Megachurch Pastors
Posted on November 10th, 2006 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryThere's an excellent article in today's Boston Herald that discusses the perils of Megachurch Pastors.
“When you get to these top 25 or 50 of the largest or most influential churches, these pastors are clearly celebrities. They were the founders, they created much of the growth and they are, in some sense, a brand in and of themselves,” said Scott Thumma, a professor at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut, who specializes in studying megachurches. “It’s just like a business where the name of the founder is, in fact, a trademark.”
Sort of like a Business Church, huh Scott. And if the megachurch was in a city maybe you'd call it a City Business Church?
The article also offers this insight into the Ted Haggard situation and holding Megachurch pastors accountable.
New Life’s reaction was swift - yet most megachurches don’t have such effective oversight. Many have boards stacked with relatives, friends, personal lawyers and hangers-on who wouldn’t dare contradict the pastor, said Bill Martin, a Rice University expert on evangelicals.
“The pitfall with the megachurches, the personality driven churches, is it’s so easy for a person to consider him- or herself above accountability,” Martin said. “If that accountability is absent or reduced, then trouble is on the way.”
…hmmmm… if only someone would start a blog that attempted to hold certain mega-church pastors accountable. I wonder what people would say… …oh that's right. We know what they would say.
"You're bitter. Stop questioning the church."
RSS feed for posts
November 10th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Thank God we have organizations like MFI to hold pastors accountable for their actions.
November 10th, 2006 at 8:57 am
If the term “Megachurch” applies only to the top 25 of 50 churches in the country then we are going to have to find a new name for CBC.
Maybe we should call them a Minorchurch.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:13 am
I vote for Megachurch lite.
All the issues, 1/3 the membership.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:38 am
CBC is the Oates to the true Megachurch’s Hall. Same substance just not as big. Oh, and a stylish mustache for flair.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Less filling, pays great. Right, Fezzik?
November 10th, 2006 at 11:18 am
So CBC head by yankee frankie, winsom wendell, et. al…. they just THINK they are mega churches. Could you perhaps enlighten them that they are small peanuts ??
November 10th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
While attempting to build a pastoral perch
It takes less than great numbers to be a mega-church
It’s not the national rank that counts
As the power of mega-churches mounts.
It’s the attitude of the leadership
And lack of Bible readership
That makes the faithful into sheep, so blind
That strong-arm tactics make them fall behind
A man obsessed with self promotion
Who manipulates with strong emotion
And keeps the faithful all in line,
Claiming he alone knows all divine.
The church can be mega, while the numbers lack –
All it needs is a megalomaniac!
November 10th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Remember, that’s what they say so they won’t have to look at their inconsistencies or answer any questions.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:13 am
Staynd Glass wrote:
…a man obsessed with self promotion
Who manipulates with strong emotion
And keeps the faithful all in line,
Claiming he alone knows all divine.
I feel that this brilliant poem identifies some of the deep roots in spiritual abuse.
My Confusion:
When Dick asked me (albeit indirectly) to leave BT/PBC after being an active member for 18 years and a teacher at PBC for 8 years, I felt shocked and confused. I was simply not prepared for it. Being codependent upon BT/PBC and looking up to its leadership as God’s final voice to my life (cf,. “claiming that he alone knows all divine”), put me in a very weak and vulnerable position. I was not able to handle the confusion very well partly because an abusive system does not teach its members how to cope in the outside world or with group rejection. On the contrary, it usually teaches them only how to fit into the abusive system and not to rock the boat in any way. Actually, when members leave an abusive system, the leaders of the system inwardly are glad to learn when/if they fail in some way so that those failures can serve as “lessons” to all of the faithful members of what will also happen to them if they were to consider leaving. To me, this is just the opposite of the way Jesus thinks about His people.
Spiritual Abuse:
While teaching at PBC, I had no idea that “spiritual abuse” existed. I didn’t know that many books on the subject had been written. After I left BT/PBC, God slowly but surely opened my eyes to see how I had been spiritually abused and how, in turn, I had spiritually abused others - particularly my students at PBC (for which I deeply and sincerely apologize to them!).
If I were to define “spiritual abuse,” I would say that it is a ministry leader not showing open, humble, honest, transparent, vulnerable and genuine care for God’s people, but rather using and exploiting them and their time, money, energy and skills to promote and protect his/her own ministry and agenda instead of the much broader kingdom of God - and considering just about any method of exploiting them legitimate. When an abusive leader senses that he/she can no longer use/exploit someone else for their own ends and purposes, I have seen that they cut them off and treat them as if they do not exist. They totally ignore them. I have written both Frank and Wendall a note or two of apology and/or appreciation over the years, but I have never received a response from either of them. This is not how I have come to know the true love of God or ministry of Jesus to be.
The Damage of Spiritual Abuse:
What makes this so psychologically and emotionally detrimental to the “follower” is that it is all done “in the name of the Lord” with guilt and condemnation accompanying any defending of oneself or questioning the attitudes, motives or actions of the leader.
Healing from Spiritual Abuse:
As with being healed from any trauma or abuse, one of the first steps in the healing process is to realize that you are not alone! Such a realization is healing in itself because every abusive leader and church has controlled you by making you feel that what you thought and felt was wrong, even ridiculous and certainly not believed or felt by many others. The same has been true in my life. After I began to see the many different books that spiritually abused people had written about their painful experiences with churches, I began to realize that I was not alone; neither did I feel anymore isolated or crazy.
Recommended Reading on Spiritual Abuse:
Here are some of the books that have helped me on my journey of being healed from spiritual abuse, a process that continues to this day. I follow each book entry with a brief summary of its contents. (If anyone is interested, by the way, I have many more books on spiritual abuse in my library, and would be willing to share those titles and contents with you, too.).
The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by Johnson & Vanvonderan, Bethany House.
