Just so you all don't think I'm getting soft or anything, I give you:
Judah Smith on Youtube – Part 2
It's Friday, and I know how everyone loves a good Judah Smith video shot. This clip is only about a minute long, but watch out for the insanely large wedding ring. (likely bigger than his wife's ring) And his "Wait. Isn't-Toby-Mac-from-DC-Talk-still-cool?" hat.
He is a very nice guy, and I mean that with all sincerity. But his fashion choices delight me to no end.
I think I may have been too harsh with Joyce Meyer. I confused her with another pastor, and I have made claims that turned out not to be true. She has never spoke at City Bible Church, which I claimed in a comment. And she has released a certain level of financial accountability on her website.
So from here on, I promise to withhold judgement, until all the facts come in.
Currently, Joyce has complied fully with Senator Grassley's investigation.
Here is an excerpt from a recent article in World Magazine:
Joyce Meyer Ministries, stung by journalists' questions, has made positive changes, including greater financial disclosure. The ministry did not completely avoid Grassley's scrutiny, but it was able to respond quickly to his request for information.
In my rush to criticize, I jumped the gun with Joyce Meyer. I should have done more due diligence. I apologize.
Here is a link to Joyce Meyer's 2006 Annual Report.
It is listed under the Financial Accountability section of her website.
If you read the report though, you will notice it is really just a press release. There is no financial accountability.
However, Joyce is banking on the fact that most Christians are too enamored with people in power to bother questioning her. They won't ask why she fails to list any real financial information.
And guess what, she's right. Most Christians don't demand real accountability from their leaders. Because demanding accountability is hard. Questioning leadership will get you ousted from church. It will cause people to question your faith. It will get you labeled a troublemaker.
(Sigh) And yet, I'm supposed to be ashamed for starting this blog. Please!
Update:
Well, I guess I jumped the gun, and I missed the actual financial statements.
So, there is some financial accountability. But I'm still not that impressed. The statements aren't exactly easy to find, as they're hidden behind a wall of PR. And it's still not clear who is getting paid what.
So City Bible Church is holding their annual conference in April, which they cleverly titled "City Bible Conference".
And the City Church is holding their spring conference called, the "Global Strategy Conference".
And what do these two conferences have in common, but guest-speaker Joyce Meyer. Yes, the same Joyce Meyer who is being investigated by Senator Grassley for possible misuse of funds.
It really is just one big "Prosperity Club" scam. All the leaders travel to each other' church, convincing the congregation to give money in return for Blessings from the Lord.
And the Circle of Greed continues.
It's all so ridiculously transparent and stupid, that I am amazed anyone continues to fall for it.
But they do…
I just re-registered this website for another year.
So the sinning will continue… at least until 2009.
I don't remember if I've already posted this or not. It's an email that I sent to some pastor, at some church, somewhere, some time long ago. He challenged me to prove Biblically that blogging is an acceptable way to deal with the false teachings of the Christian Church…and this is as far as I got (I also end with a couple of quotes from commenters on this blog…one is from Anna, I don't remember who the other is from…please forgive me) ok, here we go:
For this to be worth the effort I am going to need a couple of things from you first.
The challenge I have been presented with is to prove Biblically that blogging is an acceptable way to deal with the false teachings of the Christian Church. This is no easy task seeing as how during the period in which the Bible was being written, computers did not exist. Lets also keep in mind that up until recently (the last couple of years really) blogs barely existed, so what we are dealing with is a fairly new idea. Even as I write this I am unaware if I will be able to successfully defend the Blogosphere. I'll give it a try.
Before I get to blogging, I would like to take some time discussing the proper way to confront someone…obviously we must start with Matthew 18:15-17
15"(M)If your brother sins[b], go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that (N)BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17"If he refuses to listen to them, (O)tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, (P)let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Now this is a great scripture…one of the few that Christians typically all agree on and teach that we must follow completely. Let's break down each step (cross reference scriptures in parentheses)
Step 1: Go privately to your brother and confront him. (Luke 17:3)
Step 2: Take 2 or 3 witnesses with you and confront again (Deut 19:15)
Step 3: Tell the whole church (1 Cor 6)
Step 4: Do not associate with this brother anymore. (2 Thes. 3:6)
Should anyone fail to miss one of these steps then they have not handled the situation properly. This scripture alone however fails to address a couple of very key issues:
Let's look at issue 1:
I do not believe that just because someone mishandles a situation and skips right to step three that this dismisses the sin; that does not make sense. Should you fail to follow this procedure I believe it is the responsibility of the person to go privately, repent for your mistake and then confront your brother properly. I find no Biblical evidence to suggest otherwise.
