Doctrinetalk.com
Posted on May 21st, 2007 by Reformed Pope into the Other Blogs category
I just stumbled upon a blog written by an ex-City Church member. I haven't had time to go through all of it, but I read his review of one of Judah's messages, which sounded similar to a few reviews written here, and then I read the About Me section which has a most excellent email exchange between Craig (the blog author) and Wendell Smith. Here is the best quote by Wendell (everyone should read it for yourself, it's quite shocking…even to those of us who have seen this kind of pastoral behavior over and over): You know a tree by its fruit. Not only has there been much good fruit among the members of The City Church but there has actually been good fruit in your life. I wonder if that will continue if you cut yourself off from these branches.. Wendell's email is your typical manipulation and guilt response where he refuses to be open to the idea that he is wrong. Once again it's a Senior Pastor who has moved past the teachings of the Cross and the Gospel and consequently forgotten that he is still a sinful man in need of Christ's blood. Shame on you Wendell…
RSS feed for posts
May 21st, 2007 at 8:36 am
I’m shocked at this, quite frankly. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t JESUS the vine and WE (the individuals that make up the body of Christ) are the branches. We’re supposed to abide in HIM, not to remain blindly loyal and obedient to a particular denomination.
This is DANGEROUS assumption from a pastor to equate himself and HIS church with the Lord Jesus.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
I just hope that “Craig” is Craig Smith, Chelsea’s father….
…a boy can dream, can’t he?
May 21st, 2007 at 9:55 am
Wow, what wonderful “confirmation” that people are holding up their false doctrines to the light, and even confronting the pastors about them. I bookmarked his blog and I’ll be checking back often. You guys should compare notes more often.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:27 am
Thanks for checking out doctrinetalk.com - I have been reading this blog for a while (and left a few comments) and you could say it inspired me to raise my voice. I just want people to see what kind of people they really are when they leave the pulpit, or when you don’t obey them.
I thought Wendell’s comment about the vine was presumptuous, at the least. It reveals his inflated view of himself. I think they (the self appointed “anointed”) exalt their position to others so much, they actually believe it.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I just got a catalog in the mail from www.seedsowers.com There is a new book out by Gene Edwards, “Why You Should Consider Leaving the Pastorate” It sure sounds like a timely topic!
May 28th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Local church and Universal church. Jesus IS the vine and we are the branches, but at the same time, we should be faithful to a local Church of some sort. If we cut ourselves off from the “local Church”, we are also cutting ourselves off from the BODY of Christ.
The Church in Acts 2 met together in the Temple as well as from house to house. What it sounds like to me, is that most of you would rather not attend a “local Church”, but worship God on your own. Is that true?
May 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Matt, you said, “we should be faithful to a local Church of some sort.”
Why? Faithful in what way?
Can you define “local Church?”
Can you explain how “local Church” is synonymous with BODY of Christ?
How is the Acts 2 meeting in the Temple anything like modern churches?
Why would you assume “most” of us would rather not attend a church?
I’m asking these questions to cause you to think, and not spout the answers you’ve been taught. Yes, I took Local Church in PBC, been in BT/CBC since the 70’s. I know the pat answers.
And BTW, I do attend church.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Hey Matt, can you back up your claims that one who does not belong to the “local church” does not belong to the body of Christ with concrete scriptural evidence? What do you believe about people who go to church but don’t even really believe in Jesus? Are they also a part of the body of Christ because they attend a “local church”?
Meeting in the Temple indicates that they were still practising Judaism. Should we be meeting in the side rooms of our local Synagogues? Hey while we’re at it, why don’t we also say we all need to get circumsized to be saved?
See how easy the line of “reasoning” that you’ve been taught can be refuted?
I guess my real question for you, Matt, is have you ever asked yourself the kinds of questions I asked you in the first paragraph? Have you ever asked why? Have you ever questioned the things you’ve been taught, have you ever questioned why you’re right and we’re wrong?
See, we’ve all been where you are, but you’ve never been where we all are. You can spit out the line of logic that you’ve been taught at CBC and BT, but we’ve all questioned it already.
And for the record I do attend a local church and I worship God on my own.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:14 am
Matt said:
Well Matt, according to some users on another forum I visit, I like to make s’mores over a stack of burning Bibles.
Seriously, I just think most of the brothers and sisters here are just looking for the real deal, because they’re tired of the falsehood, dysfunction and manipulation common to indy hyper-charismatic churches.
Don’tcha ever just want to sit down with the brothers and sisters Matt, break bread, drink a little wine, and talk about Jesus, without someone trying to preside over the meeting in ’spiritual authority’ or without some Bible-thumper breathing down your neck examining you for doctrinal/scriptural error?