This is a very good introduction to the subject. It talks about the secrecy and entrapment involved in spiritual abuse. Because it was literally written by two authors, I did not like the repetition about salvation being only by grace nor the change-up in style because of dual authorship. But, I would not allow those factors to stop someone from reading it as a start. The title is great because it exposes one of the ways that spiritual abuse operates: through craftiness and subtly.
Churches that Abuse and Recovering from Churches that Abuse by Ronald Enroth, Zondervan.
A Christian sociologist writes these both. He does a good job at giving specific examples of bad churches and leaders. The first is better, in my opinion, than the second one.
Breaking Intimidation by John Bevere, Creation House.
I have only skimmed this one. It is on the general subject of how to overcome fear and being put down by others; not necessarily one’s pastor/leaders. But, I’ve included it in the list since this is a big problem in many churches as the leaders distance themselves more and more from the people.
Escape from Church, Inc., by Wagner, Zondervan.
This addresses the negative aspects of when the local church turns into a religious business. I have not read it, but it looks good.
Soul Survivor by Philip Yancey, Doubleday.
I have only glanced at this, but this would be for the more deeper reflecting Christian. Yancey briefly shares his spiritually abusive past and then spends most of the book giving excerpts from various Christian throughout the years whose writings helped him keep sane in the midst of church craziness.
Ashes to Gold, Roberts & Andrews, Word.
This is the testimony of Patti Roberts, Oral Roberts’ former daughter in law; it tells of the spiritual abuse in the Oral Roberts’ religious empire. This was one of the first books I read and I liked it very much. When I mentioned this book to Ken Malmin, PBC Academic Dean, who attended Oral Roberts’ University for awhile, he just shook his head in disbelief how anyone could say such things publicly about a religious leader. Patti’s follow-up book, showing her new husband and family is called, Dance of the Broken Heart.
Toxic Faith by Arterburn & Felton, Oliver Nelson.
This is a heavy-duty coverage of many different aspects of religious addiction. I would not start someone on this book, but would work them into it as they started to identify their feelings of hurt, betrayal, etc. first. Excellent but heavy.
How to be a Christian Without Being Religious, Ridenour, Regal Books.
This is a lighter book but with a good theme that is clear in the title. This helps to expose the Religious spirit so prevalent in spiritual abuse contexts and tries to show how we can still love God without all of the other trappings.
The Addictive Organization, Shaef and Fasel, Harper.
To me, this is a classic! Even though it is not specifically written about the local church, it can all be applied to it. I love the sub-title: Why we Overwork, Cover up, Pick up the Pieces, Please the Boss [Pastor] & Perpetuate Sick Organizations [Churches]. A must-read for the serious person who wants to see how isolation, group reality formation, Leader-as-Addict, perfectionism, etc. in the church drive us crazy and into disliking the very work that God has called us to do! I don’t think that Shaef is an Evangelical, but I still got tons of good out of this. It is written personally and from a socio-psychological point of view.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Thank you for your post, Dave. I have experienced the sense that once I left BT (I left before the name change, and claim no affiliation with CBC) “they” were waiting for me/my family to screw up. The thing is, once you begin to get away from the abuse/dysfunction, it allows you to see other areas of your life that are dysfunctional. As that happens it can lead to some major changes. It really is “sick” to take pleasure or find validation from the struggles people have as they put their life back together.
I am convinced that the megachurch model does not work. I find this blog helpful in sorting out why, and finding some humor along the way. I only wish I could have come away from BT with some faith left. As much as I would like to believe the way I did in younger years, I just can’t. Reminds me of the dilemma of Santa Claus when you’re about 7.
One more thing: Fezzik you’re brilliant. Megachurch lite. Freaking hillarious.
November 12th, 2006 at 12:59 am
Sparrow355 said:
“I only wish I could have come away from BT with some faith left. As much as I would like to believe the way I did in younger years, I just can’t. Reminds me of the dilemma of Santa Claus when you’re about 7.”
Thanks, Sparrow355, for sharing about how your faith was drained from you at BT. I do not know for sure, however, what you mean exactly by a loss of faith. Did you mean just a loss of faith in Christian leadership? in the church in general? in God? in the Gospel of Christ? in the Spirit? in specific doctrines? For the sake of sharing and exploring, I will assume that you mean a loss of faith in God and Jesus Christ in general, as those you could trust with your entire life and soul.
Many, I think, could relate to this; I sure can. My faith in men was shaken deeply probably mostly in my view of myself, the church, the ministry adn my future. What just happend to me? Where am I going now? What do I believe in now with all of my heart? I saw that the leaders who acted and spoke as if they had the final answer for every question and problem were, many times, simply acting like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain: huffing and puffing and blowing and venting in order to keep up their facade of absolute control over the church by doing what they teach business people to do in college: keep up an impeccable image so that it won’t “hurt business.”
Thank God for the Toto’s in our lives that have the boldness to run behind the curtains of the great wizards and to pull away their covers. Our Toto’s might be our sincere questions and doubts, or our differing interpretations of Scripture, or even our experiencing something just the opposite of what we are being taught; the key is being able to “speak the truth in a loving way” and not choose the path of least resistance all of the time due to, e.g., a desire to be promoted in the church. I believe that there is a Toto in everyone of us, if we let it out and let it free to run behind the curtain and question the status quo - in the positive sense of the word.
On the other hand, although it was through much, much confusion and fog - in the long run, my faith in God was deepened because I had to search for Him more earnestly on my own than I had ever done before being “under the covering” of men. To me, it was like the common analogy of the tree whose roots goes down more deeply the less surface water it receives. The words of Jesus, “Have faith in God” grabbed me more internally than ever. I realized that He did not say, “Have faith in men!” Jesus actually “knew what was in man, and, therefore He did not commit Himself to them at that time.”
