accusation against an elder except there be two or three witnesses and then if he has sinned he is to be rebuked openly that others may fear.
L
istening intensely to the elders I found there is not anyone who has two or three witnesses that charges him with a sinful disqualification of his senior pastor position.
As a spiritual father to your church for over 30 years I must ask you not to remove your pastor. No pastor is perfect but we must abide by the Scripture and the legal constitution which also has been violated.
I, with other spiritual men and women of God, will stand by you as a spiritual covering until this issue is totally resolved.
We love you all and you will be in our prayers.
In His name,
Pastor Dick Iverson
Chairman
Ministers Fellowship International
September 26th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Has MFI (Iverson and Smith) even read their own Philosophy?
Important to note that the statement in the Philosophy uses the word “Accountability” just once, in the title. There is nothing in the body of the statement to suggest that MFI’s authority trumps the local churches authority. In fact, it says that the local churches authority should not be violated.
So it seems, based on their own statement of Philosophy where governance is concerned, that Smith and Iverson are just blowing smoke. They are the ones without authority it would seem.
…
The question I’d like to see asked is:
Who in the congregation has been hurt by the pastors anger? Why is the pastors use of anger in / over the congregation NOT seen by MFI as “spiritual abuse”?
Sam
September 26th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Taken from the MFI Philosophy page (my emphasis added):
September 26th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Samaritan beat me to it…sorry if I repeated stuff.
September 26th, 2006 at 11:42 am
From their Affirmations page:
That last one MFI members would argue that that means everyone needs to be subject to the pastor. But I would argue it also means the pastor is accountable and subject to the elders and the church.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Pastor Cotton wrote:
The whole anger subject brings up a lot for me. In my experience / observation, where there’s anger in a ‘leader’, there’s the use of it as a weapon to control people. I’ve seen it in myself, my family, my former pastor, etc. I’ve spent a couple weeks in a Minirth-Meier Clinic myself to deal with anger, and depression, following the unexpected breakup of my 1st marriage.
Honestly, it is not easily dealt with - as anger so often goes to the core of a person - where it is deeply rooted in life-long hurts, issues, disappointments.
I’d find it very hard to believe that this is the first anyone has ever confronted him about it, and it probably isn’t the first time he’s backed away from seeking treatment for it. But that’s just a guess.
…
In my former church, people tiptoed around the pastor who had one of the worst anger problems I’ve ever seen. I witnessed him blow up in several committee meetings, and in fact it was his blow up in a meeting of the Worship committee that I refused the nomination to chair it. I was sitting with the pastor and 2 other men at one end of the table, where we were talking about the youth, and how they struggled to find relevancy in the die-hard traditional worship service. As we talked, the pastor became red, gnashed his teeth, and he panted a dog to control himself. I was fearful that the dude would have a stroke! Between his appearance and couple seething statements, it shut down all discussion and once again the committee rubber stamped the pastors agenda.
I’ve been on the receiving end of several sharp barbs from him, as have every other church member who has dealt with him on committee. The anger colored his messages, and oppressed the church through fear.
Pastor Cotton, it seems to me, has it backwards. Whatever issues he has to work out with the church, should come only after he works out whatever anger issues there are within himself.
That kind of anger is a sickness, that can only be dealt with by professional help of the sort that the Meier clinic can offer.
The Elders should be applauded for standing up to the guy, who I can only imagine, has used his anger to bully the congregation.
Jack
September 26th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
It’s great to see that MFI Pastors follow a strict code of accountability…
They will be accountable to whomever they please.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Also, I love this:
They wouldn’t be a part of MFI without all the giving.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Samaritan is still learning the ropes, FICM.
Just because Justin approved me to post new blogs, doesn’t mean I’m approved to post comments.
You just posted while my comment was in queue, waiting for approval.
Despite a few start-up glitches, I like this blogging stuff. Why, I would even go so far as to say that “I’m having more fun than Jonah!”
Sam
September 26th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
These posts raised alot of emotion for us in Boise as our ears perk up whenever anyone talks about ‘covering each other’ straight from John Bevere’s Undercover book. This was the #1 weapon of choice used to beat down any who would dare to question their leaders decisions or actions. I believe this hazy cloud will be analyzed as the ’shepherding’ movement in new clothing.
When we needed help down here with accountability it was told to us that MFI was well aware of the spending problems - little to no accountability –but there was nothing they could or would do. Their congregation should be thrilled that their elders were in a position to voice a concern and try to see it through to their protection. So is this just a one way street? When does MFI get involved –only on the side of the Pastor? There was always an undercurrent of fear that prevailed here that an uprising might happen by one of their leaders –it happened anyways. So glad to be out of the parent-child type of relationship and where we are treated as adults.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Can someone explain “Spiritual Covering” to me? Because, from the research I’ve done it sounds like complete manipulation, but it appears to be one of MFI’s cornerstone beliefs.
Both Wendell Smith
and Dick Iverson
talk about this covering, but I want to know why?
What happens when your congregation is uncovered spiritually?
Why do I need a spiritual covering and what does it cover?
Isn’t Jesus our spiritual covering?
Weren’t his actions on the cross good enough?