Recent experiences have gone to show me one of the benefits of Jesus being on the move as much as He was … I think Jesus got real tired of being hounded by the scribes, pharisees and teachers of the law … they are a TOTAL buzz kill to simple fellowship in the Spirit of Christ … so Jesus stops, teaches and the pharisees, et al really stink up the joint, so Jesus moves on to a place they haven’t polluted with pharisee-gas. Jesus clearly made a habit of moving away from religious people.
Likewise, I suspect the people here who have moved on from CBC/TCC, et al, just got tired of the Frank-stink, Wendell-stink, Judah-stink … et al, and wanted some fresh air …others of us got tired of Dogma-stink, Tradition-stink, etc., and moved on …
Sorry for the graphic man, but there’s some real benefit to a MOVING church.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Eleytheria,
Meeting in the temple in no way indicates that the early church was practising Judaism; in fact, the symbols/tokens/praxis of Judaism was subverted and transformed by the early church. For example, the theological nature of the Sabbath/shabath was reshaped by the teachings and example of Jesus; hence, it became obsolete as a symbol for practising early christians. Jesus also subverted the theological concept of the temple, a location for YHWH, and located the presence of G-d within Himself. All of which were Jewish symbols that regulated the religous life of first century Judaism.
Furthermore, early Christian wisdom grew out of a consenus that it was a prophetic messianic movement that had theological and interpretative consequences. In other words, the teaching/life/vocation/death/resurrection of Jesus fused disparate messianic passages that Jewish theology could not hold.
Two symbols that defined and shaped the early christians were the cross and the sacrament, which were patently non-jewish symbols. They were symbols that directed the praxis of the early church seen in Acts 2…
The paradox of the early church is rooted in this fact: followers of Jesus in Acts 2 grew out of a Jewish demographic that did not practice Judaism in all of it’s fundamental nuances. The early Christians were Jewish but were aliented/exiled from Judaism’s milieu…
This movement was messianic and shaped thematically around the Kingdom of G-d and the climactic event of the cross/resurrection. That the early christians were practioners of Judaism is fallacious historically, theologically, and exegetically…
May 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Austin/Cowboy, you are so eager to correct people about minutiae (look, I used an obscure word!) but still won’t answer the challenge issued to you months ago.
I disagree with your reasoning that early Christians completely abandoned Judaism in practice. Certainly, that was the intent of Christ and the Apostles, but it was definitely not the case otherwise Paul would not have written the letter to the Galatians to scold them for doing so! Many Jewish Christians continued to meet in the temple and their synagogues at best simply out of habit and at worst as a means of perverting the Gospel. Keeping the Sabbath (an entirely Judaic practice) was an issue even with Gentile Christians to the point where Paul had to address it in Romans 14.
I also find it interesting that you purposefully misspell the names of God (”G-d”, “YWHW”) but not Jesus. Were you ever of the Jewish faith? If so, I can understand that old habits die hard. If not, it seems a rather pretentions & religious thing to do - shouldn’t you be writing “JSS” as well?
May 29th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
oops - “pretentious” - Forgive my un-scholarly spelling!
May 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Is there a correct spelling for names that have been transliterated?
Cowboy’s rendering of God to G-d is simply a show of respect for the Jewish practice of not pronouncing the name of God, unlike us irreverent Gentiles. Also, the Hebrew alefbet does not have or record vowels, so who knows how the names of G-d were originally pronounced or spelled?
Carry on.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
My point was that those purposeful misspellings are meaningless in light of the Cross and the English language. No one speaks Hebrew in a modern context unless you are a practicing Jew in a religious service. And Jesus instructs us to refer to God as “Father”: a perfectly common name that requires no special reverence or pomp.
I just like to think that Austin just gave me more ammo to make fun of his inflated ego. hehe
But I’ll stop now before this post goes really far off-topic.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
FICM,
Man, I thought you were the pretentious one.
I never said they completely abandoned Judaism. I did say they subverted, challenged, supplemented, and transformed the symbols of Judaism. Two very different things…
My point is that the following historical statement is inaccurate: the early church practiced Judaism.. Please read more carefully…
May 29th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Sorry, I guess our war of words here is about splitting hairs.
“Meeting in the Temple indicates that they were still practising Judaism.”
I believe eleytheria meant that meeting in the Temple was an element of Judaism that the Jewish Christians continued to practice. His/her point was that because it was an element of Judaism, it was not a valid argument for church attendance as we are free from Mosaic Law. I think you took it to mean that he/she implied that all early Christians everywhere practiced all of Judaism in its totality; thus, your tirade about what early Christians were really like. I hope it made you feel better, but I think it was unnecessary.