I felt flung to the winds. Where was I going? What was I going to do since all I had ever done besides take “impractical” ministry courses in school was ministry here or overseas?! The transition into walking on my own, as it were, hearing God myself for the direction that He wanted to take me was depressing and scary for quite a long time. I felt lost. I felt judged and condemned by those whom I had known for so many years. Even my own father asked of me more than once a literal letter of explanation of why I was living my life the way I was living it. And, one of the biggest conundrums was: no one called me! I was completey ignored, once I left. No one asked me what happened! I needed desperately for someone to take enough interest in me and just listen to me with an empathetic ear. I finally sought out some professional help.
What saved me from the abyss was that I learned, by God’s grace, better how to separate the various objects of my faith/trust. I knew that I could not trust men as much as I had had in the past, but how was I to trust the God that these men represented and claimed in whose name they spoke and prophesied? He helped me to transfer that trust to Himself alone as its object.
(Relatedly, I find it interesting that at the end of the nineteenth century, both the Protestant and Catholic churches chose to formalize the ultimate objects of their faith. While the Protestants chose to put their faith in the holy book they claimed contained no errors (the Bible), the Catholics decided that they would put their fundamental trust in the office of a holy man, the pope.)
It hurts me to the depths every time I hear of sincere believers being spiritually abused and then literally turning away from God and Christ altogether. If I were to address this with a thought it would be that the first thing I would do is to differentiate between God and men; between Jesus and the Church; between the Holy Spirit and Spirit-anointed leaders; between the local church and the universal Church; between the kingdom of men and the kingdom of God; between the Word of God and the interpretations of the Word made my fallible human beings. I found that the dropping of this supreme type of a “fallacy of equivocation” was vital to my spiritual and ministerial survival. I read some books on cults and mind control or indoctrination. One factor I found in common to such unhealthy environments is the elimination of options. The members are taught that they either believe and support the group 110%, or leave! There is no place in-between. The reason is because the leaders of such groups desire to control all of the beliefs and lives of their followers without any competition.
My wife and I spent a couple of years in Eugene with Frank at ECF, Eugene Christian Fellowship. When Frank asked us to move back up to Portland and teach in PBC again, I wasn’t sure, but we made the move at the same time that Dick invited Frank to be his successor at BT. After all of us moved back to Portland, Frank arranged a meeting with Dick, myself and himself soon after our return. When we sat down to chat, Dick excused himself for a moment to get a cup of coffee. When Dick was out of the room, I leaned over to Frank and asked him what he expected me to say to Dick. I wasn’t sure. He figgeted a little and then said something like: Well just tell him how glad you are to be back at BT and how you’re looking forward to the future. Frank seemed a little bit upset that I had asked him such a question. He was not in charge as yet and so he needed to still get Dick’s permission for me to start getting involved in the church again. When Dick came back into the room, he sat down and said: Well, what is this meeting about? I looked at Frank and Frank got nervous but made some general statement and put the ball in my court. I really had nothing to say. I was just beginning to see how authoritarian and controlling BT had been to me and I was in no emotional state to become one of its leading cheer leaders so soon! So Dick looked at me and asked me: David, do you want to come back and get involved again? I replied: “I’m not sure.” That was all it took. For the next 20 minutes straight Dick Iverson gave me the severest tongue lashing I think I had ever experienced in my life. It so hurt and traumatized me that after the meeting I was able to go out and write down everything he had said to me, essentially, word for word. The first words that cut me to the core were: Didn’t I tell you that before you ever came back here again, that you would have to be 110% behind all that we believe and do?! It went downhill from there. During his verbal abuse over me, I knew in my gut that there was no way that I could return with the senior pastor having such an attitude of disrespect towards me. What shocked me just as much was that after I left the meeting, I asked Frank how he felt the meeting went, and he said that he thought it was a “good meeting.” I could tell that since I had lost Dick’s support, I was losing Frank’s as well. Finally, I just told Frank over the phone that I could not come back to the BT scene, and left for the second and final time.
What helped me was the grace to rest and trust God through my confused state; in the midst of having the “orthodox” doctrines that I had been taught for 18 years turned inside out, I found that Jesus was my best friend. I discovered that He sovereignly loved and cared for me far beyond any human leader or person. He helped me to realize that I did not need to get a pastor’s permission to live my life for Him!
I hope that these few thoughts will help you transfer your faith to God alone. I believe that even through the darkness and the desperation, it is still true: “In Him, you can put your trust.”
November 12th, 2006 at 8:45 am
David, your post is the best on this blog –
Your way of helping others leave the fog
Of abuse and disdain by pastoral leaders.
I hope it is helpful to all the readers.
I get your point, and I read it again:
Put your trust in God, and not in men!
November 12th, 2006 at 9:20 am
sparrow355 said:
Perhaps you have more faith now, Sparrow. Where faith = obedience, in leaving BT to follow Jesus, I think you have demonstrated ‘great faith’.
Going along with the crowds of men who rush to ‘temple’ as if God were there and listen to men as if Christ has appointed them as sub-shepherds in God’s great ‘pyramid scheme’ is easy - I mean - what faith does it take to follow what you can see - what is as plain as the nose on your face - do do what everyone else is doing?
Real faith is like that of Abraham, who left everything he knew and followed the Spirit’s leading into the wilderness. No one to see, no established high-places and meeting times, no song and dance to make it fun, simply venturing out into a hard and dry place, where a person must rely wholly on the Father to provide every need by the Spirit. That’s faith! How many religious conformists are listed in Hebrews 11?
I think the institutional religious culture, has painted a picture of faith as some sort of zen-like meditative mental state - of warring in your mind to push aside all contrary thought, doubts, and replace it with only positive thought, and positive verbal affirmations.
But isn’t it SO strange that people who claim to have such ‘great faith’ as the institutions define it (positive thought), do NOT obey the word - in fact often do the opposite of what the word says!
If someone really had faith, wouldn’t they be obedient to the word? Like, feed the poor and widows? Love each other? Those who are rich being generous? What about being humble, making oneself the ‘least’ and servant of all? How can someone claim ‘great faith’ while exalting themselves over others, making themselves out to be “God’s anointed”? Does faith beget disobedience? Does faith beget greed, abuse, etc.?
