Seminary. Schmeminary.
Posted on February 13th, 2007 by catalyst into the Pastoral Staff, The City Church categoryI just got this email from someone who recently found the blog:
I was scouring the net to find out where Judah Smith got his theological training from. Do you know where he went to school/seminary?
Does anyone know the answer to this question. I ask because I find that most of the pastors and elders at City BibleChurch/City Church are uneducated, meaning they don't have a college degree from an accredited institution.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:56 am
U.W.
(University of Wendell).
Sam
February 13th, 2007 at 8:59 am
He’s from “Having More Fun Than U”
Actually, I don’t recall ever hearing. I know Chelsea went to PBC for a while though.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Who cares about Judah Smith? He can’t be that important; he doesn’t even have his own Wikipedia entry…
February 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Do you know any youth pastors who have Wikipedia entries?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Catalyst: HERE.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
You know I like the fact that David Wilkerson started a church in Times Square, especially during the 80’s when it was violent place.
But nothing annoys me more than people who prophecy vague prophecies. I can’t stand it. It’s as though God can’t speak in specifics.
Anyway, I stand corrected. David Wilkerson is a youth pastor on Wikipedia. He’s also evidently a nutjob.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
You will grow old and incontinent.
February 13th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Hey…I’m the guy who wrote in the question. I stumbled upon this blog while doing research on Judah Smith and City Church’s denominational affiliation. I had no idea there was such an undercurrent of criticism about him (them). I am a Youth Pastor here in San Francisco and was interested in attending some of the events where Judah was speaking. After reading through this blog, however, I am thinking otherwise.
Does anyone know where JS got his theological training?
February 14th, 2007 at 5:59 am
I think I can safely say, he doesn’t have any theological training.
He’s just a very impressive speaker.
If you want to be entertained, by all means, go hear him speak. I’ve listened to a couple of his sermons online, and he does a great job. But he doesn’t say anything challenging. Nor does he have any particularly original thoughts. You certainly aren’t going to get any Youth Pastor Continuing Education Credits.
February 14th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Derek,
I’ve reviewed a few Judah sermons. You’re welcome to read them at:
The Organic Judah
Judah Can’t Pray Naked
Odds ‘n’ Ends
Judah says God a Dawg Fan
Speaking practically, Judah’s sermons are a veritable flesh-fest of carnal self-references, sexual references, wise-cracking, put downs, etc. To a mature believer, his sermons are painful to listen to. I can only assume that the people who listen to him and like him are in the flesh and still immature. Milk lovers. Certainly they do not have discernment.
One seminar web site promo boasted that Judah’s online sermons had 40,000 downloads! Is that now a legitimate claim to fame?!? Is anointing of God is measured in bandwidth? (Have people LOST THEIR MINDS?!?)
Note, IF Judah’s 40,000 downloads legitimize him as a youth pastor, then my web site stats put me among the apostles! Except for one thing. It doesn’t work like that.
You’re better off to take the ancient path (i.e., follow Jesus) than throw in with Judah. That’s just the perspective of a 51 year old elder in Christ. YMMV.
Sam
February 14th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Derek…
I don’t know the whole Judah Smith story (I’m waiting for the movie), but keep in mind that he is the son of Wendell Smith, who has had a very successful career as an entertainer/pastor. (and by successful I’m speaking more of influence and earnings, as opposed to leading people to a right relationship with Christ.)
In its heyday Wendell’s “DragonSlayer” seminars drew thousands of people in the NW, and I’m sure little Judah watched from behind the curtain to see how people responded to his father’s style. Sort of reminds me of Hollywood families, where the child sees their successful parents and eventually melds into the tradition and develops their own acting style.
Judah apparently oozes charisma (and is a snappy dresser who’s having more sex than I am!)(sorry…kind of an inside joke there), and I’m sure he’s entertaining to watch. I just don’t care to watch him because at a fundamental level he’s selling something I don’t want any part of.
Just my .02
February 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Snappy? In which arena of life? I thought he was sloppy… kinda like playing Tom Hanks in BIG perhaps?
I must admit, I have a problem getting past the whining, snivling kid he was….
February 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
I suppose I should weigh in on theological education. Judah has no formal education, accredited or unaccredited. One of my former students, Doug Lasit, has told me of Judah’s desire to get formal training. I’m afraid he’s become popular too quickly for that to happen. Obviously I’m an advocate of formal theological training (including Biblical studies, church history, counseling, etc.). Christian leaders tend to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. A little exposure to this process would make us all wiser.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
does anyone know what kinda car he drives? just curious
February 18th, 2007 at 6:38 am
Agreed.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:25 am
I don’t think it’s too late for Judah to get his formal education.
It’s not like the lost are going anywhere. His position would be safe at his father’s church. There are enough online degrees out there now that he could work and study at the same time.
It’s not like he’s 75 or something. Plus, it would set a good example for those he ministers too. If the Jodie Fosters of the world can take some time off for education, he could too.
If his annointing is real, it will work in the marketplace and still be there when he returns to ministry.
I like Judah, I’m just saying.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:42 am
You’re right, Kari. But it has to do with priorities. And education isn’t a big priority among the City Church crowd. Camp is the priority.
Also, while I’m supportive of online education. There is something about attending an actual class with real student/teacher interaction that you can’t replicate online.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
You’re right Cat. I was responding to Larry’s comment that Judah can’t get an education now because he’s sooo popular.
I think Pastor Iverson could get his degree now too. No offense to Judah, Larry, or Pastor Iverson.
Although after seeing the title of Judah’s last message, I have a little bit less respect for him.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:50 am
“How tight do you want it?”
Wow. I’m sure his wife is thrilled.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Did I read that correctly?
February 19th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
‘fraid so, Bloggy.
I just hope it’s not the first of a series of sermons with sexually suggestive titles … shuddering at the possibilities …
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 am
“We don’t need your class anymore because the PBC students are beginning to think!” —Bob Stricker, PBC dean, to Paul Seely, part-time PBC teacher, 1972
On Educational Training at BT/CBC/PBC:
Dick Iverson: had a little training at Cascade College but never earned his undergraduate degree. If I remember correctly, he was printed up as having a doctorate in Jack Hayford’s Spirit-filled Bible (where Dick contributed to the Psalms).
(No offense intended, but any group can bestow “honorary” doctorates to anyone that meets their subjective requirements, e.g., donors receive them for their financial contributions to colleges; those who have accomplished much in their field but do not have a degree recieve them for recognition. Honorary doctorates are misleading, instead of being earned degrees, they are simply political instruments and marketing promoters which look good on someone’s resume or book cover.)