Issue 2:
What should be done if the person who has sinned is the head pastor of the church? Step one still fits you should go to your pastor in private to confront him (if you can't get a meeting send a letter). Step 2 still applies, although if you can't get a meeting it seems a little silly to have 3 signatures on a letter, but still it's better than nothing. Step 3 suddenly takes on a whole new perspective and Step 4 is rather difficult as well. How do you "take a matter to the church" when "the matter" is an issue that your pastor has already chosen to ignore you on?
From what I understand "Take it to the church" means to follow the 1 Cor 6 method of allowing someone with in the church to judge the matter, appointing "even men of little account in the church". For this to work your pastor would have to be willing to submit himself to that authority…if that works great, however…if he refuses what is the next step?
Should we then really take it to the church? Should we stop each and every person as they exit after service and explain to them what your pastor has done? How about calling each and every household and telling all? Maybe sending out a mass email to the whole congregation?
At this point I suggest skipping straight to step 4 and not associating with him anymore. This of course requires you to leave the church, but so be it. He's a sinner anyway.
Now, as I look closely at this verse and begin to break it down I begin to see one other problem…it is seemingly talking about an individual sinning against another individual. It appears to be talking about how to deal with single instances of offence. I do not believe that this scripture is speaking to how to handle when an entire church leadership goes astray with false doctrine, therefore we must move our search along:
What does the Bible say in regard to the teachings of False Doctrine:
Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all (A)the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd (B)the church of God which (C)He purchased with His own blood.
2 Timothy 4:2-4 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
4and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Romans 16:17-18 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.
Clearly the Bible teaches that there will be false teachers and prophets but what do these scriptures say to do about them? Acts 20 tells us we are told to "be on guard", that the "Holy Spirit has made you overseers", and that we are "to shepherd the church of God". 2 Timothy 4 says to "be ready…reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction". And Romans 16 says to "watch out" for them.
These 3 scriptures do not tell us the proper way to deal with teachers of False Doctrine but it does give us some guidelines, If your blog is "on guard" and "shepherding the church" through "rebuking, reproving and exhorting" then I would say you are doing just fine.
I would like to end phase 1 with these quotes:
to paint everyone with the same broad brush "Oh, you just need to forgive" is incomplete at best. I can only forgive to the extent that I have been personally offended or injured. If I hold in my heart anger, revenge, a desire for judgment and sentencing – then I need to forgive. Anger, revenge and judgment are not mine to hold or to mete out. These belong to God alone, and personal forgiveness relinquishes my right to them. I am willing to do that, and with God's grace I do/will do.
and Quote 2:
HOWEVER, if a Christian is in sin or error – and that sin or error leads to deception or destruction in the lives of others, my observation of that requires a response. If anger, revenge and judgment are my response, then I need to repent as above. But my forgiveness of the person does nothing to absolve them of their sin or error, does nothing to warn them of the response of the Lord, and does nothing to protect or warn those who are being deceived / destroyed.
That is why the prophets, John the Baptist and Jesus were perfectly correct to proclaim, "Woe to you ______________ (fill in the blank: shepherds, priests, Pharisees, etc.) This was not a matter of personal injury or broken relationship. They were warning of the response of God with the hope that repentence would stay His hand.
FURTHERMORE, if a Christian sins or is in error in a public way, ie, from the pulpit, then it removes the situation of personal injury or private correction. That is why the apostles felt free to publicly name names and warn their readers to reject those people and their doctrines.
It does not matter if the doctrinal error is wide-spread. If Pastor X is preaching Nicolaitan heresy, then it is perfectly right for Pastor X to be singled out for his error, even if half of Christendom preaches the same thing. And for you to tell an individual that they just need to forgive Pastor X is outrageously ridiculous. What good with that do? How will that help Pastor X or the people he is preaching to?
So, forgiveness is just and right and good. But it is not the complete response to the situation.
Which is to simply say "False teaching requires our intervention because the alternative is to allow sin into the church".
What say you?