Someone please, help me understand. If there is anyone out there who really believes in this, please, I’d like to get some genuine insight on the subject.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
JP - there’s a book by Frank Viola called Who Is Your Covering that will explain it - the link is to Frank’s web site, and has a nice summary of the FALSE doctrine of covering.
Essentially, the covering doctrine maintains that every man needs to have a person who stands between them and the Lord, having some form of spiritual authority over you, holding you accountable, etc.
Yet, the wise man knows that he is in direct relationship with Jesus, led and taught by Jesus, and accountable to Jesus alone.
Jesus IS our true covering, and the only covering we need.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
dorks
September 26th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
About time you came home. Where you been Magledon?
September 26th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Free At Last wants to frame this comment. Amazing how one lone word can sum it up so well!
September 26th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
In all seriousness, though, when Wendell says to the elders “Even if all the accusations you have raised are accurate, you have foolishly exalted RESOLVABLE OFFENSES… “, wouldn’t you think that if these offenses had been RESOLVABLE, these discerning men wouldn’t have taken it to the level of ‘pastoral disqualification’? If there was a way to work with the guy, they would have done that by now and there’s a reason they felt they had no other choice but to do it this way.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Wow. There are certainly many issues embedded in this situation. Since I don’t know the pastor or elders of this church, I can only speculate as to the actual circumstances in the church, the behavior of the pastor, and the dynamics amongst the leaders.
What concerns me is the role that MFI is taking in this. As many of you mentioned, their own official documents preclude them from interfering in local church governance. However, it appears that MFI can insert itself wherever it wishes. How is this different than a denomination that has the power to instate and terminate pastors in certain churches? Perhaps MFI churches (the leaders) experience some of the same things that members of CBC and other MFI churches experience: peer pressure to “conform,” the sense that they must do whatever pleases those “above” them out of fear of rejection, snubbing, or being deemed those who have squandered God’s call on their lives. Just look at the language in the letter from Smith, who called the elders foolish, arrogant, stupid (because their decision will lead to a disastrous church split), rebellious/insolent (because they didn’t confer with MFI leaders before making a decision), and inordinately powerful (that this action will somehow “damage the cause of the Gospel). No wonder people in that culture do what they are told and what those in power wish; if they don’t, they will be dessimated.
One more thought: Much like battered women stay with their abusers, people stay in MFI churches and MFI churches stay in MFI. CRAZY! My hearts go out to them.
I didn’t choose my “name” because I love the Matrix movies or am some sci-fi nut. I chose it because I am SO GLAD that the Lord has freed me from the matrix of legalism. God, free us all, every one.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Matrix, I was thinking that very thought of battered women who are forced to stay with their abusers. Could it be that these elders were taking a stand as a protectional boundary of saying “no more”? Samaritan inferred that too when he asked why the pastors’ anger isn’t considered ’spiritual abuse’ by MFI? Sounds like the pastor was willing and ready to cooperate with the elders according to the Daily World story and he wanted help and the elders were ready to HELP him. Seems as though they had reached a mutual understanding that was received by the people. The authoritarian stand he was railroaded into taking instead by the MFI leadership certainly isn’t going to help the anger problem. Isn’t anger usually an attempt of regaining control? If he’s forced into controlling this situation it will lead to more frustration and more of the same behavior.
September 26th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Good Insights–I thought we had it bad here till I went to a ‘Set Free’ group at our new church and heard a story of church abuse that made mine look pale in comparison from someone who worked directly with their church leadership. They tried to divide her marriage and attempted to lure her daughter into a ‘youth compound’ - of apartments next door to the church when she decided to go off staff. Of course it was a MFI church with even more control issues than we experienced –and we thought that would be impossible! I suspected then this went deeper than our own congregation. Too bad we had to burden our new church with all our issues but at least they were kind. I found out later that one of the churches in town referred to us as ‘The Amway Church’ because of our
hard sell techniques. And this was from the Sr. Pastor!
September 27th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Anger that leads to chronic outbursts is not a sickness. It is SIN. And sin has a cure. It is pride that causes us to want our own way so badly we will push it on others even if we have to hurt them. That congregation does not need to be “covered” by a man who is unwilling to confront his own sin. What the heck kind of covering is that?!
This situation is so familiar and I often thank God that He allowed our church (yes, an MFI church) to not just split but to completely fall apart. What a relief it was to lose that “covering” and truly find the Gospel! We need to pray for those people in that church. I hope their eyes are opening.
September 27th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Anger is a sin?
Anger is an emotion / feeling, being inherently neither good nor bad. Men may act sinfully in response to the feeling of anger, or it can be used as an emotional barometer to warn a person and prompt a healthy response, such as self defense and preservation in a dangerous situation.
What can happen (according to Minirth-Meier, and other counseling resourses I’ve read), particularly in older men who learned from our culture that showing emotion is unmanly, is when confronted with any situation that causes emotion, a person can skim over the initial more subtle feelings of sadness, regret, disappointment, frustration, and go straight to the power-emotion: anger - in part because it’s a familiar feeling - and the response to anger in men is often “take action” - be the ‘hunter gatherer’ - conquer the problem. Anger invokes the “Rambo” response in a lot of men.
As the ladies above have observed about battered wives, I can only agree, as a former battered husband. Today, and for the life of me, I couldn’t tell you why I stayed in my 1st marriage, except for my ‘christian’ views on divorce which required me to stick it out - and of course, the love for my children and deep committment to keep their family intact. Even after 16 years of abuse, I didn’t end the marriage, but rather labored to keep it intact.