In several places, scripture says God is NOT in the buildings. Acts 7:48-50, Acts 17:24, Matthew 23:38, 1 Kings 8:27 … clearly God is too big for the buildings made by men - and so it is sheer insanity that men try to build houses to contain Him … men do so, I think, because they are trying to create a God they can see, to assign God a location. Once God is reduced to a ‘manageable size’ like that, haven’t they made Him out to be less than what He is, haven’t they made Him into an idol that they can administer?
Or do men build houses for God so that they can market Him? After all, isn’t the main draw of a building “God is here”? And so men flock to buildings to experience God who supposedly is there? Yet even Jesus said, of the last days (Matthew 24:23-26) that when men say “Jesus is here, or there, don’t believe them” … shouldn’t that same warning be applied to the temple agents who actively promote their houses as the place where God shows up? As if they are God’s booking agents or some other nonsense? “NOW APPEARING: GOD” (ADMISSION FEE: 10%)
What happens to the temple system, including the tithe system, IF we embrace the truth that God is everywhere - that we are now the house of God (1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19), that we are all Sons (1 John 3:1, Galatians 3:26), that we are all priests (1 Peter 2:5-9, Revelation 1:6 and 5:10)? Christ abolished all that building nonsense - and took up residence in us - he abolished the notion of segregation between a priest class and non-priest class, making us all sons and priests. Men still adhere to the temple paradigm of course - because they can’t sell you the anointing without first convincing you that you don’t already have the anointing. They peddle their buildings as the temple/house of God and deny you are the temple/house of God. They promote themselves as God’s priests and deny your priesthood, claiming you are the laity. Maintaining the temple-worship paradigm is essential to the religious business. The MOMENT believers stand up to the building-based religious business and say “I AM the house of God; I AM a son/daughter of God; I am a priest”, the religious business collapses - because when the truth is known, they have NO clientele. And I assure you, they fear that truth - for once you get it, another giving/tithing/labor unit walks out the door.
Sparrow, it takes far greater faith, to know the God who is everywhere, according to Isaiah 66:1-2, Jeremiah 23:23, etc. It takes far greater faith to do what you have done - to leave the madness of men behind, and simply follow Christ - to forsake the crowds and the approval of men - and simply obey the command of Christ to “follow me”.
Please don’t sell yourself short, nor let the empire builders and building promoters redefine faith from ‘obeying Christ’ to ‘conforming to the (insane) ways of man’. I think you have great faith to have left all that madness.
Jack
November 12th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Jack -I love what you have to say! Keep on saying it -maybe someday others will get it. Wouldn’t I love for my children to live within a new kind of Christian culture.
When you’re sick and tired of all that is untrue and ‘off’ then will you change.
One of my favorite sayings is:
When the pain of staying where you are is greater than the pain of change
then you will change. Hope it helps someone out there.
Church doesn’t have to be like that.
November 12th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Jeremiah 23:23 should have been Jeremiah 23:24.
November 12th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Good Lord…..I’m not sure what I should say!?! First, an explicit presupposition that states,” Jesus is my best friend” exclusively, is a fallacious cliche…Jesus is also our rabbi,teacher,Lord,Helper,etc…..Second,the temple metaphor that is used with exegetical levity, is meant to be a community centric term-meaning that Paul uses the metaphor to expound on an implicit theological concept -God within Us!! The Pauline corpus, including the pastoral epistles, based on the best critical reduction theory,validate the premise of the temple metaphor and community…..Paul was not just writing to Timothy or Titus but also to a community!! The “false teachers”, presumably heard the oral recitation of Pauls theological bias(1 Cor 4:17-21)….Thus, if we are to be exegetically correct, “I” must be replaced with “We” and so on!! The individuation of the text is an anachronism and simply eviscerates a Biblical perspective of relationship. Now, on a more funamental level I believe david has been unwise in his talk!! Why? I understand it takes time to heal.Healing is a holistic and arduous experience…..But to divulge information publically is an inherent contradiction! Why? Because it contradicts the very nature of forgivness and spiritual health… We must assume that david unequivocally, wants to be as Jesus is! If so,why mention specifics,unless to deface a reputation…if we claim to follow Jesus why do we not”act” like Him more?!? Jesus ruined a system not of belief,he was profoundly orthodox, but of practice!!! And His generous orthodxy, exhibited on the cross, has forever stanardized OUR practice..”Father forgive them.” He did not say, by the way, Caiaphas…. And Judas….and Simon….. Luke,the theologue, captures this “beautiful paradox” which gives us a glimpse into soul of discplship…I believe the pronoun “them” intentionally carries theological meaning for us…it is an inclusive term that evokes the conciliatory power of God!!! In other words, God aint angry but is more correctly forgiving I can’t help but wonder!?!?! Do we expose a wrong done to us because we are Gods “chosen vessel” to expunge evil from the world? Or because we are in need of therapy? Or is it more simply an attempt and opportunity to get back? Its called self-preservation!! ! Oh and I admit I have been guilty of this aswell
November 12th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Try nothing.
Obviously, you have read my words - you know - the red letter stuff in your Bible. Have you noticed my words are simple and easy to understand? I could have used big words, if my goal was self exaltation. However, my Father’s goal for me was to find and feed His children.
Keep it real, Cowboy. K?
JC
November 12th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Thank you Dave for your post. I am glad to hear the truth of what went on with you. I had always wondered what happened. Even though we may have given you a hard time in class, I always respected you and still do. I am glad that you have been able to rest in God’s grace. I am also glad that you still had the ablity to question what was going on. Many seem to have lost that ability. Could it be that they are more worried about their CBC pay checks than honouring God by speaking out against the abuses that go on?