A public service announcement from Craig (www.doctrinetalk.com):
When John the Baptist was baptizing people, they asked him what they need to do to be saved. He told them to repent (very important part) and if you have 2 cloaks, to give one to someone who doesn’t have one. Basically, you don’t need two, so give it to someone who has none.
Now what is preached by the prosperity camp is, go get a bunch of cloaks, and give one out of ten away. If you are really spiritual, you will give away 3 or 4…but keep the best for yourself, because that’s why Jesus died on the cross…so we can partake in the blessings of Abraham’s covenant.
Does that make sense? Can you see how what is preached at these churches just 180 degrees in the opposite direction. Jesus said to not give any thought to what we will eat or what we’ll wear because that’s what the heathen do, and Paul said with food and clothing let that be enough? They didn’t encourage us to go after blessings so we can bless others, they encouraged us to bless with what we already have, even if we only have 2 cloaks.
Craig, thank you for this. It's perfect.
"It's a new year and the ministries that have chosen not to cooperate have a chance to see the inquiry in a new light," Grassley said in a prepared statement issued Tuesday. "This has nothing to do with church doctrine. It's only about tax-exempt policy."
And other charities are not too happy with the lack of cooperation either:
"The result could mean increased regulation or legislation for all non-profits, religious or otherwise," said Doug Shaw of Douglas Shaw Associates. "It could also further threaten the separation of church and state."
This is not going to end well for the ministeries that fail to answer the senator's requests.
Touch Not God's Anointed. I can hardly count how many times someone has come on to our blog and made that statement. Unfortunately they never follow it up with much substance. A quick scripture or two is quoted and then the conversation is over. Just once I would like someone to stand in and give that sentence a little substance…but it never happens. MFI and other Prosperity type churches beat this line into their congregation's minds over and over and over until they can all quote it in their sleep, but really…what does it mean? Touch Not God's Anointed? Well of course not, and here is why: "Do not touch my anointed ones; But don't we need more explanation than that? I mean really, shouldn't they have to: A: Define – "Touch Not" and B: Give a list of what qualifies someone as "Anointed" Unfortunately they can't do it. And the reasons they can't do it is this: In order to define "God's anointed" they either have to include "All Christians" or "All Leaders" and once they do this they open themselves up for obvious ridicule. "All Christians" would include those of us on this blog…who clearly have been "touched"… "All Leaders" would inevitably lead to someone saying "Touch not Hitler"…which is terrible I know, but it is what would happen. Just for arguments sake, let's say that "God's Anointed" can be defined as "All Christian Leaders" and let's say a "Christian leader" is defined as anyone in a position of authority over at least 300 people (or someone who can bring in $500,000 annually for your church). So now we've got God's Anointed as being pastors of Medium Sized churches and up… Here's the problem. There is a story floating around Portland that a certain head pastor of a rather large (maybe not quite mega) Christian church has been molesting children… If we follow the statement "Touch Not" (as it is commonly used) then we would have to tell those poor young boys and their parents to "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT". Do you see where I am going here? So then we move the line back to say "Touch Not, except for in cases of Molestation" but then once you start moving the line whose to say where it stops? What about a Pastor who has a Meth Addiction and perhaps is "Gayish"…should we move the line again? And what if you know your Pastor is outright stealing money from the church offering bucket…another line move? And if they happen to distort the word of God…can we move the line a little further? No? Ok, I just thought I would try. I would honestly appreciate it if ANYONE could help me better understand the phrase "Touch Not God's Anointed". Until then, the next time someone tries to manipulate you with that statement, be sure to say: "Define Touched… Define Anointed".
do my prophets no harm."
FICM sends in another article about the perils of the prosperity doctrine.
Fun quotes:
Many outside the evangelical movement are puzzled by the apparent lack of outrage following reports of high-living, tax-exempt religious broadcasters.
I know one blog that is a little outraged. But I didn't realize it was called the "prosperity doctrine". I just thought Frank wouldn't shut up about tithing. I didn't realize he was actually preaching a Doctrine.
The article concludes:
There is a clear difference between praying for health and financial self-sufficiency, which is reasonable and understandable, and the expectation of divinely mandated wealth and the right to profligacy. American evangelicals have enough enemies. Why hand such adversaries another stick — especially a gilded one — to beat them with?
If the whole goal of being a Christian is to gain wealth, then it doesn't make Christians any different than the rest of the world.