Over the years, a person on the receiving end of abuse, keeps re-setting the counter … every time emotional or physical abuse was heaped on me, it was the ‘first time’ in my mind - because I was always looking for the things she did, that fulfilled my expectation of a normal, loving and healthy marriage relationship. And so her periodic ‘acting out’ was something I viewed as an abberation from normal, and I quickly forgave it. But! At a price. Seeds were sewn every time - bitter seeds - and anger grew from them. Deep seeded anger.
You are right, it can be cured. But it is not an instant cure. Private counseling, a men’s group for battered husbands (try to find 5-6 men who will admit that!), prayer, fasting, and of course, God’s divine intervention and the fullness of the Holy Spirit to displace the anger. In my case Jonah, the Father had to break me completely. Christian’s are often taught to expect the quick fix for personal problems - everything can be resolved (healed) in the time it takes to utter the “Sinner’s Prayer”
Yet the reality is for most personal issues, like problem anger, it takes years to deal with it. Even so, you don’t get rid of it, it remains - it’s just toned down, and you learn to respond healthily to it.
Now the only anger I ever experience, is when I smack my finger with a hammer, hit my head on the trunk lid, receive spam ($%#@!), read ignorant blog posts, etc.
I’m much better now! 
Seriously - there’s still occasional anger, but it’s appropriate, and through counselling I learned to act on it in a more healthy way.
There’s nothing to be ashamed of in seeking help / counseling. In fact, Pastor Cotton may find his ’spiritual’ position of ‘authority’ (yech!) and ‘covering’ an obstacle to getting help. How can God’s “set man” over that congregation have such a problem as to need in-patient / psych-ward type help? It’s stigmatic in this society - more so in a church environment with the added component of spiritual maturation / authority.
Being broken (humbled) through a situation like that is a GOOD thing. It’s not just once that a person is broken like that, it is renewed every time they talk/think about it. He’d be a better man for facing that anger and dealing with it.
Jack
September 27th, 2006 at 6:43 am
What I take from this is that when a minister joins MFI, the elders/church relinquish control and give control to MFI. This is something they might want to include in the brochure.
Someone also pointed out that in Dick Iverson’s letter he mentions the need for “two or three witnesses”. Yet even though several elders confronted Doug Cotton; this doesn’t count as “two or three witnesses” to Iverson. It’s another convenient interpretation of the Bible.
Lastly, this isn’t about love or about “spiritual covering.” This is about power. If Doug Cotton leaves the church. MFI loses its influence over CLF. So MFI is trying to keep Doug in power.
Whatever. We’ll see whether it works. In the meantime, MFI is looking pretty creepy.
September 27th, 2006 at 7:17 am
I don’t even know where to start…
The arrogance and audacity of these men is astounding to the say the least. The attempt to control and manipluate the People of God makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe we should return to the days where us lowly laypeople aren’t allow to try to read and interpret the Bible for ourselves!
I also have to laugh about this self-imposed wrong theology repeated by both men (and widely propagated around MFI circles) that they are now “without covering.” Although, that concept alone leads to so much control that it’s really not funny. Good thing they warned them that they are “Out of covering” so people can be scared back into accepting this man as their Pastor again!
Kudos to you Elders for stopping the abuse. Stay strong elders and don’t bow to the pressure of MFI. This isn’t the first time (or the last time) that MFI has tried to exert their infulence and control a situation in favor of a failing or sinful pastor. Cover up stories abound if you look for them. In fact you should probably take the next step and remove your church from MFI, there are plenty of other Normal, theologically grounded, non-Mafia like Church organizations to be a part of out there. My eyes were opened to that went I left the MFI circle.
More fear (Out of covering), more intimidation (”You are outside of your legal rights”)…….when will it stop!
MFI and Pastors, Stop Intimidating and Attempting to Control the People of God. They are NOT yours to control!!!!!!!
September 27th, 2006 at 7:29 am
You know, that one web site is “MINISTERS Fellowship International” - looks like it’s the MINISTERS who join it, not their churches.
Most towns, where there are more than a couple churches, have a town-wide ministerial association. What do they usually say the assoc. is for? Ecumenism or fellowship, never for governing / ruling. Regardless - that’s the ministers thing - they don’t have power over the church - though I ’spose they can have some measure of influence on the community as a whole.
So, if a church gives an MFI affiliated pastor the boot, is the church still an MFI church? What I read on the MFI site suggests that churches were originally INDEPENDENT charismatic churches, and the only reason for MFI was some kind of networking for pastors.
I hope CLF sticks to their guns - Pastors can be real douchebags.
September 27th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I’m so amazed at Jack who tells us these things he went through and then explains what he learned from it. Most guys are so afraid to admit these types of things that our society has set up as weakness. Jack’s probably the strongest amongst us and his voice is palatable. So thanks Jack.
Next subject: In this undercover doctrine, is it ‘under cover’ or ‘cover up’? (if someone already asked this question, forgive me if I’m repeating it.) What I’m wondering is if this under cover thing is all a ploy to get the people to cover up what leadership does wrong as to continue to enable the behaviour. What’s so confusing is, in our christian culture we are taught that love covers a multitude of sins, rightly so; but when it’s twisted to mean cover up just so know one will know, then it gets into this serious dysfunction and cult-like mind control thing. My hat goes off to those who go undercover (as in undercover agent) to uncover all the cover-up!