Frank Damazio: Frank told me that he went to Fuller Theological Seminary to gets his master’s degree because he wanted to know if he missed anything at PBC. I’m not sure whether he finally earned an M.Div. degree or not; I heard he had the same problem as I do: neither of us have the gift for language (Greek and Hebrew).
Ken Malmin: attended Oral Roberts University, but I don’t know what degree he earned from there; I don’t think any; Larry Asplund would know for sure since they have been best friends for years.
David Blomgren: had many earned degrees and still was able to be an elder at BT under Dick Iverson. Amazing!
Kevin Conner: has no formal college education but invested many years in pure study of the Bible using the concordance method.
John Lancaster: taught at PBC with an earned degree, I think a master’s. Dick told him that they would like John and his wife to become official members of BT if they were going to continue teaching at PBC. John and his wife visited several BT services and decided not to join. That meant good-bye!
Paul Seely: has an earned degree and taught a class called College Made Easy in the afternoons to interested PBC students. In the course, among other things, he taught the students how to play the “get the high grade” game which is rife in most, if not all, educational institutions. Bob Stricker, the PBC dean, called Paul into his office and told him that he no longer wanted him to teach his class. When Paul asked why, Bob told him, “Because the students are beginning to think!”
(Paul and I met in this class and have been best friends ever since. As a matter of fact, one day Ken Malmin was screening me for BT eldership, and hinted that I should break off my friendship with Paul because he did not believe the same as BT concerning his doctrine of biblical inerrancy, etc. This kind of group conformity and social control was one main factor that signalled the beginning of the end for me at BT/PBC.)
BT Eldership & the U.S. Marines Corp. Education:
Ken Malmin told me one day that those on the BT staff (especially elders) who had had the least amount of conflict with Dick Iverson (senior pastor) were former members of the Armed Services. That brings to mind Howdy Sligar (former Marine), who was Dick’s right hand man with the MFI for many years, and several others. Could the kind of education that autocratic leaders like Dick Iverson and Frank Damazio prefer really be the kind of chain-of-command education provided in the Armed Services rather than the liberal arts education provided in the local university? If so, could there be any irony in the fact that the PBC dorms used to be Hill Military Academy?!
BT Executive Orders & the Pursuit of Higher Education Degrees:
When Ken Malmin headed up the University Transfer Program at PBC, all of the PBC faculty were encouraged to continue their higher education for the sake of raising the academic credibility of the program! When we asked Ken if he was going to go for a higher degree, he said no. That made me feel kind of strange that the academic dean of PBC was soon going to be just about the least formally educated of all of the PBC faculty!
I also found it funny, that before BT/PBC had the University Transfer Program higher education was not actively encouraged for anyone on staff; but then after Dick Iverson decided that he wanted to go in that direction, all of a sudden, higher education was encouraged! Wow: the power of the Executive Order!
Larry Asplund - One of the Last Degreed PBC Teachers?
Hi Larry! I would really interested in knowing the details of why Frank let Ken Ross and Larry Taylor go from PBC - and what was happening when you left concerning PBC: is it still continuing an academic direction with offering any liberal arts classes, and/or is it going more toward CBC internship, and/or just training young people “for the local church” mainly in the MFI circles? What is Frank’s vision for PBC now?
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Ummm.. I typed up the handwritten notes for that contribution and at the time I understood that Dick had nothing to do with the penning of that, that it was 100% his ghost writer.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:39 am
living life said: …Dick…ghost writer…
hi living life: thanks for the insight; this does not surprise me because I never knew Dick to be a man of letters - do you know who the ghost writer was? i know Dick used Ray Grant for his Team Ministry book, which Frank tried to substitute with his own de-contextualizing of the theme of “one shepherd” from his Bible concordance. Ray’s version was too democratically written and the pastors in the field who knew that Dick ran his church the way he wanted to run it, without the active or genuine participation of the congregation, asked Frank how this could be and Frank told Dick that next time, he should write his own books!
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:58 am
Yes.. twas Raymond who wrote it.. He’ll probably think bad thoughts of me when he finds out I revealed this!!
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Wow…thanks for all the info folks. I’ve officially stepped off the CBC wagon.
I’ve only heard a few of Judah’s messages, and they don’t seem to be “that” off the wall for a High School crowd. But the lack of substance and not being theologically rooted does bother me, especially if he is going to be in a position to influence other upcoming leaders. It doesn’t take much to get some theological grounding — even Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill got his MA from Western online. I’m beginning my program at Talbot this fall.
I visited a chapel session at DTS and Chuck Swindoll was sharing how “a television camera can change a person faster than you know…” I guess I see that actualized in JS and his thriving ministry.
However, I think everyone is dissecting JS’s sermons geared toward students a little too methodically. He is, after all, a Youth Pastor, not a 45 yr-old white, Baptist, elder.
I imagine the students hear much more jarring content during lunch at school…
February 24th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Derek,
I’ve known most of these people whom the Blog castigates frequently, including FD, Wendel, et al. None of them are qualified theologically, and they tend to devalue anyone who has a theological education. I know this first-hand.
If you really want to do something with youth, you will eventually need a true education at an accredited, and hopefully, excellent university and/or seminary. Learn about youth, understand the trends, psychology, theology, and spiritual care. If you want to do something for youth, try mentoring inner-city kids as a volunteer, and work with a community-service organization that is proven and dedicated to love kids and make their lives better. Read Matthew 25:31-46 with an eye for the practical; Jesus says, “…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’ By all means, realize that he is calling his “brothers” simply people in need, and not people who are his disciples or those who belong to his organization. Mother Theresa had it right. Serve the youth, and love them from the bottom of your heart; and don’t forget to get an education. I am finally doing what I have always wanted to do: serve this community and especially under-served minority youngsters from the worst high schools in Portland. Blessings to you in your youth ministry. Larry Taylor, B.A., M.A., D.Min. [just making the point]
February 24th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Actually, LT, Damazio has an MDiv from ORU, which is an accredited liberal arts university. I know firsthand (because I also have a degree from ORU) that the theology department there is thorough and balanced, WAY moreso than PBC.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Thanks, Bloggy. But, I wasn’t challenging the MDiv or questioning ORU, just the level of the gentlemens’ theological sobriety. I have had enough close encounters with theological discussions with these men to stand beside my earlier comments. I assure you that their interest is not theological investigation, except insofar as locating ideas that bolster their ambitions. Thanks, again, for the clarification. LT
February 25th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Larry Taylor wrote: They tend to devalue anyone who has a theological education. I know this first-hand….
Hi Larry, Back in the 80’s, I was on the steering committee that was asked to begin to move PBC toward offering a Bible-informed liberal arts curriculum. At that time, we called it the University Transfer Program. I’m very curious about what Frank told you and Ken Ross as to why your academic services would no longer be needed at PBC. Also, would you be so kind as to share your perspective about whether you see PBC moving away from Christian liberal arts and more toward an internship program (serving the CBC eldership?). The liberal arts program was very dear to my heart, and so I find myself full of many anxious thoughts and questions….