Since the church’s failure in Phoenix; we too were set adrift to figure out if there was a different way to do church than the BT/CBC model. It seems that many of the church plants have tried to go to the “pastor as king” route and I believe have failed because of this. This is not what we were taught, we were taught about church leadership as elders and senior pastor submitted to each other in order to seek the will of God for the church. In actuality it seems that they have the rubber stamp committee who’s job it is to approve the will of the pastor/king. HOW DOES THIS HELP SPREAD THE GOSPEL? It appears to me that when “the church is operated like a business”, it is the people and the spread of the gospel that ultimately suffer.
I am glad now that we went through the church’s failure in Phoenix, because otherwise we wouldn’t have found our way to Sovereign Grace Ministries and their church in Gilbert AZ. No one church is perfect and NO ONE has a lock on truth however, the doctrine of grace and the ministry of people who genuinely care for us as sinners saved by grace (and not just as tithers/indentured servants) has done more for our life and marriage than decades under the BT/CBC system. Oddly enough, we went there on Dick Iverson’s recommendation.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
David, John444, Joey
Outstanding! Wow!
Sparrow355, you are not alone sis…millions throughout the earth share in your disillusionment and resultant struggle to find Jesus. As Francis Schaeffer once said “He is There and He is not Silent!” The challenge is to hear Him again, through the noise of all the religious garbage of systems Christianity.
Here are two verses I have taken great comfort in: Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through His own blood. 13 Therefore let us go to Him outside the camp and bear the reproach He endured…
He’s outside the camp of every one of man’s self made religious systems. He has always been there. It’s true He works inside the camp as well, but the safest place in this world is outside the camp. I pray you never, never, never again, let anyone pressure you, intimidate you, or shame you into joining their camp. Remain in His arms, safe at his feet, as Ruth with Boaz.
Jesus is in the midst of His Church worldwide and in the simple gatherings which allow Him to be Lord in their midst, without men being in control and seeking to build anything other than Christ in you.
God help all of us to find in Him the healing we all so desperately need. The courseness of language, expressed at times on this blog, tell me more than issues of carnality, that there is a whole lot of pain in here. God help each one to find their healing in Him.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Joey Giammalva: (I’m assuming Joe, Jr., right?)
Joey, it’s is so nice to hear from you. Thank you for your kind words! What I always appreciated about you as a brother in Christ was your meekness and sincerity. Sorry to hear that the church plant did not work out. Hope all is well with you and yours! Many blessings to you. David
November 12th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Cowboy said:
Good Lord…..I’m not sure what I should say!?! First, an explicit presupposition that states,” Jesus is my best friend” exclusively, is a fallacious cliche…Jesus is also our rabbi,teacher,Lord,Helper,etc…
Hi Cowboy,
I undertand you to be concerned about my expression, “Jesus is my best friend.” I based my expression that “Jesus is my best friend” on His own words in John 15:15, which, as I see it, calls us into that great and highest of friendships: “I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.” You’re probably right, it would have been better if I had also said that Jesus was my Lord, Savior, Healer, Shepherd, Provider, Counselor, etc. Thank you for pointing that out to me, for He is truly my All in All. I did not try to eliminate all natural friendships and thus form a spiritual cliche. To me, anyway, my experience of God as friend is not a cliche at all. I will try to be clearer next time. Thanks!
Cowboy said:
“Thus, if we are to be exegetically correct, “I” must be replaced with “We” and so on!! The individuation of the text is an anachronism and simply eviscerates a Biblical perspective of relationship.”
Hi Cowboy,
If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I’m wrong on this, I hear you saying that in all of Paul’s letters, he never focuses on the individual believer’s intimate relationship with Jesus; rather, he always focuses on the corporate body’s relationship, e.g., in his use of the temple metaphor, and a corporate relationship is what you consider to be the only “biblical perspective of relationship” with God. Is that what you meant? I seek first to make sure that I understand what you are saying before I respond…
Cowboy said:
“… to divulge information publically is an inherent contradiction! Why? Because it contradicts the very nature of forgiveness and spiritual health… We must assume that david unequivocally, wants to be as Jesus is! If so,why mention specifics,unless to deface a reputation…”
Hi Cowboy,
I understand you to say that you believe that it was unethical for me to share some of my past experiences with BT/PBC/CBC on this blog because you find doing so inconsistent with the nature of true forgiveness, healthy spirituality and being like Jesus. If I understood you correctly, this is my response:
(1) true forgiveness: I think that you point out a very good point about the nature of true forgiveness, that it not only forgives (releases from a desire to punish) but it also forgets (lets the offense go forever). Right? Now, here’s a question: Do you believe that the names of certain public offenders should be posted on the web so that when they move into a new neighborhood, the neighbors can know who is living next door? Or, do you believe that doing so, shows that the community has not truly forgiven the public offender and are also violating their right of privacy? I am not saying that specific church personnel are criminals. My point is that posting such names on the web, does not necessarily indicate a lack of forgiveness, it indicates a concern for public safety - a concern for others in that church and others like it. Thus, when I share certain instances, I am only giving my recitation of the facts as I know them and am open to the other parties giving their sides in the same forum. It is not done secretly but out in the open. I share in order to warn other believers of what I have seen as deeply systemic problems. I have forgiven, but my forgiveness does not automatically mean that attitudes and behavior in the religious establishment are going to change. And because, many times, they do not change, one must speak out. By the way, do you believe that it was wrong for Martin Luther to post his 95 theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg - specifically mentioning the pope throughout his points - since everyone knew who was the pope at the time?! Having said that, I would appreciate your prayers that I do walk in full forgiveness, esp. when I keep hearing others’ stories. I do admit that there is some tension in all of this.
(2) healthy spirituality: What is a part of healthy spirituality? I believe it is when a victim of any sort of abuse gets healed enough to “recover thier voice” (which was taken away from them by their abuser) and to confront them. I believe it involves being bold enough to confront what one considers to be heresy in the Church and to debate certain topics, e.g., tithing, especially since churches do not allow open debate on topics such as this.