September 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Good point, Unscrupulous! MFI is intended to be a “fellowship” of ministers and not a denomination. By their own definition, there is no such thing as an MFI church, just pastors who are members of MFI. That being said, they require membership dues based on church size! (I guess some pastors are better than others? Or maybe it’s just plain greed on the part of MFI.)
I wonder how many church members would be happy (upset) to hear that a portion of their giving has gone to an organization that doesn’t support the needs and desires of the church? How many pastors draw their MFI dues from the church’s general fund instead of their own pockets? I’m willing to bet it’s a high percentage.
September 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
FICM said:
September 27th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
I thought so.
September 27th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
TCRefuge said:
Oh, stop it.
There’s only one reason for sharing like that, for whomever it may help.
So, how’s things in the ’spud state’ ?
September 29th, 2006 at 1:59 am
So much for the congregations trust in the elders, and the elders confidence in leading the flock. Maybe the next time the elders come to a decision they can skip praying to God for direction and just call Windell of Dick.
If these men are elders aren’t they shepherds themselves of the flock of God or are they just yes men elders, elders who just sit on a board and figure out how they can make the pastors vision appealing to the body? Any way youy look at it , it seems to be a sad joke.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Wow, it is amazing that so many people can take what they read as truth and form an opinion about things that do not concern them. I am involved in this situation and know the details from both sides of the story. What you have been given here is one side with a twisted view of what is really going on. Lines from letters written have been taken out of context. As I am reading each post, it seems that there is a common thread between all of you; past unresolved hurts. Dragging someone’s name through the mud over and over is not beneficial to anyone involved in this situation. I will not go in to details, as that would be inappropriate for me to do so. But I can assure you, if you in fact had ALL the correct details from ALL parties involved, you may see this situation in a different light…..
September 29th, 2006 at 11:05 am
And you are…?
September 29th, 2006 at 11:10 am
A member of the church as well as a friend to many of the individuals involved, on both “sides”
September 29th, 2006 at 11:40 am
So let me see if I understand you, Honesty. We have incomplete/incorrect information, but you won’t point out what parts are wrong. We’re just supposed to take your word for it. Then you enhance your credibility by saying the only reason we smell a rat here is because we’re blinded by bitterness. Thanks for that anonymous and totally unsubstantiated assessment.
Has it occurred to you that the prevailing opinion for this little episode might have something to do with reading the ENTIRE letters from MFI higher ups and seeing their contents run completely contrary to established MFI standards? For me, it doesn’t matter whether Doug Cotton was removed for legitimate reasons or not. This is all about MFI honchos using moral and legal strong arming tactics to get their way, and I find that deplorable. If you would like to debate that point, I would be very interested to see you defend their letters given MFI’s established rules regarding member churches affairs.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Honesty….
I think that by your church allowing their dirty laundry to be aired publically in The Daily World, or whatever your local newspaper is, that they set themselves up for all kinds of conjecture.
Personally, I think church business like this needs to be kept in the church, not printed in a public forum such as the NEWSPAPER.
It is indeed unfortunate how this all has progressed since the initial “incident.” However, there is a bit of honest/true speculation into the motives and actions of MFI “leadership” and the way they are structurally set up and function.
I have known the “leadership” people of MFI for nearly 30 years and have followed the genesis of how their modus operandi how it has evolved over time.
It appears to be that the “senior pastor” (or ex?) does indeed have anger problems and has allowed them to inappropriately interfere with pastoring his church. That is very unfortunate indeed and I hope and pray all parties involved seek out the help they need to overcome the problems it has all created.
This is a “private” blog of sorts. Yes it is in a public forum. But you are not forced to read it or to believe anything that is printed here. Much of what is said is said tongue-in-cheek. Much of what is said appears to be coming from playing “devil’s advocate,” trying to get people to think outside the box…think for themselves instead of what SO MANY churches have pounded into them to believe carte blanc without reason or questioning or searching on their own.
So….if you don’t agree what is printed in this blog, DON’T read it and DON’T get your hackles up.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:52 am
So, clear it up for us then. So far, all we have are the words of the MFI pastors saying that Cotton has done nothing wrong and the elders are out of line. What would make 8 church elders want to give the pastor the heave-ho? This is no trivial matter, and it seems unlikely that 8 leaders of the church would collude to displace a pastor they merely didn’t like. Let alone explain it to the entire congregation, and have Cotton himself confirm it in front of them.
Was he lying when he wrote his apology? Does he now deny that this happened? Or does he recant his statements? Did the reporter get this wrong? Nope, in his letter he confirms the issues at hand and denies that it’s something serious enough to remove him from his place of “spiritual authority”. Never mind the people he hurt, never mind that people question his ability to lead, never mind that he neglects getting help until this is “resolved”, just make sure y’all keep coming and giving. To him this is just a power play. His entire letter is geared towards reaffirming his place of leadership and not about resolving offenses.