February 26th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
David,
Ken R. and I were told that the school would be “going in a different direction,” and so we no longer fit the vision. There was a fiscal crunch, as well, but the direction of the college was clearly away from academics. Oddly, the top leaders have always believed they had every right to offer “degrees” but dug in their heels every time we (revolutionaries-I suppose) tried to move the school to the next step. I have to believe that if the church leaders had allowed us to move toward accreditation and continued academic development, PBC would likely have been a real competitor to Multnomah and probably other colleges, as well. I know for a fact that MBC was concerned about our direction, and relieved when the hammer came down. Frank told me that many of my courses would no longer be taught, or needed, but I think most of them have been kept for the sake of course titles that could possibly transfer to colleges in the area. The problem is, of course, that I haven’t heard of anyone teaching the humanites courses, such as philosophy or ethics, who have even a bachelor degree in the field.
I have tried to find information on the college website; the flow chart still shows a humanities and university transfer cluster, but it strangely hides course descriptions. Perhaps the courses are listed in a separate catalog, but the image suggests PBC is trying to remain “flexible” and offer what they can. Honestly, I have no idea who they have who is actually qualified to teach the majority of humanities and university transfer courses. Maybe they have brought qualified teachers in from the outside, but I would be surprised. Bob Wager and Brian Daehn have masters degrees, and capable in certain areas I’m sure; but they are certainly not qualified to teach philosophy, ethics, world religions, cultural analysis, history of western civilization, etc. at an accredited college because they have no background in those subjects, either as minors or majors. The website only shows that the “faculty and staff” who teach the classes are mostly church administrators/pastors, with the exception of Lanny. He is the lone scholar, if truth be known. Several individuals still have vacant information, and all of the information given is based on the teacher’s church connection and related success. No academic credentials are mentioned except for Lanny’s.
Nevertheless, I am certain that the leaders who made the decision to follow the trends of trendy churches, rather than actually improve the quality of education at PBC, will go to their graves thinking they did the best thing for the school. I am happy to be away from the heavy-handed political culture and emphasis upon money and the drive to enlarge the organization. But, I feel badly for the students, because I honestly don’t believe that the young and innocent will be able to tell the glitter from the real deal until much later in life. Some are probably already caught up in their own ambitions to be like the trend-setters of the mega-churches. The provincialism is unreal, but the scariest part is that a large portion of this particular charismatic movement has elevated the church above the Kingdom of God.
CBC is just the tip of the iceberg. It may even be docile compared to other mega-church organizations in the U.S. that stubbornly envision their own organizational and material success as the only concrete proof that God is alive in the world. I suppose that they will go on protecting their institutions and support each other in loose knit good-old-boy conglomerates until something drastic happens to change the mood or circumstances in our nation. I am no doom’s day prophet, and do not hope for another great tragedy, but one has to wonder when Americans get enough of the “bigger is better” doctrine. Until we get back to the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the work of liberating the weakest people in our world, institutionalism and hyperecclesia will continue to muffle the voices of progress. I suppose scores of young people will continue to follow the parade of lights, but I am still hopeful for a fresher outlook among the younger generation. Interestingly, when you stare at the lights long enough, your blindness prohibits you from seeing behind to the dark shapes that are hidden. Pray that more and more people come to see what is truly valuable. I hope this answers your questions. I didn’t want to put a damper on your hopes about the liberal arts program, but I don’t think either much “liberal” or “arts” is left. LT
February 27th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Wow. Great Insight, Larry.
If I can be blunt, I don’t think Frank Damazio is smart enough to lead an accredited university. The guy is good at setting up 12 point sermons and taking 4 hours to go through each and every point, but that’s about it. Einstein, he is not.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Excellent point Larry. Well said.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Larry wrote: “…I don’t think either much ‘liberal’ or ‘arts’ is left…”
Larry,
Thank you very much for taking the time to share some of the details with me. I appreciate your thoughts and the theological problems that you have highlighted. I agree with your analysis. I also am so grateful to the Lord for taking me out from under such an anti-intellectual, business-driven, money-grubbing, celebrity-centered environment!
I invested almost nine years of my life teaching at PBC and really miss the classroom. I enjoy helping motivated students learn to think, speak and write. Even if PBC has stopped moving forward academically, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity the job gave to me to begin to develop a vision for a biblical world view curriculum, which the U of Oregon was going to accept as my Ph.D. thesis, until the Curriculum and Instruction degree was dropped due to lack of state funds. What I began to develop at PBC, I hope to publish some day.
PBC & Internship:
What I am still curious about, however, is where you think the internship philosophy fits into PBC. Did you see more local church/CBC centered “training sessions” or “ministry opportunities” or “life experience credits” begin to replace solid academic classes in the curriculum? I spoke with Jeremy Thompson, just before he was indicted, and got the impression from him that the practice of the CBC leaders using PBC students and CBC members to serve their needs is still very much alive and well, e.g., in Frank using Jeremy to pick up the Damazio children from school…
When the subject of why Frank let you and Ken go came up earlier on the blog, if my memory serves me correctly, Lanny blogged on with his own answer as to why the transition happened - or, at least it seemed that way to me because of the timing and flow of his post. If I’m not mistaken, he gave a response as to the transition giving Christian women more of an opportunity to teach. I am curious as to what your take on his comment might be. Were Glenda, Joan or Sharon going to teach more classes?
If you don’t mind me sharing this, one of the reasons that I bring this question about internship philosophy, and I refer here to your excellent insight about the broader picture of the mega-church problem prevelant all over the world, is that I see a Senior Pastor Cult phenomenon as one of the root sicknesses in the Church today; one in which I could see a serve-your-leaders philosophy would be more welcomed rather than classes in logic, rhetoric, philosophy or ethics. I have never seen a genuine cult encourage real liberal arts education - lest they give the students the very tools that would be used to destroy the cult.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
David,
I’m not sure that I can help you, since I was moved out in order for the new curriculum changes to be implemented. All I know is what others have told me, secondhand, and I cannot properly assess a program that is out of sight and out of reach. I have heard that some churches have intern programs that are little more than students paying “to serve,” rather than payment for an education. I can’t speak for CBC’s program. Your best bet is to talk with PBC students directly and ask them what the changes have been since Ken Ross, Larry Asplund, and I have either been discharged or left.