I also understand you to say that you believe that the only reason that I would share some of my past experiences with BT/PBC/CBC was so that I could “deface a reputation.” If I understood you correctly, this is my response: You raise a good, spiritual question about my motives. I prayed about this tonight and asked the Lord to convict me if these are my motives. I would agree with you that if these were my motives for sharing, they would not be godly.
Cowboy said:
“…if we claim to follow Jesus why do we not”act” like Him more?!?…He did not say, by the way, Caiaphas…. And Judas….and Simon….”
Hi Cowboy,
I understand that you do not feel that I am truly following the example of Jesus by sharing some of my stories publicly. Let’s look a little closer at the three men you mentioned and then one other: Concerning Caiaphas, Jesus was silent at first when brought before him (Mt. 26:62) but then He spoke up when commanded to in front of all of the Sandedrin and said something so blasphemous that it made Caiaphas angry enough to tear his high priestly garments in two (vv 64-65).
Re: Judas, Jesus did not try to persuade Judas to change His mind from betraying Him because that was all in the plan of God.
Re: Simon, Jesus not only offended him right in front of all of the rest of the disciples not only before He was crucified (”Simon, you will betray me three times before the night is over.”) but also after He rose from the dead (”Simon you you love me?” Jesus asked three times, to which Simon defensively and agitatingly responded, “Of course, you know that I love you!”)
Also, when the Pharisees told Jesus that Herod wanted to kill Him, he publicly call Herod a fox: “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ (Luke 13:32).
Also see the way that Jesus addressed the Pharisees in Matthew 23. He publicly called them “hypocrites” (vv 13, 15, 23, 27, etc.), “blind guides” (v 16), “blind men” (v 19), etc. I see a publicly confrontative Jesus here.
Cowboy said:
“To we expose a wrong done to us because we are Gods “chosen vessel” to expunge evil from the world?
Hi Cowboy:
I agree with you that I should not go around thinking that I am more special than other sinners in the world with a spirit of self-righteousness and pride in my heart. Good point. Nevertheless, I believe that all believers are called to preach and apply the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every area of life “bringing all under the subjection of Christ.” In my view, a Gospel that does not address sin, is not the true Gospel of Christ. I believe that the wrongs that have been done to each of us can become wonderful opportunities of empathic understanding and ministry to others. So, yes, in a way our pain, once healed, becomes our ministry. I really enjoyed the book called The Wounded Healer.
Cowboy said:
Or because we are in need of therapy?
Hi Cowboy,
I have gone to professional therapy in the past and have received great benefit from it. I am also open to going again. Thank you for bringing up to me my vulnerabilities. But, do I now think I share my stories because I am sick and unhealthy? No, actually I think it’s because the Lord has helped me to recover my voice and, if I understand Him correctly, He wants me to use what I have learned to help others in very specific churches and in very specific ways.
Cowboy said:
Or is it more simply an attempt and opportunity to get back?
Hi Cowboy,
It could be. I always have to be aware of this creeping in. Do I think it is? Not really, but pray for me if you still think I am not seeing things clearly.
Cowboy said,
Its called self-preservation!…and I admit I have been guilty of this as well
Hi Cowboy,
It is true that when one gets spiritually abused, one has a tendency to lose oneself in the hurt, rejection and confusion. Good point. Nevertheless, by God’s grace, I have found a new self forming from the abuse; one that is more broken, less defensive, more empathetic, and more bold against evil. Actually, if I was trying to preserve myself, do you really think that I would post on this blog with my real name and open myself up to public criticism?
I am sorry that I apparently offended you in these ways. What do you propose as a better alternative in this particular forum?
November 13th, 2006 at 8:48 am
:) ….keep it real?!? Oh, sorry jc!! Ummmm.. But I thought you made me this way….oh I get it that’s not really you!!! You don’t talk like that anyways(you sound like your trying to hard)!! Whew that was close……I was almost convinced by your half new king james half slang speak:):)……..keeping it for real:)
November 13th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Hi Cowboy,
When David and Tom first posted a few days ago, I wasn’t sure of their purpose in doing so, because over the months I’ve been here, there have been a number of people come and go who seemed to have an agenda of silencing the people here, perhaps even roping them back into the flock which abused the first place - all without admission of wrong doing or an apology, of course. Just “get over your bitterness and offense, bite your tongue and return to the flock”. Fortunately, those types don’t hang around long.
After reading their initial posts, I thought to myself that it would be a salve to wounded souls, to hear from them affirmation / validation, compassion, even an apology from former church leaders who had been chastened by the Spirit and had repented of the system and teachings that hurt people.
It has been my experience that affirmation / validation of feelings is essential to healing. How many people walked by the wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, before someone heard his moans, had compassion, and stopped to bandage him up? The healing did not begin when the samaritan checked the man into a hospice, it began with the samaritan looking for whomever was crying out in pain, the samaritan assessing the wounds and dressing them accordingly.
With regard to naming names, individual accountability is by name. We are also admonished to know those who work among us and to mark those who have deviated from the truth of the gospel. I don’t mean that in some religious way, or with a “walk the plank” mentality - rather, as one with the heart of shepherd, who listens to the sheep, and keeps an eye out for wolves and runs them off to protect the sheep.
There is nothing wrong with validating the observations, revelations, and feelings of the people here - in fact - it is the beginning of healing for many, I’m sure.
…
One of the many things I fault institutionalized religion with, is the silencing of the lambs … scripture teaches us that every believer brings an offering to the banquet table - and shares from that portion of Christ that is resident in each of us (1 Cor. 14:26, etc.) … but what of the assemblies that observe the “rule of one” as Dave and Tom have called it, or that we have previously referred to as “theatre style” gatherings, where only the pastor shares, or the pastor’s hand-picked yes-men. I’ve heard it said that level of control is necessary to prevent ‘error’ from being spoken / introduced to the assembly. Yet if that were true, how do believers learn to operate in the gift of “discernment of spirits” or “testing everything” corporately? If an assembly operates under the presumption that everything presented has been pre-filtered and is error free, then the flock is untrained in discernment and ripe for deception.