Speaking of unnecessary, I really need to shut up.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Tirade?
I thought eleytheria was the one on a tirade. Bizarre…
Perhaps, she/he should explain…
May 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Most verbs in a single sentence award goes to Austin/Cowboy!
May 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
For someone who tries to purport such linguistic prowess you seem to have missed the fact that I never implied that they were practising Judaism to the fullest extent. Sorry, I guess it’s my fault because I failed to explain that. I guess I figured that you’d know that I was talking about the apostles of Jesus Christ and their followers, the same men who claimed that the leaders of Judaism crucified the Son of God. I guess I figured it was a logical deduction to assume that they weren’t completely following Judaism. However, they did still practice Judaism.
Not only did you throw all logical deductions out the window in your attempt at flaunting your mastery of the english language and terms that only theologians and scholars would care to know, but you missed the entire point of my post, took one sentence out of context, and misinterpretred it, skewed it, and took the entire discussion off topic.
For someone who obviously wants to disclose their opinions in a scholarly form with language intended to make us peons shudder and tremble in our boots at your intellectual aptitude, you seem to have also not researched what you said in the slightest bit. The passage in question is Acts chapter 2, right? The problem with your line of logic is that there’s is no reason to believe that the early Christians began to discard Jewish traditions until the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. In fact, it is clearly evident by the context and what was said at the Jerusalem council that the early Christians were still upstanding Jewish citizens, observing the Law of Moses. The whole premise of the Jerusalem council was to determine whether or not the Gentiles also had to uphold the Law of Moses, which they determined that the Gentiles did not since they were not Jews.
Acts 15:5 (NIV):
If they didn’t practice Judaism in all of it’s “fundamental nuances,” how were they still Pharisees? Surely they were outcasted, but they still called themselves Pharisees, something they wouldn’t do unless they still observed the “fundamental nuances” of Judaism and the teachings of the Pharisees.
Really? It seems to me that to claim that the early Jewish believers prior to the Jerusalem Council didn’t practice Judaism is completely baseless historically, theologically, and exegetically.
The entire point of my prior post was to refute Matt’s use of Acts 2 in defense of going to church every week. The Temple was a Jewish place of worship, not a Church. I, along with most everyone on here, have heard that line of logic many times from controlling Pastors and my entire point of saying that was to refute his point. My intentions in the post were explicit if you would’ve read it in it’s context instead of picking a line out of it, taking it out of context, and trying to use it to prove me wrong and show off your superior understanding of the Scriptures and history.
And for the record, I’m a he.
Also for the record, I do believe in going to a local church, but I don’t use Acts 2 to support my view.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I’m not saying specifically that they met once per week at the same place, whatever. But they did meet together. What I mean by Local Church is a gathered community of believers, which is what the word “church” in the Bible was usually referring to.
Rom. 16:5 and Col. 4:15 talks about a church who meets in someone’s house. This does have to do with a gathered community of believers meeting together in a specific place probably at a specific time.
It doesn’t talk about more than one church in one city, because at that time they were all unified in their beliefs, as we should be but aren’t.
In the same way, there is a hierarchy of sorts in the Church. 1 Cor. 12:28 says that God appoints first apostles, then prophets etc. A lot of people I’ve met say that everyone should be completely equal (as we are, but in a different way).
May 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Eleytheria,
Hahaaa! You’re a feisty bugger…
Unfortunately, I did not “skew” you’re post in the least bit. You insisted that early christians did, in fact, practiced Judaism, which formed the premise of you’re subsequent sarcastic conclusion: “should we all then meet in the synogogues”. You then used this argument to refute “something” general about you’re caricature of the local church, refuting some “pet” theological irritant…
However, Judaism is a technical term that describes the Jewish religion organized around certain symbols: Temple, Sabbath, Torah, etc…These were all subverted and radically altered by Jesus and His followers. For instance, the temple was no longer an incarnational symbol of the presence of YHWH. Rather, the presence of YHWH was rooted inseparably in Jesus, subverting the basic symbol of first century Judaism. Because the Temple was an essential and basic identity marker for Judaism, to replace it with anything else would only destroy the fabric of Jewish religious life. It is tantamount to one trying to remove the cross or Jesus as a symbol or figure from the essence/essentia of Christianity and claim that one is still christian. Therefore, it is historically/theologically impossible to reconcile the two: Judaism and Christianity. You can’t! Also, the council of Jerusalem was not an instance of a movement that practiced Judaism; it was a gathering that revealed a nascent group of disciples, a group that was Jewish but not under Judaism, which included a “sect” of Pharisees attempting to enforce an alternative codified norm/symbol for inclusion. Those are two very diiferent things! Early Christians were Jewish but not practioners of Judaism
What you meant to say is that the early church practiced a religion that grew out of Judaism. But because you’re supporting illustration and sarcasm hangs on the literal practice of Judaism, it falls flat. If this true, then you haven’t supported you’re point very well, what ever that might be…
On another note, it is impossible to imply what you claimed that you implied unless you either don’t know what Judaism is/was, or you’re simply trying to back peddle. Plus, you contradict yourself. What do you believe? Did they practice Judaism or not? You said that you were only implying that early christians practiced a form of Judaism and then you insist that they did, in fact, practiced Judaism. What is it???