To say there is more than meets the eye here is probably true, but even with more details I don’t see how you can justify Cotton’s actions in the light of what’s happened. To stubbornly refuse to step down in spite of the demands of your own leadership team seems rather arrogant and controlling. You know, he sounds alot like some other recently deposed leader in a state of denial: “I am still the leader of Iraq!”
September 29th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Honesty, you’re missing our point. We (at least most of us) aren’t taking issue with or even forming opinions about the “situation” at hand. What we ARE taking issue with and forming opinions about is MFI’s role in it. Get it?
September 29th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Can you imagine the roller coaster ride this congregation will be on now when a reversal of actions takes place. Even the article said that it was the first step of restoration and now it has been halted. This is the true course of a dysfuctional organization like a dysfunctional family - you come ‘home’ on Sunday and you never know what to expect –what mood will things be in today? i suspect the restoration was beginning because the people had faced the ‘elephant’ in the room, addressed it and took steps to deal with it. What I like most about the church I’m in now is they like to hit things straight on –it gives security to know that God can help you handle it when you face it. Could it be this is a spiritual example of how to deal with behavior problems for the congregation or family –but then MFI — the inlaws, come in and ‘try to fix it’ causing a much bigger mess? Just a thought –to be continued …
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:29 pm
So, is there any consensus on an appropriate course of action? From what I read, it is acceptable for Pastor Cotton to follow through with counselling and pursue reconcilliation. Just as well, I read approval for the elders to have made their decision. Seems straightforward.
Just where does the path get crooked? Is it appropriate for MFI to sway events, and if so to what extent?
I’m a member of CLF and involved in leadership. Of course I have my own views on the matter, but I’ve never been exposed to such a level of strife within a church. Many of you have. Faithful people around me have also suffered terrible abuses from other churches to the extent that “shepherding” might double as a curse in their eyes. Any insight you might be willing to share?
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:52 am
Hi Luke 44,
Concering “shepherding” and leadership, I personally thing the modern church model, wherby the church leadership/organization is depicted in ‘top-down-organization-chart’ style is wrong. Last church I belonged to, the church prez drew an inverse org chart, with the congregation at the top and the elders below that and the pastor at the bottom, in some vain attempt to show a servant-based (whoever is the greatest must be the least) type organization … the prez was quite proud of it. But, that was on paper only, as the pastor ruled through anger, intimidation and manipulation.
In reality, Jesus church is flat. No one man is above another - we are all in direct, 1:1 relationship with the savior. Hopefully, we can walk side by side, and therein encourage one another on the way up to the real Lord’s house - the New Jerusalem.
It is said that “the ground is level at the foot of the cross” - there, if we have assumed a right position, we are humbled, and prostrate before the Lord. No one above the other, no one between anyone else and Jesus … just equality in humility and broken-ness.
One of the things I’ve pondered over the years, is a statement Jesus made near the end of Matthew 23. Vs. 38 I think? He said to the jews “behold, your house is left to you desolate” - in other words “God has left the building”. Continuing on that theme, is Acts 7:48 and Acts 17:24 which says “God does not live in houses/temples made by men/hands” … Elsewhere, 1 Cor. 3:16 and 6:19, it is written that we are now the new House of God. We are “living stones” (1 Peter 2:4-9), which if we will just submit to Christ Jesus, He will assemble us into a living temple.
But what does that temple look like? You know, I’ve read Revelation, and what sticks out to me is the emphasis on the FOUNDATION. A foundation of various stones, laid side by side. I may be wrong or have forgotten, but I don’t really remember a description of the walls of this temple. Just the foundation.
Well, turning from Matthew 23 where “Jesus has left the building”, to Matthew 24:2, Jesus says about the temple:
It’s going to be thrown/torn down “not one stone shall be left atop the other”.
That’s always puzzled me - because today, about 1930 years later, there are still walls of that temple intact in Jerusalem - the so-called ‘western wailing wall’, etc. And so if what Jesus said was literal/physical, obviously the temple has not yet been fully thrown down - complete destruction is yet to come, or, Jesus was wrong.
But what if the temple stones Jesus was referring to was SPIRITUAL stones - the “living stones” of 1 Peter 2:4-9? What if the meaning of Jesus words in Matthew 24:2 was spiritual (see John 6:63 - “my words are spirit” statement by Jesus). If His words were spirit in reference to the temple, could Jesus have been saying:
My church is flat! Not one man shall be above the other - everyone shall be joined one to another arm in arm - shoulder to shoulder - and ultimately to Me as the chief cornerstone?
If that’s the case, then the leadership / eldership model we see in churches today, which resemble commercial / corporate structure, is wrong. And suggests that the ‘apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher’, and all the other labels we apply to the people in leadership capacity, need to be re-thunk in terms of function, and not position, of service, and not rulership.
Often I’ve heard it said that a true leader, doesn’t need to take the label, does not need to be addressed as such, and in fact leads transparently. I’ve been in some church situations where it was not immediately obvious who the leader was, because everyone was participating equally.
I don’t know what to tell you in terms of CLF. Organizations don’t change in my expience. But the hearts of people in them can change. Somehow, I think if we really had a good understanding of every one in the Body being equal, where we are all kings, priests, Sons, etc., and if leadership was approached with humility and a servants heart, there could be complete healing, reconciliation, and growth. But as long as leadership maintains the ‘clergy / laity’ divide and a top-down authoritarian type management style, there will always be people abused, and people who would not go anywhere near such an institution.