Further, I cannot speak to the question about PBC increasing women’s involvement in the classroom. I didn’t see evidence of such a move while I was teaching at PBC, except for Glenda’s influence, but I never had an issue with women as equals or as professors anywhere. Some of my best professors and mentors have been women, and I still look to guides such as Dr. Mary Kate Morse at G. Fox for advice. What’s the issue? My observation of the process of acknowledging women as elders and teachers in the church in places like CBC, is that the leaders were seemingly swept up in a cultural swing in this direction, and a few “avant garde” mega-churches pushed the first domino, and subsequent churches went scrambling for Scripture texts to justify their need to follow the latest trend.
Many churches continue to hold an “inerrant” view of Scripture, and do not think Paul’s teaching was contextual, culturally. If that’s true, it seems difficult to make the case for women eldership. Eventually, some are going to realize that the inerrant approach is untenable, and hopefully see that it is unnecessary to faithfully defend the authoritative record of God’s revelation.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Going forward its Dr. Wendell, check out the City Church website…
April 11th, 2007 at 5:45 am
I wonder if Wendell knows that just because you get an honorary degree that doesn’t necessarily make you a Doctor.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Larry Taylor said:
I especially like your last phrase “it is unnecessary to faithfully defend the authoritative record of God’s revelation.”
I think most fundamental evangelicals have been fed the notion that unless it is inerrant it is useless, for so long, that we all need a fresh look at the concept of “inspiration” apart from a discussion of “inerrancy.”
Paul clearly supported theopneustos (inspiration) and never, along with all writers of scripture, implies the bible has to be inerrant to be authoritative.
The authority of scripture does not lie in its inerrancy, but in He who is ultimate authority - the Word Himself - The Lord Jesus. We are so used to writings being measured purely on the basis of the accuracy or relevance of what is written, but scripture must be measured by much more than this. Men write books, and that’s it, but Jesus, the living Word has given us more than just a dead letter. He continually speaks/breathes the Word. Because of this the Word is never a dead thing that demands hours of argument, as in those who continually debate Scripture. The greater need is to go directly to the source - The Word Himself.
The reality that we aren’t so good at this, to me, doesn’t change the truth of this statement, but rather calls for a greater commitment to strong connections with the Head of the body. If we promote senior pastors as the effective head of the body we relate to, then of course our tendency is to look to them to connect to the Head and tell us what He said. But, if we will each take up the privilege and responsibility to connect to the Head Himself, and grow in our ability to do so, then we can hear Him, as did the apostles, and our spirit’s will resonate with the authority of the living Word in the things they wrote.
As He breathed into the apostles He will breath into us. The purposes may change from one person to another, who has received in-breathed Word, but the same authority can reside in the communication, as long as we are connecting to Him who has spoken it.
Thus the authority of Scripture lies not in errancy but in the Person of Christ.
I believe it is time to rise to our place in Christ, that has granted us all things pertaining to life and godliness, and rely less on artificial means of strengthening our faith, and let Him become the essential and primary strength of our lives.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Tom said: The greater need is to go directly to the source - The Word Himself.
Tom: I like very much your distinction between inspiration (God-breathed) and inerrancy (without errors of any kind). Jesus is certainly the Word made flesh (John 1:14) to whom we need to go for continued understanding, illumination and anointing. I also agree that we need to teach people not to rely on senior pastors as always having the “senior” (only correct) interpretation of Scripture for us.
Nevertheless, I think that some might get a misleading impression if we leave the rest of your words unaddressed. To me, anyway, some of your other words could give the impression that we no longer need the Bible; that we only need prayer and the revelation that the Spirit gives to us. Though not inerrant, esp. in the areas of science (e.g., the mustard seed is not the “smallest of seeds,” etc.) and history, the Bible gives us general theological and ethical boundaries that I think are important to our faith.
The Gospel and the Bible:
Though the Gospel is not dependent upon the Bible, since it is supra-historical as seen in the time/space Incarnation and the subsequent experience of Pentecost (Acts 2) that continues to this day, now that we have a biblical canon, I think that we can continue to derive much spiritual wisdom from it. This includes, in my view, mature discussions of principles of interpretation (hermeneutics) as well as interpretations themselves (commentaries).
Mike Bickle’s, The Omega Course:
Just recently, I have been critiquing Mike Bickle’s, The Omega Course on the End Times (IHOP, Kansas City, MO). From my own limited perspective, I have found so many theological and biblical errors, which I think will hurt people as well as the Gospel, that I decided to expand my critique from Chapter 7, on Israel’s role in the End Times, to virtually the entire book. Ideas have consequences, and the question is always: by what standard do we form doctrines or opinions?
The Catholic Church: The Bible as “Living Tradition:”
The other day, I was writing a testimony letter to a Catholic lady. In preparing for the letter, I read where the Catholic Catechism gave equal authority to Church Tradition as to Scripture. Their reasoning was this: since the New Testament itself, maybe the whole Bible, shows signs of it being a “living tradition,” therefore, we cannot be confined by the biblical canon. I thought this very astute, since many fundamentalists do not even know or, if they did, would completely stay away from the various strands of traditions within both the OT and the NT that attempt to “correct” one another in various ways. But this openness does not come without risk. Anyway, the Catholic doctrine of seeing the Bible as a Living Tradition, even though I think it has some validity to it (for which I can’t take time right now to give examples), has opened up the door in the Catholic Church to put their traditions, e.g., the assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, bishop authority, and the seven sacraments, etc. on the same par as Scripture. In my view, this is one example of where the idea that all we need is Jesus - we don’t need the Bible - has been taken too far.
Kevin Conner at PBC:
At the other extreme, is fundamentalism. As an example of “harmonizing” vs. “disharmonizing” Scripture there was Kevin Conner, Frank Damazio’s father-in-law, at PBC. He would try to tie the Bible together by finding all sorts of repeated words and phrases from Strong’s English Concordance, e.g., the “120″ trumpets blown at the dedication of Solomon’s temple was prophetic of the “120″ Christians in the upper room when the New Temple of the Church was dedicated under Christ. Though Kevin had a nice library of quite a number of books at the time, someone rather close to him told me that “he never reads them!”
Rather than saying or implying that we no longer need the Bible anymore, possibly it would be better to say that we need both the Bible, as correctly interpreted as possible, as well as the living Holy Spirit moving in and through our lives as well as our words.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
David,
I’m with you 100%. I appreciate that you knew I didn’t place a low value on scripture, which, by all my blogs and the millions of times I quote the scripture it is obvious I don’t, nevertheless your clarification was certainly needed.
I like what you have said here:
I have complete confidence that God has given us a faithful witness of His eternal truth in the scriptures, and that it is sufficiently accurate, to provide a solid basis from which to build our belief system. Add to that, the element of the Spirit’s inspiration flowing in and through the scriptures, and we have a powerful source of life and knowledge of God.