I would like to argue more about the Temple in it’s historical context and the role that “Gentiles” played but I must go. You probably wouldn’t like what I have to say, anyways, because it fundamentally undermines you’re “Temple theory”…
May 30th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
*sigh*
Maybe I’ll try a simpler approach…
I once read a story about a turkey farmer who tried a little experiment. The farmer always thought the turkeys were pretty dumb, but he wanted to see just how far the “dumbness” went. He would take a turkey and pin it to the ground by stretching a rope across its neck. The turkey would struggle a bit, then consign itself to laying on the ground underneath the restraint of the rope. After awhile the farmer loosened the rope but allowed the rope to lay across the turkey’s neck - the turkey lay still thinking he was still under the restraint of the rope. The farmer took the experiment one step further and removed the rope and drew a line on the ground with a piece of chalk that looked the rope. The turkey lay still.
The moral of this story is: Don’t be a dumbass turkey.
Austin, you can pontificate all you want about the symbolism of Judaism vs. Christianity but it’s just turkey-poop in this context. The point Ely was making was that meeting in the temple was turkey behavior, and you missed it completely. You should spend more time on reading comprehension instead of your vocabulary. You might actually learn something useful.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
FICM,
:) I love the sigh- I know I do the same thing everytime I see you post. You try so hard. Poor little guy…
May 30th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Austin, you are very close to getting blocked. You can’t answer a simple tithing challenge and yet you look down on all the other little bloggers (who, by the way, are intellectually kicking your ass).
Go away or follow through with your promise…and stop being a troll.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I’m surpirsed you were able to pick up my sarcasm with reading comprehension skills as lacking as you possess. You can say all that you want Austin, but the simple fact of the matter is that you have no historical or Scriptural basis for what you’re saying. It appears that you keep forgetting the we’re talking about ACTS CHAPTER 2, the beginning of the Christian church in the mere days/weeks after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. For you to say that these early Christians did not continue to practice Judaism is, as I said before, completely baseless both historically and Scripturally. Gentiles hadn’t even received the Holy Spirit at this point.
Your unbacked assumptions make you nothing more than clanging brass or a sounding trumpet, “full of sound and fury but signifying nothing” (to quote Shakespeare). I have no “Temple theory”, nor any other theories. Your theories, however, are the ones that remain baseless and unfounded. I accused you in my last post of making unfounded and baseless assumptions and you did nothing to refute my claims.
Instead you made another long-winded and pointless post about your opinions and theories concerning Judaism vs. Christianity and the symbols of the religions as if any of that was even what we’re talking about! Your posts are both pointless and meaningless, your large “vocabulary” both comical and irrelevant, and in their entirety you rely on a strategy of making people feel that they’re too simple to argue against your points and you simultaneously hide the fact that you actually are making no point at all, but instead your posts are vague and you say the same thing many different times with different “scholarly” terms. You make a mockery of the english language and anyone with any scholarly inclinations.
Back on topic:
Exactly my point. The Scriptures talk about house churches and assemblies of Christians, but they don’t support the institutionalized church that has developed today, which is what I was talking about. The Greek word ekklesia, the word we translate into english as “church”, simply means assembly. It is even translated in Acts 19 as assembly. Churches like City Bible Church or TCC in Seattle are actually not “Biblical” churches, despite their incessant claims to “do everything by the Book.”
May 30th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Eleytheria,
Oh, man…
I dare you to look up what Judaism is and isn’t…I think you’ll wise up
Go find a scholar or pastor or dictionary, it will be most useful and helpful. 
May 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Sam,
What do you think I should do? I trust you’re opinion…:)
May 30th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
American Heritage Dictionary:
dictionary.com:
You even said yourself:
Once again, you make no point but try to make it seem like you hold some secret knowledge. Make a point and defend it with something actually concrete that isn’t just your opinion which noone here trusts or go home.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Good job! That’s a start, keep on digging. That forms the basis of Judaism but there’s more. Find a book that explains or get online help that discusses first century Judaism. Look up symbols, or identity markers such as: the torah, the temple, the sabbath, etc….