Several times it has been through talking with a brother or sister that I have discerned a wound from abuse or a false teaching that has festered, that I would not have known in an institutional setting where they aren’t allowed to speak for fear of expressing error. They may have held doubts about the false teaching, but because they had been silenced by “the rule of one”, never got the chance to test it by sharing their discernment with others of the body.
I do not find the “remain silent” approach to be consistent with scriptures admonishment to “speak the truth in love”, “test everything”, etc. The admonition of “remain silent” is a hingepin in the system of institutionalized abuse.
One of the principle ways the Lord teaches me, is through metaphor. Often I have seen there are parallels between spiritual truths, and what happens in the natural. For example, serious flesh wounds often have to be irrigated to drain off the infection, before they can be sewn up and healed over. If not, those wounds ooze infection, perhaps even spreading throughout the body where they cause damage to organs not even involved in the original wound. Irrigating / expressing the infection and treating the root bacteria/virus is metaphoric for verbally expressing the spiritual / emotional wounds of spiritual abuse.
Where we are one Body, and where the Body as a whole suffers when even one member of the Body suffers, expressing the wound is essential to healing, and innoculation against further infection.
…
Speaking for myself - I never went to an MFI church, never even been to Portland - but I have been in abusive church situations and have been driven out of churches on account of the Spirit of Truth in me. Often I run into former church members, some bolt the other way, others scold me, etc. Not once in 5 years since leaving, has anyone even asked us why we left; not once has anyone apologized - all like Pilate wash their hands of responsibility for the treatment we endured in the institution to which they belong. Even our own family - a brother and sister. They “don’t want to hear it”. While not specific to my situation / experience, I still find validation, affirmation and hope in the candid posts of Dave and Tom. For the institutional church really is just one system - and hearing from former ‘clergy’ is healing.
Jack
November 16th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
On the Naming of Names:
Jack wrote:
“With regard to naming names, individual accountability is by name. We are also admonished to know those who work among us and to mark those who have deviated from the truth of the gospel…I still find validation, affirmation and hope in the candid posts of Dave and Tom. For the institutional church really is just one system - and hearing from former ‘clergy’ is healing.”
Hi Jack,
Thank you. As I was brainwashed by the “touch not the Lord’s anointed” concept at BT, I grew in my fear and intimidation of the leadership. One example is that when I finally asked for a raise in my salary, after teaching at PBC for about seven years, I was shaking internally with fear as I made my request. Since I began asking questions of the BT/PBC leadership from the get-go, Dick disparagingly called me a “free thinker.” Through a series of situations, which I could share more of later, the anointing and courage of the Spirit came on me until I could finally stand up to Dick and hold my own. It was at that point, in my opinion, when Dick felt that he could no longer completely control and dominate my thoughts and actions through his subtle threats and power intimidations, that he began his secretive plan of making me feel so uncomfortable and unwelcome at BT/PBC, that I would leave on my own accord, and he, when others asked him why I had left, could plead ignorant.
Therefore, I can completely understand someone’s fear and hesitancy about naming names. On the positive side of using names, we can remember that
both the apostles Paul and John named names. True, they did not have a blog like we do on which to name them. But, they were not hesitant to tell others in ministry about specific people who they felt hindered the genuine ministry of the Gospel. (Some scholars believe that both Diotrephes and James, both mentioned in the list below, were actually senior pastors of their own congregations - and John and Paul rebuke them anyway!) Note also how Paul rebuked Peter publicly: “in front of them all!” Abusive pastor/leaders will talk about their own “black list” of names in the privacy of their leadership meetings. But, needless to say, they will not approve of the people putting the names of church leaders onto their own “black lists,” let alone allow for the public rebuke of leaders!
Note how Paul and John named specific names below and were involved in the public rebuke of straying/legalistic leaders:
“Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.” Galatians 2:12, NIV
“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong…When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all…” Galatians 2:11, 14, NIV
“…among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.” I Timothy 1:20, NIV
“…and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.”
2 Timothy 2:17, NIV
“…for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica….” 2 Timothy 4:10, NIV
“…Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm…” 2 Timothy 4:14, NIV
“I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us.” 3 John 1:9, NIV
November 17th, 2006 at 10:54 am
David,
I think you have become a blogging junkie!!!
Unfortunately, I do not have the time to discuss the nuanced response of your posts; however, in the spirit of theological debate I must say a thing or two. First, you assume dogmatically that your theological position is correct. In fact, I am very suspicious of the absence of tension in your ideas. Job 11:6 says,” for true wisdom has two sides”…………In other words, truth is found in the tension of opposites! If there is no tension: truth is not found! Oh! By the way, you are no Martin Luther!
November 17th, 2006 at 11:04 am
And you are no boy. Though you may be a cow. Post a pic, we’ll let you know.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Cowboy, you know that verse in Job was part of a speech by Zophar the Naamathite right? You do know Zophar was absolutely wrong about his explanation for Job’s suffering right? Do you really want to use the words of somebody like that to judge truth?
November 17th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Nah Fezzik, she just wants every argument to be circular.
Good eye tho, bro. It suggests a middle of the road posture on all matters, or situational truth where God’s word applies in one case but not the other.
Never heard anyone apply ‘divine tension’ in that way before. Interesting. Wrong. But interesting.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Do you really want to argue about “context”? Unfortunately, I dont think it would be all that fun for you!!! So I will skip the exegetical commentary and ask a ? Was Zopher wrong about the nature of God in Job 11:7 ? Is the explicit theology of Zopher fallacious? Is God Almighty or is He not? Of course we know that God is “Almighty”…..Why? Because the text says so elsewhere! In other words Zopher can and does speak truth in relationship to “opposites” because he speaks the very words of the text !!! If one is to read the context more deeply it is not what he says that makes it wrong; it is how he applies what he says which makes it wrong.