Where I stop short is requiring it to be inerrant before I place my trust in its truth. I trust the scriptures, not so much because they are inerrant, but because God Himself stands behind the scripture, breathing life and through it into those who read, meditate, study, and exegete it.
Thanks for helping me to clarify my position. I LOVE THE SCRIPTURES. This is just one further example of why more than one person should be speaking into a given subject. This is an example of 1 Cor 14 at work. One stands up, and shares what has been placed in their heart by the Spirit, but another stands up with a Spirit clarification and amplification.
The absence of dialogue, in the IC, is one of the many things that always struck me as so “wrong.” As if one person alone would be God’s vessel to communicate all He might want to say on a given subject at a given time.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Interesting how people who are so against education and degrees are suddenly honored to be given a doctorate and yes I thought the exact same thing
you don’t put your honorary doctorate that is bestowed on you before your
name as if you have just been knighted.
Google Wendell Smith and you will stumble across some kind of Global Pastors
thing they have got going on that he is listed as Dr. W Smith —unbelieveable
unless it was an error.
My question from one who has degrees as does my entire family:
exactly where do you think that Doctors and Lawyers will come from -
-out of the sky on a chariot?? It takes alot of hard work to earn these degrees-from real universities none the less. They are not just bestowed,
or given to you by your dad who owns the school. You put them down in
sermons constantly but oh how you love to call them when you
need help out of a jam —then suddenly they become of value to you —and believe me I know what I”m talking about!
April 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Tom,
This is precisely my view, as well. Christ is the only Living Word, and also the living interpreter of his word.
April 12th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Thanks LT!
I hope we can all dialogue more on this theme, because I’m convinced there is much more the Lord desires to reveal in this area. For too many years inerrancy has ruled the day, as if the principle of inspiration were insufficient.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:16 am
it is rather hilarious how all of you end up having a conversation about the scripture and doctrine right after bashing a fellow brother in Christ. You guys are too cool!
I knew kids like you guys in High School. Don’t really fit in and get jealous of people more successful than you so act like you don’t care and make fun of them. It really is entertaining, I do enjoy reading the site!
April 13th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I’m surprised you posted that comment under this particular blog-post. There are instances where we make fun of people, and come acress as petty and insecure. But this isn’t really one of them.
(FWIW, I have a degree. Judah doesn’t. So there’s no jealousy there. )
April 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
I’m a brother in Christ Mike…are you bashing me? (to be read with the same tone as: I have nipples Focker…could you milk me?)
April 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I don’t have a degree, but I AM having more fun than Judah is.
Sam
April 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
not bashing… just mocking.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Mockings fine.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Mike,
I’m not sure I understand who you are referring to, when you talk about “bashing and/or mocking the church.” Let me be very clear:
(1) over the years this blog site has been up, I have characteristically inserted my opinions only when two topics** came up: PBC (because I have a 13 year invested interest) and education in general. If you reviewed all my entries on this site, you would discover that I never once bashed or mocked the leadership of my former employer. To the contrary, I acknowledged they have every right to pursue whatever direction they so choose.
(2) While I was employed at CBC, I offered my opinions and advice frequently in the faculty meetings and privately with Pastor Frank. I never backed down if I had some constructive criticism, but I never slammed anyone. I feel that any time you have something to say, critically, you should be able to face the person you are criticizing.
(3) When the decision came down to changing the course of direction at PBC, I spoke honestly and forthrightly to both Pastor Frank and Ken Malmin that I felt “the decision [was] a terrible one.” Those are my exact words, though there was not a hint of animosity or bitterness in my criticism. In fact, I offered to pray with both of them before leaving, and did so in sincerity and earnest. I still visit the campus from time to time, though it is somewhat painful. I hold no grudges, but I will go to my grave believing that the church leaders made a terrible mistake with the college. I stand on the belief that pursuing accreditation for the college was the right thing, all along, and that it would have brought the college into a unique and favorable stage educationally, and eventually economically. Moreover, I believe such a step was unequivocally in the best interest for all students who had attended PBC and those who would eventually attend.
(4) When you make a statement that you knew people like us [including me, presumably] in high school, do you realize how odd and condescending that sounds? You have no idea what is in my heart and mind, where I have been, and what I feel about my own life’s achievements as well as honest self-criticism. Although I make mistakes and have to apologize at times, I rarely ever have to change my words, because I work extremely hard at saying what I mean and meaning what I say. If I am honest while consciously trying to remain guileless, I will never have to recollect a lie under cross-examination.
I just hope that you will be careful in the future about what you say to people whom you really don’t know. I am always willing to meet with people, answer questions honestly, and set the record straight. I offer my identity, openly, because I have nothing to hide behind. I will offer my email address to you, if you care to continue this discussion privately or want further information: larrytaylor007@comcast.net
_______________
footnote: **I confess a weakness that on one occasion I did enter a discussion about modesty because I was tired and the whole discussion just seemed silly to me, at the moment. I think David Macken and Tom Sparks set me straight: weighing more important life-threatening issues in the church does not invalidate all simpler matters pertaining to personal ethics. And, I think their criticism of my over-zealous reaction was correct.
April 16th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Larry wrote about many churches still holding the traditional view of biblical inerrancy…
Hi Larry: Thanks for being bold to share your opinion questioning biblical inerrancy! I believe that there are many professors in the system who know that if they would share the fact that they no longer hold to the traditional view of inerrancy, that they would lose their jobs.
For those interested in the subject of biblical inerrancy (the belief that the Bible is without errors of any sort), here are a few questions I raise in light of the City Bible Church position on the subject (http://www.citybiblechurch.org/p/8870/Default.aspx).
City Bible Church: “We believe in the plenary-verbal inspiration of the accepted canon of the Scriptures as originally given and that they are infallibly and uniquely authoritative and free from error of any sort in all matters with which they deal, including scientific and historical as well as moral and theological…”
Question: How can you believe in the verbatim inspiration of the canon of Scripture “as originally given” when none of the “originally given” manuscripts any longer exist?
City Bible Church: “We believe in the literal, special creation of the existing space-time universe and all of its basic systems as indicated in Genesis.”
Question: Does “as indicated in Genesis” mean that you believe that the seven days of creation were literal, twenty-four hour days? If someone did not believe that those days were literal, twenty-four hour days, could they, in your opinion, still be considered a good Christian?
City Bible Church: “We believe in the full historicity and perspicuity of the Biblical record of primeval history, including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people, the literal fall and resultant divine curse on the creation, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge, and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel (Gen 1-11).”
Question: Do you believe that someone could be a good Christian and not necessarily believe in the “literal existence of Adam and Eve,” or that the flood was a “worldwide…deluge” instead of just a local one?