Jack
PS - Luke 44 - is that your name and age, or, are there 44 chapters in your version of Luke, or is that Luke 4:4?
Somehow, I suspect it’s the latter. 
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:02 am
Luke 44,
I copied the following from FICM comment above who copied it out of the MFI Philosophy page:
It seems the key would be if MFI was asked by the elder board to help the situation. Passive-agressive bullying tactics wouldn’t fall into the category of appropriate behavior.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:58 am
Boy isn’t that true TCR –maybe someone should mail them a set of their
bylaws again –either change them or change something else there because its confusing the sheep.
Jack I love the picture of the stones layed side by side-creating a colorful road of gems. As I read on the internet it is very clear this revolution is occuring everywhere within the Body of Christ but especially in charismatic churches. The interesting bit of history in all cases is that they were usually started by men who saw the flaws in their denomination and were looking for something different –hence like Martin Luther–but unfortunately they recreate the same thing as the numbers and leadership challenges grow, and many times much worse or controlling than what they left. The thing I read everywhere is people are questioning the’ Moses Model’ of one person at the top who is solely accountable to God, with little to no accountability to a board or elders. The one blog topic that consistently comes up is little to no financial accountability because that seems to be the one tangible piece that people can’t explain away. Since we live with corporate accountability -or non –the American
church resents being taken advantage of financially more than anything. The two pathways I see forming out there as models is the House Church –stone next to stone method and the Mega Church -building satelites around the country model. Wonder which one the Lord would desire or if the model is even apparant yet –I have a feeling its all in Revelations………
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Thanks for taking the time and skullwork to reply to me. I sense alot of experience and insight about these matters; in light of the fact that you can’t possibly know the full situation, history, and pulse of our church.
Which is based on love, obedience to God, and transparency as demonstrated by the leadership and shown throughout the congregation. Nothing wrong with those things imho. As people in different seasons of life, lots of things can and do go wrong. Pastors are no exception, and knowing these things beforehand doesn’t lesson the impact of change or tragedy. (Insert bible verses here).
I also sense alot of hostility toward MFI and their involvement; with CLF or any number of other churches. Perhaps that’s founded, I have no way of knowing. MFI was just a random, miscellaneous term I’d heard from time to time before, didn’t impact my work or occupy my thoughts much more than that.
After re-reading the letters from Dick Iverson and Wendell Smith, I remain unconvinced that this has much to do with MFI’s involvement. It seems more like letters from friends and associates of Doug Cotton going to bat for him. Perhaps the theology is sound, perhaps not. I would rather be careful and NOT mis-interpret events.
As advocates of MFI, I can understand that those pastors really can’t do anything without bringing a part of who they are into play. Same’s true with all of us, pastor or not. Aside from encouragement, counsel, or anything that one friend and associate would do for another…the question remains: is MFI doing anything diabolical to influence the situation?
Mr. Jack, your interest is flattering. My favorite verse.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Hi Luke,
Iverson’s comments are most troublesome to me - after listening to the elders, he says not one has 2-3 witnesses. That seems like a deceptively worded statement to me - the elders are a body, why refer to them individually like that? Do the 16 elders together have 2-3 witnesses? Are the elders themselves witnesses? Iverson’s wording just smells fishy / deceptive / manipulative.
I also have to wonder why Iverson would write to the congregation? It’s the minister who belongs to MFI, not the congregation. So what is Iverson’s authority to write the congregation?
Also, sounds like he’s pulling a ‘rank’ card on the congregation what with the “[I’m your] spiritual father of 30 years”. Does Iverson have long term personal involvement with the congregation? Does the congregation know him from before? Or are there members who like yourself know little about MFI, who say “Who’s this Iverson-cat who’s claiming to be our spiritual father?” Then there’s that whole business about Jesus words: “call no man father, for you have but one Father who is in Heaven” … or something like that. Seems like Iverson wants to usurp God’s role?
Lastly, the false covering doctrine - tossed out to instill fear, manipulate. The congregation is covered, by / in Christ Jesus.
Interesting too Smith’s comment about ‘not being consulted’ … not sure whether Smith is talking about “before sacking Cotton” or “before going public”? Or are those one in the same? If “not being consulted” means ‘before sacking Cotton’, then perhaps the relationship between the congregation/leadership (other than Cotton) with MFI isn’t quite the “spiritual father” relationship that Iverson makes himself out to be.
Does Cotton’s membership in MFI make Iverson the proud papa of CLF?
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Jack you hit the nail on the head. I don’t know why but this passage jumped out at me today about the ’spiritual father component. I could go on with story after story but suffice to say it is a big ‘MFI thing’ dating back somewhere. Our pastor referred to it often and it gave everyone a hunger to have him be our spiritual father as well -then when that couldn’t or didn’t happen people left decimated from unmet expectations, trying to capture something they were missing from their own fathers. I don’t know exactly what that term means or where it comes from but I know the fruit of it–once again getting our eyes off of the Lord.
His ‘comment’ about providing others to be their ‘covering’ during this transition smacks of the same. I am seeing it all with new eyes—easy to miss!
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Just what are the root of PBT and MFI –I mean which’ covering ‘did they come out from under exactly? I’ve wondered for years –was it a denomination and how did it go exactly? What are their roots?