Context, if we are to be exegetically correct, must include the sum or the whole of the text more vigorously aswell…..Read the text and look for metaphor and allusion and simile. Also, look for the explicit material that speaks of -how do you people say it- “balance”. Its in there!!!
November 17th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
To be more accurate “situational” is an exclusively loaded word or term. It is the opposite of Biblical tension of which I am theologically biased……
Oh, I didnt realize you people knew what “circular” meant……Are we becoming more literate? To be very honest, this kind of logic subsumes under philosophical Empiricism and is more difficult to identify than one realizes!!!
November 17th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
I just came to the sudden realization
This evening down watching TV
There are megachurch pastors from across our nation
That are looking alike to me.
I just watched a religious infomercial
With an appeal to give to the poor.
And I found myself wonder, with these things controversial,
Is there more than we see in the fore?
Is the friendly and caring face of the pastor
All there is to know of the man?
Or am I watching the game face of a clever grandmaster
With a personal agenda and plan?
I can’t help but wonder with the focus on money
Are the sheep making fatcats the richer?
Do the megachurch leaders get the milk and the honey
While ignoring the poor in the picture?
There’s no doubt there are Christians among megachurch minions,
Yet so many with strange obsessions.
When I see these pastors seeking political dominion
“What Would Jesus Do?” is my first question.
When I ponder that questions and the letters is red
I decide I can listen no more.
I won’t fund a church with a palatial spread.
I’ll spend it to help out the poor!
November 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
As I read through this blog I noticed the talk
Of MFI’s characteristics
So I searched on the Web and analyzed the block
Of their membership total statistics.
Two-thirds in the States; the rest from outside.
But that’s not the interesting part.
While the goal is to make MFI worldwide,
The Northwest is clearly the heart.
An interesting list; no connection at first, it seems.
I present the statistics herewith.
You can read through the bios of the leadership teams
And find connections to Demazio & Smith.
Total US Listings, 222, 4 without churches listed
Total Non-US Listings, 129, 5 without churches listed
Washington, 50, no church listed for Aberdeen
Oregon, 33, no church listed for Hillsboro
California, 24, No church listed for Lucerne
New York, 17,
Virginia, 14,
Florida, 12, No church listed for Palm Beach Gardens
Idaho, 11,
Texas, 7,
Alabama, 6,
Hawaii, 6,
Georgia, 5,
Ohio, 5,
Colorado, 3,
Nevada, 3,
North Carolina, 3,
Iowa, 2,
Kansas, 2,
Massachusetts, 2,
Utah, 2,
Alaska, 1,
Arizona, 1,
Arkansas, 1,
Illinois, 1,
Indiana, 1,
Kentucky, 1,
Minnesota, 1,
Missouri, 1,
New Hampshire, 1,
New Jersey, 1,
New Mexico, 1,
Pennsylvania, 1,
Rhode Island, 1,
South Dakota, 1,
Wisconsin, 1,
November 19th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
“Stop rhyming! I mean it!”
“Anybody want a Peanut?”
Sorry couldn’t resist.
November 20th, 2006 at 6:56 am
For you, Joey - one of my favorites.
A peanut sat on a railroad track
His heart was all a-flutter
Along came the five fifteen
Toot! Toot! Peanut butter
November 20th, 2006 at 9:42 am
I love that movie.
The rhyming lines are groovy.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:50 am
CENTURION: What’s this, then? ‘Romanes Eunt Domus’? ‘People called Romanes they go the house’?
BRIAN: It– it says, ‘Romans, go home’.
CENTURION: No, it doesn’t. What’s Latin for ‘Roman’? Come on!
BRIAN: Aah!
CENTURION: Come on!
BRIAN: ‘R– Romanus’?
CENTURION: Goes like…?
BRIAN: ‘Annus’?
CENTURION: Vocative plural of ‘annus’ is…?
BRIAN: Eh. ‘Anni’?
CENTURION: ‘Romani’. ‘Eunt’? What is ‘eunt’?
BRIAN: ‘Go’. Let–
CENTURION: Conjugate the verb ‘to go’.
BRIAN: Uh. ‘Ire’. Uh, ‘eo’. ‘Is’. ‘It’. ‘Imus’. ‘Itis’. ‘Eunt’.
CENTURION: So ‘eunt’ is…?
BRIAN: Ah, huh, third person plural, uh, present indicative. Uh, ‘they go’.
CENTURION: But ‘Romans, go home’ is an order, so you must use the…?
BRIAN: The… imperative!
CENTURION: Which is…?
BRIAN: Umm! Oh. Oh. Um, ‘i’. ‘I’!
CENTURION: How many Romans?
BRIAN: Ah! ‘I’– Plural. Plural. ‘Ite’. ‘Ite’.
CENTURION: ‘Ite’.
BRIAN: Ah. Eh.
CENTURION: ‘Domus’?
BRIAN: Eh.
CENTURION: Nominative?
BRIAN: Oh.
CENTURION: ‘Go home’? This is motion towards. Isn’t it, boy?
BRIAN: Ah. Ah, dative, sir! Ahh! No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! Ah! Oh, the… accusative! Accusative! Ah! ‘Domum’, sir! ‘Ad domum’! Ah! Oooh! Ah!
CENTURION: Except that ‘domus’ takes the…?
BRIAN: The locative, sir!
CENTURION: Which is…?!
BRIAN: ‘Domum’.
CENTURION: ‘Domum’.
BRIAN: Aaah! Ah.
CENTURION: ‘Um’. Understand?
BRIAN: Yes, sir.
CENTURION: Now, write it out a hundred times.
BRIAN: Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
CENTURION: Hail Caesar. If it’s not done by sunrise, I’ll cut your balls off.
BRIAN: Oh, thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar and everything, sir!