May 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
schneidt1 said all sorts of foul language…
schneidt1: If you are a vet from the war in Afghanistan, I want you to know that I deeply appreciate what you did for our country. I mean that sincerely. Nevertheless, I would normally ignore such comments made by someone using vulgarity, but I want to say that you don’t need to use trash talk to be a man. Maybe you thought you did in the service, but you don’t need it anymore. If you’re in Christ, then let him clean up your heart and then clean up your mouth. You have many good things to say, but you don’t have to mix them with expletives. They only make me respect you less. If you were in the war, have you thought about going for some post-war counseling? Seriously, do you think that you are suffering from an ongoing anger based in a kind of post-traumatic stress disorder? If so, I encourage you to seek some professional help. We don’t hate you on this blog, as you claimed that we do, we want you to find healing in the loving arms of Jesus. Take care, my friend.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Aww, leave it to David to always try to bring class to the situation lol.
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Speaking of seminaries, former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was just accepted into an Episcopalian seminary.
McGreevey was formerly a practicing Catholic, married and had a daughter with his wife, whom is now divorcing McGreevey.
McGreevey resigned the governorship of New Jersey amid allegations of improper sexual conduct with a male subordinate.
McGreevey was succeeded as governor of New Jersey by Jon Corzine, who is recuperating from injuries recieved when his state owned Chevy Surburban, driven by a state trooper, hit a guardrail at 91 M.P.H.
Corzine was cited yesterday for not wearing a seatbelt, as required by New Jersey law.
As far as I know, Ted Haggard is not involved in any of this…
May 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
David Mackin asked: “Question: Do you believe that someone could be a good Christian and not necessarily believe in the “literal existence of Adam and Eve,” or that the flood was a “worldwide…deluge” instead of just a local one?”
That depends upon whether or not you think people like me are “good Christian[s].” I have no problem with the compatibility of mythos and logos. I believe in the miracle of the resurrection of Christ and his full deity and full humanity. It is the present and exalted Christ that brings life to his word, and breathes life into the church. The Bible is a dead reflection of the living Word. Apart from a dynamic and spiritual interchange with Christ, the Bible has no power, for it has no intrinsic value.
“…nor does his word dwell in you, [Scribes and Pharisees] for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:38-40).
“He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6).
The Bible is a reliable testimony of the story and meaning of salvation-history; but like the rest of God’s creation, it is an imperfect vessel. So, why are we afraid of the paradox? Humans bear the imago dei, albeit imperfectly. On Pentecost, the perfect Spirit filled the imperfect church. It is the perfect and imperfect arrangement that causes our discomfort. When faith and experience yield to rationalism, we begin to demand that our knowledge be absolute. The next step is to declare that our own interpretation of the truth is absolute; this is the seed of blind conformity and hardening institutionalism. Of course there is a core set of values and a statement of faith. I mentioned the literal resurrection of Christ. But contrary to the fears of some, you don’t have to believe in the literal 7 day creation, Adam and Eve, a global flood, and men who lived to be hundreds of years old in order to be anchored in Jesus Christ. I realize that some day, evidence might suggest a world-wide flood, but even so that does not dismiss the point. Is belief in a global flood necessary for a living faith? I would say, no.
Two ideas emerge in my mind as I think about the Bible as God’s word, aside from what I have already mentioned in terms of the necessity of the living Spirit who animates his word in the life of the reader. These other two ideas are:
(1) The Bible is the product of human and divine authorship, but the precise understanding of which part is which will remain a divisive issue. For example, I consider the following passage to reflect the soul of a man in deep distress and his resentment toward his enemies, but not the heart of God or a representation of divine ethics:
“O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks” (Psalm 137:8-9).
(2) The Bible is the product of an historical cultural context and the gradual unfolding of divine revelation. God reveals his plan and purpose through events as well as people, through law as well as poetry, through human perception as well as divine providence. Sometimes, however, I believe the imperfection is particularly acute, and sends a mixed signal about the divine command theory and God’s true moral standards.
Thus, I have no problem admitting that the Israelites destroyed every man, woman and child when they came to Jericho; but, I don’t have to like it. I also don’t have to believe that God literally barked out the command: “Go – kill! I hate these people living in Jericho! I want you to run a spear through every baby’s gut and then burn their bodies!”
Why do I deny that the command was literal, but accept that it was tolerated in the cultural context of the invading army of Israel is for one simple reason: Jesus’ statement to his disciples, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” I interpret the meaning of the Old Testament in the light of the revelation of Christ. I am sure that I won’t win many friends or influence people by my position on the Bible, but this is my current position. I can already anticipate some of the counter-arguments and protests. But, there it is, take it or leave it.
Within all of us, insecurity and faith dwell together in constant tension, but belief in an inerrant Bible is another form of unbelief, since it depends upon rational certainty. I like Jurgen Moltmann’s statement: “The church lives in the history which finds its substantiation in the resurrection of the crucified Christ and whose future is the all-embracing kingdom of freedom…It is not faith that makes Jesus the Christ; it is Jesus as the Christ who creates faith” (Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 197).
May 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Larry,
I’m all right with that. I’ll need to study it a little closer, but at first glance sounds good to me.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Larry made comments about the imperfections (i.e., “errancies”) of the Bible….
Larry: I thought that your comments on biblical inerrancy were very excellent! Many times, all I hear from Christians in their attempts to defend their belief that the Bible is error-free, is a litany of Bible verses on biblical inspiration rather than inerrancy, e.g., “all Scripture is God-breathed,” “the Word of God cannot be broken,” “God is not a man that he should lie,” “The law of the Lord is perfect…” etc. Most do not really dig more deeply into the subject itself and address its many different and necessary angles. Thank you for taking us well beyond this approach!
Accompanied by some paraphrasing, if you don’t mind, I liked your comments on this subject because they clearly demonstrated:
Psychological insight: Do we emotionally need them to be wrong? Do they help our insecurities by enabling us to lean on inerrancy as our real source of security? (Tom Sparks asks why it should shock us for God to give us an imperfect Bible.)
DM: The human mind strives to avoid cognitive dissonance, i.e., incongruent thinking. So, since humanity knows God to be “perfect,” it is only natural for humans to want God’s book, the Bible, to be “perfect,” too. Those Christians who are less experiential in their faith are more prone to be supporters of an error-free Bible because they depend mostly on their mental constructs for a sense of the reality and applicability of the divine rather than on the ever-present supernatural power of the Spirit in their daily lives.
