Excommunicate Them?
Posted on March 29th, 2007 by Reformed Pope into the The Debate categoryKariMichelle writes: Well, JP maybe you need to take it to the next step. Bring all of us with you. I'd be happy to sign a petition or pen a letter asking Frank to meet with you and I'm sure everyone else here would too. You kind of represent all of us. If he is truly a man of God, I'm not sure how he could refuse. But if he did, then take it to the eldership. If they still refused, we could excommunicate THEM. Unfortunately, I don't think he would meet with us, and since Frank's eldership is made up mostly of "yes men" I don't see that going anywhere. Of course the idea of trying to excommunicate THEM is hilarious… Personally, I was quite shocked that he refused to meet just with me. I realize there might not be much to come out of our conversation, but Frank loses so much credibility by hiding from me. This is why I was so impressed with Howard Rachinski for taking the time to talk. He showed he wasn't hiding anything and that he wasn't scared of me. Frank is simply furthering his controlling stereotype. The problem for them is this, by meeting with me they lend credibility to what we do and say here…and the second they do that their empire could crumble. Of course by refusing to meet, they go against everything the BIBLE says and teaches…clearly they are more concerned with their empire then the Bible…I think we've covered that in a few places on this blog. For all you CBC faithful who read this blog, let this be a sign of where Frank's heart is really at. He's currently speaking on the importance of Community, talking about how we need to spend time with each other, loving each other, caring for each other…why then won't he commune with me? Is community supposed to be easy? Should you only care for those who are in agreement with you? Are his sermons only meant for those inside his church…should you ignore the rest of the world? Here is a fitting comment from Tom Sparks in regard to CBC not wanting to meet or debate scripture with me: He doesn't want to debate scriptures for two reasons. 1) Because it is just too hard to biblically prove and support the doctrine they hold. They know many great writers have written rebuttals to this approach they take, and they don't want to get into the debate. 2) Because if they allow you to take them on in debate then they will feel they have to give the same treatment to everyone that comes along, and they know it would wear them out and distract them from the goals they have in ministry. To one extent this is reasonable, but if they take this position then they must understand there will be those who censure them, both privately, and publicly on your blog. They can't have it both ways. If you reference in your blog comments that the things you write are not about a personal unresolved offense with Frank, but rather with the goal of helping folks get free from false doctrine and its effects, then they will have to just leave you alone, unless they desire to turn it into a formal debate, which they understand will play out on the blog before the watching world. This would be problematic for them, since they are clear that they want to be able to do what they do inside their four walls, without censure and debate. Sorry Frank, but you can't have it both ways… Actually Tom, as long as they can convince people that CBC is THE SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY and "SPIRITUAL COVERING"…they can have whatever they want.
RSS feed for posts
March 29th, 2007 at 11:17 am
UMMM……… don’t you have to be attending a church, perhaps a member even…
March 29th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Excommunicate?
EXTERMINATE!
March 29th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
RP, so true, so true…
You write:
As far fetched as your statement may sound to some folks, it is accurate, as far as “their perception” of their authority. They would likely say it isn’t accurate, because they know such attitudes would be wrong for them, yet, by the very manner in which they operate and speak, it is obvious this is their operative philosophy of ministry.
The IC has a strong competitive tendency, and sees itself in competition for the saints it encompasses. As such, while they would like more attendees, and they will market for it, they are especially jealous of their own and dismissive of those outside their ranks. To lose members equals losing their tithes. To engage in dialogue here means to possibly lose face and credibility, especially because their theology of Tithe is so terribly flawed, so to engage you, means to lose, and to lose means to trouble their flock, some of whom have given many thousands of $$ to the CBC empire. They cannot risk a debate that would undercut their budget, and threaten their salaries and mortgage payments.
We who stand outside their system, and yet challenge their practices, must be demonized and considered leprous. If we are engaged, then we are given legitimacy. If we are given legitimacy then we are no longer demons. If we are demons then of course we must be rejected and treated as those who are to be shunned. Pretty simple, yet ugly, logic.
Undoubtedly we figure into an application of the following passage, from their perspective:
Once you settle that someone fits this exhortation from that point forward you give yourself the liberty to ignore them. I feel certain this passage plays largely into their direction towards this blog.
March 29th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
A couple more thoughts…
Is what is being discussed here “profane and idle babblings?”
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! Why?
Just compare our genuine discussion of the illegitimacy of Tithe, backed by an awesome array of biblical support for the perspective shared here, even if tithing were to turn out biblical, to say that this discussion is nothing more than an evidence of “profanity and idle babbling” puts them at odds with some of the finest scholars of all Church history, who have opposed the Tithe.
Compared with what Paul was referencing - (the resurrection is already passed), which would create massive discouragement and disillusionment, followed by abandonment to fleshly ways, since they would have figured God had rejected them, so why walk holy any longer, our discussion of tithing is in no way parallel with such matters.
What we are discussing here has great legitimacy. Millions of believers worldwide share our concerns and beliefs. It’s just that Churches are soooo rarely held to accountability to the scriptures, that this blog poses an incredible threat to their religious institution.
So, even if we are completely wrong, in our convictions regarding the illegitimacy of the tithe under the New Covenant, the discussion is a valid and important one, and one that is being carried in many circles within Christianity, and rightfully so.