I’m proud of you
May 31st, 2007 at 12:28 am
RP,
I’ll see what I can do. But don’t become what you hate by censuring an opinion that you don’t agree with! I have attempted to be charitable albeit the various exceptions in the long past
And I really don’t think I troll around looking to be disruptive; however, I merely comment on post’s that tickle my fancy(never understood what that really means). jk Anyways and perhaps, you need me more than you realize, a bit unlikely I know, but what if you’re acceptance of me validates an ethic of love that you feel is profoundly missing in you’re church experience. Maybe? Maybe not?
St. Augustine wrote famously, ” In necessariis unitas, in essentials unity; In dubiis libertas, in doubtful things liberty; In omnibus autem caritas, but in all things love…
With that said, I share you’re passion for the Gospel and you’re passion for the really real Jesus; I just disagree with you’re hermenuetic and method of characterization. We probably have more in common than we realize. Naaaa, that makes my skin crawl, that’s to much of a stretch…:) Anyways, how bout welcoming me as you’re obtrusive, fickle, and brusque friend? Unfortunately, for you and I, due to “our” obsession for Christ, we will be forced to get along for an eternity…
Help, Lord!
May 31st, 2007 at 6:22 am
I’d like to think that I’ve tried to be rational and patient, but petty & condescending comments like this are just out of order. You won’t bait me into discussing this any more as you’re priority seems to be the inflation of your ego.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:08 am
Despite numerous requests for clarification of your opinions, the only concrete opinion you’ve ever expressed on this blog is your overinflated view of your own mental prowess. I’d love to discuss this in detail, but I’m off fetch somebody’s coffee and dry cleaning.
Oh and just a friendly hint, you might want to brush up on the correct usage of you’re vs. your in a sentence before you start critiquing 1st century church history there cowpoke.
May 31st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
This looks like a job for ‘Scrupe … hang on while I consult with him …
OK, ‘Scrupe had a couple suggestions. He says if RP gives you any more crap, tell him a gory story, he’ll pass out and leave you alone.
‘Scrupe also said that a smart woman is the anti-viagra for most men. Dumb it down a little for the guys and they’ll love ya.
I hope that helps.
Sam
May 31st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Gotcha! I can do that…
June 1st, 2007 at 5:50 am
On a more serious note here, my growth as a believer has had something to do with learning about Judaism. The study that was most meaningful to me, had to be concerning the Passover meal. For years, while sitting in an institutional church, we were fed a 1/2″ cube of wonder bread and 1/2 oz. shotglass of grape juice and were told it represented the last supper, with the obligatory “this is my body” (body=wonderbread) and “this is my blood” (blood=welches). For all the more the last supper / passover meal is taught in the IC, a person taking the sacrament could potentially think that the bread and juice have magical properties, or as the Catholic’s have taught in the past actually become the flesh and blood of Christ upon consumption.
But to read about the history of the passover meal, the symbology of the elements, the use of scripture and re-telling God’s history with the Jews during the meal, to understand what is meant by the ‘hidden manna’ (afikomen), OH how the last supper comes to life … and my heart bursts at the thought of the revelation that night as Jesus broke the bread and said “this (bread, symbolic of my body) is my body, is broken (slain upon a cross) for you” … and how the children search for the hidden manna, wrapped in cloth (like Christ’s burial cloth), and hidden away, until those who went looking for Him in the morning and were filled with joy when they found Him.
I am convinced that there are many things in the NT, in the Christian practice, that make no sense, until we understand the Jewish history and practice behind it. Imagine being the 12, sharing the last supper with Jesus, and then realizing that the Jews have been eating that supper, as a prophetic / symbolic meal of the promised and coming Messiah - the lamb of God - since Moses first held the passover meal the night before they left Egypt. It is a prophetic meal. A meal of promise. And now, a meal of fulfillment.
Here’s a good starting point for anyone interested in the Jewish faith, in as much as it is foundational to the Christian faith.
Sam
June 1st, 2007 at 6:19 am
It has nothing to do with censuring…remember I wanted to post your comments on the front of our blog for the whole world to read. You just can’t back up all the junk you’ve written.
I have noticed your attempts…so I am willing to offer you a new deal.
Admit now that you can’t not handle the challenge and I’ll let thing slide…or you could take five minutes, write out Malachi 3 followed by “blah, blah, blah, blah” and send it to me for posting…(Frank might try to steal it for his next sermon, but at least you would have stood up for yourself).