Note that Paul preached Christ not only as the “power of God” (because the Jews sought after signs and wonders) but also as the “wisdom of God” (because the Greeks sought after philosophy). He presents Christ himself as the solution to the inner longings of both Jew and Greeks - not an inerrant Bible. He says all of this in the context of his rhetorical questions, “Where is the scholar [of the Torah]? Where is the [Greek] philosopher of this age?” (I Corinthians 1:18-25)
Theological understanding: Jesus is “a far more accurate picture of what God is like” than much of what is in the OT.
DM: Dispensationalists, who believe that the OT prophets do not find their fulfillment in Christ and the Church, but in Israel in the End Times, need to meditate on your excellent comment. You show a much needed understanding of the covenantal progression in the Bible, i.e., the fact that all previous covenants point to and are fulfilled in Christ and the New Covenant.
The challenge here, however, is what new basis do we use to distinguish the “far more accurate picture of God” we see in Jesus from the less accurate one we see in the OT, without: (1) committing the heresy of Marcionism (the creating of two different gods, one of the OT and one of the NT); and (2) ignoring, as one example, the OT’s condemnation of homosexuals and witches. Concerning homosexual and witches, in Christian ethics do we eliminate the capital punishment aspects of these two sins/crimes and keep the immoral aspects in our definitions? If we do, upon what basis do we make this split since even Paul, in the the New Covenant, says that homosexuals deserve to die (Romans 1:32)!? (I’m only trying to create thoughtful discussion here…)
Spiritual depth: Christians should “stop worshipping the Bible” and get out of this “religious fantasy.”
DM: As you know, the term used for the worship of the Bible is bibliolatry, and after the Exile, the Jews fell especially into this problem. It got so bad that some Jews were making mountains of meaning out of the smallest details of the OT. This helped, of course, to lead to Jewish Cabbalism, the mystical interpretation of the text and the seeking for “deeper” meanings in Scripture, which still persists today in the emphasis upon hidden “Bible codes” and End Time “revelations.”
I agree with you that believing in biblical inerrancy is a “religious fantasy,” and what we need to teach new believers at the very beginning of their Christian walk is that the Bible is both a divine and human document, as you said so well. Instead, so much of the Church is afraid that if we show them the human side of the Bible, they will turn away from God. In my view, however, they will not turn away from God if they are genuinely converted to Christ because the basis of their faith is a Person whom they have encountered and not just a book. Besides, truth liberates.
Philosophical sophistication: Inerrancy “depends on rational certainty” and rationalism is not what the Bible or God are all about.
DM: One of my best friends has dedicated his career to exposing the false doctrine of biblical inerrancy, esp. when it comes to the “science” in Genesis 1-11. (If interested, you can see: Paul H. Seely, Inerrant Wisdom and his many articles on the web.) I found it very interesting when Paul pointed out that the Protestant response to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility was the infallibility of a book - the Bible! Since the Bible never claims its own inerrancy, then human reason is where the doctrine probably has to come from. (I was pleasantly surprised just the other day when I heard the host of The Narrow Path, a Christian Bible question talk show on the radio, admit the same.)
Ethical maturity: Dashing the heads of infants against rocks does not truly show us “the heart of God.”
DM: As soon as we hear such words, our spirits immediately tend to agree, esp. since we are more sensitized to Jihad through global terrorism. Once we admit that Jesus himself used the “inerrant” and “unchanging” OT to correct itself in the area of biblical ethics, we can begin to open our minds to the fallacy of biblical inerrancy. Until one can do this, one tends to keep one’s mind closed to the idea and simply suffices to think of the OT in terms of civil, ceremonial and moral law, eliminating only the ceremonial law from the New Covenant. Concerning the ethical issue of divorce, for an example, Jesus uses Genesis 2:24 to correct Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Matthew 19:1-12). How could Jesus do this if he believed that ALL of the OT was inerrant, and, therefore, unchangeable?
Inerrant Promise - not Inerrant Law:
To further illustrate this point, I’d like to comment on the Abrahamic promise over the inerrant Mosaic Law in the book of Hebrews. I find it fascinating how the author of Hebrews not only distinguishes between the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic law in his letter, but he also says that the former was “inerrant” and “unchanging” and the latter “errant” and “changeable.” A Christian who believes in biblical inerrancy could not make such a statement. In making his case, we see again that he is using the Scripture against itself.
In addressing his Jewish Christian community, many of whom are leaving Jesus and returning to the Old Covenant and to Judaism due to persecution, he points out to them the many benefits and superiorities of Jesus Christ over the Old Order (e.g., a “better” covenant with “better” promises, 7:22, etc.) in an attempt to motivate them to stay with Jesus and the Christian community.
In addressing the unchanging nature of God and his purpose in history (6:18), the author says that the promise that God gave to Abraham, that is fulfilled in Christ and the Church (”we,” 6:18), was inerrant because it was based on two unchangeable realities: (1) God himself (6:13), and (2) God’s oath or promise (6:14). In contrast to the promise that God made to Abraham, the author pits the Mosaic law, esp. the laws of the OT priesthood and tithing.
In a convoluted sort of way, he states that the Mosaic law was based on the priesthood (7:11). Instead of stating that the priesthood was based on the Mosaic law, which would seem more logical, he reverses the order on purpose so that he can show first the imperfection of the priesthood (7:11a), then the imperfection of the law (7:19a). The author does not stop with just showing the fallibility of the priesthood, he extends that fallibility to the law itself. It is not without significance that he is making these statements to former Torah-loving Jews!
Jesus has changed the priesthood from the temporary levitical order to the permanent order of Melchizedek by his resurrection from the dead (7:11-17). The risen Christ has introduced a much “better hope” than the Old Order and, therefore, this new reality has replaced the Mosaic law (7:18,19,22). More specifically, Jesus’ replacement of the levitical priesthood (7:6,11, etc.) and the Mosaic law, includes his abolishment of the law of the tithe (7:5,12, 18). Thus, the risen Christ fulfills God’s promise to Abraham of blessing and seed (cf. Galatians 3:16) and replaces the Mosaic law with himself, the very Indwelling of God (cf. 6:19).
The author clearly places the NT priesthood of Jesus over the OT priesthood of Aaron and Levi. But, for first century Jewish believers, this is just his beginning premise for dropping his theological bombshell: the inerrant Promise has replaced the inerrant Law!
P.S. Did you and Frank Damazio (or any other CBC/PBC staff member for that matter) ever have a conversation about biblical inerrancy? If so, what did he say his view was on the subject? If different than yours, did the difference, as far as you are aware, have anything to do with him letting you go from PBC? If it did, then you might be interested, if you have not read it already, in my recent post on this blog addressing Frank’s potentially shocking view of biblical inerrancy entitled “What does SPFD think?”