I just wanted to address the use of this passage, before anyone became truly worried that perhaps Paul was addressing us. I am extremely confident he wasn’t…
March 29th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Two things come to mind when we speak of this issue regarding tithing
1. I was attending BT/CBC at the time tithing was instituted and if I remember correctly the model and the justification for going to tithing, per Frank, was that it was recommended by and working for Richard Roberts, Oral Roberts son, good old seed faith. This struck me as very odd at the time because it was kind of on the heals of the Oral Roberts scandal where Oral claimed, with Richard at his side, that He was being held hostage by God! Unless he raised $4.5 Mil. by a certain date then God was going to take his life. I thought this just can not be happening, I could not believe that Frank was invoking the Roberts name in order to help inspire the body to get on board. see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963349,00.html
2. The other item that was eye opening was when I was working at one of Portlands larger auto dealership I got word that Pastor Frank needed a new ride and that it was going to be leased and written under his employment contract with BT/CBC. I thought; Dang, this is just like some type of rock and roll star or pro athlete, it was amazing to me that Frank was so audacious. Obviously he got exactly what he wanted.
Now from what I read in the bible pastors and elders of the church should be men of modest means. I am not saying they have to be poor but doesn’t it make sense that if you are pastor of a church that you would want to at least live at the same level or even a little below that of what the majority of or the mean income of your flock is? I am not saying that this is law but certainly seems that the shepherd would want to be among the sheep as much as he could. I did not get the impression that the leadership of BT nescessarily held to this, I am not even certain they came close to it?
These questions have been on my mind for quite a few years and I do not want to seem to be beating this to death, because I know that God is more than able to handle any issues that occurr in his church, but I have always wondered if I was the only one that saw and thought these things.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I used to think those things, Robert, but at that time I was driving his Expedition to get him his carmel machiato. Now I just feel stupid for being used like that.
March 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Robert & WTFWJD,
That fact is, you and hundreds of other folks, who have attended CBC, and countless other Churches that teach the tithe, sit in wonderment week after week, as to whether “this is really what Jesus had in mind” for Church, giving, leadership, and body life.
I’ve been blessed to chat with many folks off this blog, who regularly check in here, who don’t feel inclined to write, but agree with most of what is written here. Over and over I hear it…”Keep on writing on the blog, because for the first time in our lives we are hearing people speak about what we have sensed and known for years.”
It is painful for all of us, to realize we were so hooked into the things we were, for as long as we were, but sometimes the joy comes in “the contrast.” In contrast to what I was so addicted to I have come to know a freedom in Christ, a joy in giving, an appreciation for what others share, and a love for Jesus that far exceeds anything I previously knew. All I have to do is take a backwards and an upwards look to realize how blessed I am now.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
It seems to me there is so much arrogance and exclusivity in the way Hank operates. It’s obvious he fancys himself smarter and wealthier and better than the people he is supposed to be serving. He’s a freakin’ millionaire working the system and guilting people into giving him more. It certainly seems he feels he deserves more than the rest of us. It is a disgrace. My quandry is: why does God allow it to go on? There’s a whole generation who have walked away from God over this stuff.
I find some comfort in this blog. It confirms so much of what I have suspected for years. I’m grateful to Tom and David for bringing to light some of what went on and to RP and Catalyst for providing the place to dialogue.
sparrow355
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Sparrow, what amazes me, is in an environment of charitable giving, where the increase of church coffers is not due to any particular product being produced, but rather the goodness of the givers hearts, and the senior pastor is supposed to be a servant to those he is ministering, we find those who are living in rented apartments and driving late modeled junker cars, giving 10% of their hard earned income, while the Senior Pastor lives in a mansion and drives the newest vehicle out. Now how can that be right? How can pastors allow such a state of being to exist? Upon what basis do they justify this behavior?
George Barna, of the Barna group, writes the following:
Here’s the entire article: http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=267
Is it any wonder?
I’m frustrated with the oil companies, whose CEOs are pocketing gigantic bonuses and increased salaries, as well as record earnings, while we’re paying $2.95 at the pump for gas. And at least these guys provide an actual product of value. But, when you have Senior Pastors, whose modern day job description is COMPLETELY absent in the NT, deriving huge salaries, and living like kings, on Church gifts, no wonder people are leaving the Church in record numbers.
I’m not saying some of the ministry, that many of the pastors are bringing, has no value, but when the value has a dollar sign attached to it it devalues the ministry. Maybe we should give the Church attenders placards, ranging from 1 to 10. Sermons that rate 10 get the big bucks, but sermons that are boring, put you to sleep, sound self serving, don’t magnify a call to the cross and discipleship, fail to focus on Jesus, and glorify Him alone, would get lower numbers and little to no offering. I say, give the offering after the sermon, put them on a real performance basis, see how they fare…the problem is, some of them are the most stupendous offering takers, like Wendell Smith. That brother is capable of squeezing blood out of turnip and causing the givers to give a clap offering for impoverishing themselves until their next paycheck, meanwhile their children think the whole thing stinks because they just lost out on a vacation, or a trip to MacDonald’s or some other interesting thing for the family to do.
I don’t know…I don’t get it…I just plain don’t get the whole silly system any more.
April 4th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Walking away from a greedy minister / corrupt religious institution isn’t necessarily walking away from God - in fact, it may well be walking TO God.
He is able to find us wherever we are and He doesn’t limit His searching for the lost sheep to religious buildings.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Thank you, Tom, for so eloquently stating what is really on my heart! I am so thankful to be out from under the scam. It’s a battle to not regret the past, but I can say this: God is a debtor to no man and He has taken care of my family through all that has come our way.
‘Scrupe, point well taken. For some of my children what you said rings true, but for the others, not. The end of the story isn’t written.