Out of curiosity who was Martin Luther’s ‘covering when he nailed that
proclamation on the door of the cathedral?
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:50 pm
I know of a case where an MFI pastor got demon-possessed.
I dunno about you but I’m thinking maybe that should disqualify someone from the ministry. Perhaps Paul forgot that one: “the husband of one wife, . . .and not demon-possessed.”
But the big guns were called in, the fellow was delivered, and life went on.
There were elders in our church who committed adultery and were restored as elders. In fact my roommate was one of them. Took a few years, but hey. Never mind the sleeping around, the smoking and drinking, the teaching her son to sneak into movie theaters. Once a leader, always a leader.
I see that Richard Roberts is coming to the next big CBC conference. When my brother was at ORU, Richard Roberts was committing adultery.
I just don’t get it. Doesn’t anyone besides Judah stay pure anymore?
KariMichelle
October 4th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Do you know what conference that is and where did you find the info?
I appreciate your stories and have been wondering from the letters what
exactly is just cause to remove someone –does it state it biblically or is
it for each group of believers to discern…..theologians anyone!
October 4th, 2006 at 5:28 am
http://www.citybiblechurch.org/p/8927/Default.aspx
RR ex-wife wrote a tell-all book back when they divorced. Also my brother worked for him.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:30 am
Free AT Last wrote:
If you cite 1 Timothy 3 stuff, there’s PLENTY reason to disqualify the guy from his pastor role: (NOTE: I don’t know why Iverson/Smith say there’s no basis under scripture - again, seems like bluffing / intimidation / manipulation)
1 Timothy 3:1-7 GNB This is a true saying: If a man is eager to be a church leader, he desires an excellent work. (2) A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled, and orderly; he must welcome strangers in his home; he must be able to teach; (3) he must not be a drunkard or a violent man, but gentle and peaceful; he must not love money; (4) he must be able to manage his own family well and make his children obey him with all respect. (5) For if a man does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of the church of God? (6) He must be mature in the faith, so that he will not swell up with pride and be condemned, as the Devil was. (7) He should be a man who is respected by the people outside the church, so that he will not be disgraced and fall into the Devil’s trap.
Pretty clear to me, that this scripture ties into Paul’s passage on the fruit of the Spirit, in that this passage mentions self-control, gentleness, peacefullness, and NO violence (of which abuse through anger / spiritual abuse IS).
Vs. 7 is interesting - he must be respected by people OUTSIDE the church. What about the people INSIDE the church? Or does that go without saying?
…
There’s another thought that enters in about this. And that is the ‘blurring of the lines’ concerning ‘Biblical employ’, where the pastor is hired under fed. and state labor laws. The pastor has to apply for a job like every other candidate, goes through an interview process, and is hired, presumably with filing tax forms, paying health care benefits, retirement, etc. And so the employment of a pastor is in part patterened after scripture (the decision to hire is reached through prayer), and in part in compliance with employment law, tax law, etc.
With the offer of employment, there is certainly the implication of contract between employer (the church) and employee (the pastor), and performance expectations. With the annual budget, where the pastor and staff are considered for pay increase, there is the implication of performance reviews. Among the ‘performance expectations’ of any employer I’ve ever worked for, is the expectatation to work well with others, compliance with EO and harrassment laws (is non-harrassment limited to sexual issues, or, all forms of harrassment, inwhich case angry outbursts would qualify as harrassment), etc.
I can’t see where Cotton and MFI have a leg to stand on, biblically or civilly.
……
In another thread on this subject, I mentioned spending time in Minirth-Meier myself for depression after my 1st marriage broke up. The Spirit brought to my remembrance the man I shared a room with - a pastor from California who was dealing with a severe anger problems. He could be the most gentle and emotional man - caring - moved to tears - but that anger would well up in him and he was like a red-eyed raging bull. I’m not sure he ever made progress / healed from it. Anyway, I’ve read there is basis for anger in older men from hardening of the arteries (arteriosclerosis). According to several medical web sites, anger in fact is an indicator of arteriosclerosis. I’m certain that pastor suffered from it, as did my father-in-law.
Don’t know if there is a cure for it, or way to manage it.
Wish pdxrn would chime in!
October 4th, 2006 at 8:04 am
I seem to recall Dick wrote a book about his life, perhaps the mfi beginnings are in there. Since he’s ‘the father’ I would guess mfi originates with him.
I don’t know why but your question makes me think of Joseph Smith and how he came west to start a whole new religion based on the uncover doctrine.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Um… he writes nothing. He has a ghost writer who does it all.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:33 am
Oh so telling.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Wow the correlations here are endless. To those who don’t get it we’re ‘uncovering’ alot of things here we’ve wondered about, weren’t allowed to question or ask. I don’t see how people miss the fact that whenever they set out to start something new they are the marvericks themselves, but then step on those under them so that they won’t do the same thing. As I look at some of the MFI leaders I know– they came from the Nazarene church –where I also was a part of for a long time. Believe me this caused turmoil and lots of problems for them because they were considered wrong, rebellious, blasphemous and worse. Yet they felt they were hearing God and went on. Does it take 40 years to forget what they went through-what your roots truly are? This is coming from an ex-Catholic who knows that Church thinks the whole lot of you Protestants are total rebels for ever leaving the ‘real church.’–at least they used to and we were taught that’s was why there were so many denominations out there.