May 4th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I wanted to respond to the changes in teachers at PBC. Ever since I left PBC, CBC I have had a better relationship with certain members of the staff bec. maybe they feel free to discuss things with someone who is not a paying attendee. Anyway, having lunch with a pastor’s wife, she commented that they were going to eventually let go all ‘non pastor’ teachers and make those whom they want to stay as teachers, new elders in the church. All for the sake of “keeping the college more under the leadership of the church”. I interpreted that to mean - “this is getting out of hand, my husband and others want the control back under the church leaders”. You know the line, “so we are all saying the same thing”.
Anyway, that is what I heard and my thought at the time was, “you are not actually going to have Ed Schefter a teacher at PBC??”
This is probably not new infor for anyone. But both Larry’s I appreciated all you brought to the school, and I will be sad when Lanny leaves, which I am sure won’t be too long if he wants the freedom to teach to his potential.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Tri4Christ said: They were going to eventually let go all ‘non pastor’ teachers and make those whom they want to stay as teachers, new elders in the church. All for the sake of “keeping the college more under the leadership of the church”.
Tri4Christ: Thank you very much for sharing this with us. PBC is very close to my heart, and I miss the college classroom of eager-to-learn students very much.
What you’re saying is completely consistent with what Frank Damazio told me as he was making plans to be Dick Iverson’s successor. He told me that when he took full control of BT/CBC, he was going to come on very strong with the elders, esp. at first, to show them who was boss. (He used nicer words.) In a pyramid when the Senior Pastor is at the top reaping the lion’s share of money and ministry, this was understandable politically speaking because all of the elders were his peers or older than Frank. This is why, in my view, he’s had to go to the younger, more compliant and eager generation for his new elders and recruits.
He also told me that he was going to “reign in the school.” You hit the nail right on the head about the reason for all of this: control - senior pastor control. Frank wants to have full control over PBC’s faculty and curriculum. Who’s permission did he have to get when he began to offer his own classes on Vision, etc. in the PBC curriculum?
I’m sorry to say this, but as long as this philososphy of control persists, PBC, and other local church schools like it, will simply be extensions of the Senior Pastor Cult that is growing all around the world. In the Senior Pastor Cult, indoctrination replaces education. regergetation replaces teaching critical thinking skills, and rote memorization replaces position-paper writing and debate.
And the result? Most of the graduates simply become brain-washed pawns for the Senior Pastor and his vision. As I said before, the example of PBC necessitates the SEPARATION of school and church rather than the complete domination of one over the other. At one time, Dick asked Frank if I was “a local church man.” At that time, Frank reassured him that I was. But, when I began to question some of Dick’s doctrines, he had Ken Malmin “screen” my beliefs for eldership in some informal meetings (even though Ken has denied this).
As I shared before, Dick even went so far as to steal a large chart of mine that I loaned him to take a look at, and then denied he knew what had happened to it (even though I saw him put it into his own desk drawer!) just to make sure that others did not see it! Folks, this is more than emotional insecurity or intellectual inferiority; this is a Senior Pastor stealing and lying in order to get rid of any possible opposition to one’s personal agenda!
Some students told me that the way that I taught my classes at PBC was very different than many of the other teachers. I suppose it was. What I tried to do is to get the students to think, to reason, to discern, to research, to ask questions, to challenge ideas, etc. I guess that was why Jack Louman, maybe on assignment from the Senior Pastor- which was very common - told me that I should be teaching at Pat Robertson’s Regent University instead of PBC. The truth be told, I don’t think that I’d last long at Regent either: I would strongly disagree with Pat’s Dispensationalism and could not keep silent!
May 4th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
David said: “Concerning the ethical issue of divorce, for an example, Jesus uses Genesis 2:24 to correct Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (Matthew 19:1-12). How could Jesus do this if he believed that ALL of the OT was inerrant, and, therefore, unchangeable?”
David, you bring up a very crucial point: we must observe how Christ and the apostles of the New Testament used the Old Testament. Interestingly, as soon as we become fixated on the term, “canon,” we no longer allow any similar judgment in hermeneutics to be applied to the New Testament. In other words, as you aptly pointed out, Jesus could use one scripture in the Old Testament to correct another passage and subject one to the other. We are utterly terrified by such a prospect! Yet, the moment anyone mentions that Paul and James or John had a different point of view, the house of God panics! In truth, we have always resorted to philosophical suppositions and assumptions in framing our hermeneutics and interpretive procedures. The question falls on which presuppositions seem the most productive and effective in the exchange between “inspiration” on the one hand, and “illumination” on the other. In short, what is the Bible saying to us, today?!
Could Jesus have believed that the Old Testament was the product of God, and still hold that some parts are less relevant than others? I think so. I also believe Paul had a similar understanding of the Old Testament as witness. Otherwise, how could he brush aside Old Testament teaching on slavery by advocating a brotherhood between slave and master? and a spiritual liberating force that would eventually make all one - Jew and Greek, bond and free, male and female? Oh yes - we must interpret in the light of contemporary circumstances, but it is not the secular world that offers us understanding; it is God’s changing world and the dynamic Spirit of God that is at work in the universe that offers us the capacity to read the truth. Former pastoral theologian, Ray Anderson, calls this “Christopraxis,” and asks a profound question regarding our use of Scripture: “Can we say that Jesus is not only the living Word who inspires the New Testament and thus insures its trustworthiness but that he is also present in the contemporary reading and interpretation of the New Testament?”
May 31st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
As a former PBC and Fuller Theological Seminary Grad and a friend of my former profs (and friends), Tom Sparks and Larry Asplund, I just wanted to chime in and say hello. Since my days at Fuller, I’ve gone through an interesting theological journey that’s taken me from the Evangelical camp to the “Progressive” camp (liberal protestant) on the issue of inerrancy.
But what I find even more fascinating is everyone’s preoccupation with Judah Smith. Haha.
What’s that about? All I remember was that he was a good kid in YO (CBC, the church formerly known as BT’s) junior high program.
Maybe one of these days I’ll have more time to read this blog in its entirety and give my own two cents … until then, be well all.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Wesley, thanks for stopping by.
It is fascinating that posts about Judah get more attention than any other subject. I don’t know why that is.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Where are you playing now days Wes?
June 1st, 2007 at 5:48 am
Hey Wesley, I think I remember you from being my chaperone on a couple youth trips back in the day.
Hi back!
I think the mice at CBC are more afraid of getting caught posting here, so there’s more activity on the Judah posts from the City Church Clan.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:34 am
RP ~ Yeah, it is odd to me that’s he’s getting so much “”air time”
Locutus: Actually, I’m playing all over the U.S. at the moment. I now work for personal development guru, Anthony Robbins and am a national speaker for him. I’m still based in So Cal but I’m living in Tampa, Florida till September.
Doug Brok My Leg: I was your chaperone? No, no, no … say it isn’t true.