What about that ‘covering doctrine’ –was it right to set out and say the things the Catholics were doing weren’t right —weren’t they God’s authority on earth at that time? Actually it was a Nazarene Pastor I had who taught us all in Church History classes –we all came from the Catholic Church.
Isn’t it good to be thinking people -able to ask questions like this –looking back at history because it constantly repeats itself.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:17 am
John 444, I totaly agree with your citation of 1Tim 3, those marks or patterns qualify or disqualify an elder and or pastor.
Also Titus 1:5-9 addresses the qualifications for an elder, and verses 7-8 says “For an elder , as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogantor or quick-tempered or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.”
Just some more supporting scriptures.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Man - it is so funny to watch disgruntled bloggers pound scripture down the troats of cemetary-trained ministers. I love it!
October 5th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
MFI loves the “support the pastor” mantra. They do nothing for the congregation. When the church in Phoenix was dying a slow death all they did was shore up Wil Lake. They got egg on their face when just about everyone left because they couldn’t stand the autocratic rule of the pastor and all his machinations to stay in power. Where was the care for the people then? We were all cut loose. They say they want to serve the pastors but, what happens in the end is that the people are the ones that suffer. Is MFI about spreading the gospel or just presevering the public image of the pastor?
It seems to me that MFi’s intrusion into the Doug Cotton matter has caused more harm than good. Today he is stepping down and then a few days later he’s still the pastor? Makes him look like a double minded AND angry man. Dick Iverson is acting more like the Pope and Wendell, his chief inquisistor. Acting like the Catholics we were taught were soo wrong. Hmmm…… Kind of makes you wonder. ( But mostly, it makes me sick to my stomach that the men I used to respect would twist scripture in order to further propagate their agenda and act in such an insidious way.)
October 6th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Hats off to the people in Phoenix for knowing their own minds enough to know a sinking ship when they see it. For some reason, people here stand in line waiting to take the place of those who leave so it’s enabled to continue– the revolving door is often referred to.
I have a question. Where is Frank in all of this(CLF episode). His name is oddly not coming up. This being a Dick and Wendell crusade, could it be he’s smart enough to give W enough rope to hang himself with?
October 6th, 2006 at 8:56 am
People have been wondering through sheer observation of things
is Wendell going to take over when Iverson steps down as head of MFI
it feels like there is a shift going on and not just from this situation.
Did he have to go out and prove his leadership capabilities away from
Portland?
October 6th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Bishop Wendell had always said Bible Temple was his calling and that he would NEVER leave. Interesting that when Bishop Yankee Frankie was chosen by Apostle Dick to take over the reigns of Bible Temple that Bishop Wendell suddenly felt “called” to start his own church.
Do you think perhaps his ego was miffed? Hopes dashed? Jealousy??????
October 6th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Actually Wendell announced he was leaving first. I remember when he announced he was going to Seattle because we all assumed he was first in line for Bro. Dick’s role and it caused quite a stir because there were no other obvious choices beside Wendell. Frank was chosen some time after Wendell’s announcement.
October 6th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Yes but why did he announce it?
Could it be he heard he wasn’t in line to get the position –I believe we heard something to that effect.
This kind of thing went on all the time at our MFI affiliate –it must be part of a paradigm to constantly keep people off balance.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I was wondering the same thing since this particular blog is all about MFI and I thought FRANK was its commander in chief and the CBC Parady originated with his name and church throughout. Now he’s mysteriously not mentioned here. Maybe he’s off writing another manual (I heard he is a prolific writer and marketeer).
October 6th, 2006 at 11:50 am
What will satisfy us? I know that we express our feelings about CBC,MFI and all that and each of us do that in different ways. But what is the end goal in all of this, to have CBC admit to all the ways that they have screwed people over? Do we really expect Frank to come out and say that “I don’t really trust God that is why I employ marketing and business practices to move our church forward?
Shouldn’t there be a goal here more than just venting about how CBC is going to start up Faith Harvest again now that Forward Together is over or how they are stopping free coffe and refreshments for visitors. Anyone can point out flaws, and there is a time to say that the emperior has no close on, but who can build up and construct rather than tear down. I find that to be the really hard work, that people don’t get excited about because it demands some kind of sacrifice. Any how just writting down some thoughts, this is as much for me as it is for the rest of the “bloggers”. I know that I am most likely missing some points that have been made in the past, but we all need reminders.
October 6th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
JJJ,
Classic. I can’t help but notice that you manage to fit some CBC bashing into your cleverly disguised reprimand post.
Well done.
October 6th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Hi Jeremiah,
Tearing down is in a sense one of the basics of the faith. Crucifixion is a ‘tearing down’ of sorts, in as much as it puts to death the ways of the flesh, it puts the carnal nature back in right relationship as in submission to the Spirit. Jesus was certainly torn down, unto death. The temple in Jerusalem was torn down. The apostles and disciples were hunted down and crucified, wherefrom the faith spread during a time of severe persecution. The tearing down of the flesh paves the way for spiritual life.
There are numerous passages of which I’m certain you are aware, about confronting someone who has wronged you, of speaking the truth in love, of marking the brother