“PC” comes to the defense of Pastor Wendell Smith…
Posted on May 23rd, 2008 by David Mackin into the Uncategorized, The City Church, David Mackin Writes: category
PC said: "I have to say that this entire site is the most pathetic things I’ve ever seen."
PC, Have you honestly read this entire site? (I know I haven’t yet.) If not, how can you accurately say anything disparaging about “this entire site?”
PC said: "It is a shame that some people study the scriptures not out of a heart to seek God but out of a heart to destroy the church."
PC, How can you claim to know other people's motives for studying the Bible? We are seeking God by discussing if what we have been taught by pastors is truly what the Bible says; is that wrong? Did not Paul commend the Bereans for "searching the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so?"…even if it implied that they would question the very teachings that Paul was proclaiming?!
PC said: " I’ve read and also heard first hand the statements by Pastor Wendell that were noted in this blog and I totally agree."
PC, I'm happy that you are telling me that I accurately quoted Pastor Wendell; that he is consistent with the contents of his book when he gets into the pulpit; and that you probably attend his church.
More importantly, however, is the question: Have you read what this site says about the Prosperity Doctrine or about the Mandatory Tithe so that you can intelligently discuss it with us and not hide behind your pastor? (If you want to, go to the right column on this page and click onto these topics.)
PC said: "If you don’t want the blessing that comes from being faithful with your finances to God…"
PC, I do want the blessing that comes from being faithful with my finances and that is why I am seeking better to understand the Scriptures so that I can please my Father. In my view, your comment is impudent, judgmental and cheap: it gives no reason for your statement except the vague implication that you probably have Malachi 3:8-12 in mind, which was not written to Christians.
Pardon me for saying this but you remind me of myself after I graduated from Portland Bible College in 1974: I believed everything I had been taught was beyond question and I thought that I understood the Bible and the world "perfectly." Please come out of your naïve cocoon nestled safely behind your pastor. We invite you to join in true dialogue with us.
PC said: "…then fine but don’t destroy the men and women of God…"
PC, Have you ever read a book review, a movie review or the editorial page of a newspaper? The real world is real people quoting each other and asking questions and bringing honest critiques and opinions to the table (hopefully with a desire for the truth and a spirit of respect).
I agree that not everything on this blog is shared with the utmost respect, but nothing is perfect including pastors in the pulpit and the religious business franchises that they attempt to build. The apostle Paul named names when he thought that someone had backslidden into false teaching.
Have you read Pastor Wendell's book, Prosperity with a Purpose? If not, please read it, and then may I suggest that you read my review of his book which you will find on this blog, and then tell me if you think I was fair in my evaluation.
I believe that genuine dialogue is an essential part of Christian education – not simply allowing ourselves to be blindly indoctrinated by the church pulpit or classroom podium. Paul told the Romans in 14, “Let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” That means that he was requiring members of the church to think and evaluate for themselves.
Generally speaking, please realize that even though all true Christians believe that Jesus is Lord, in my view, the churches in which genuine dialogue on the non-essentials of the faith is actively quashed are places where pastors have perverted the church from a learning community into either a cult or a moneymaking business or both.
Just stop and think about it for a minute: Why would the leaders of a cult or a moneymaking church franchise quash all questions toward its senior leadership and its teachings?
PC said: "…who are pursuing the life and calling God has for them…"
PC, My friend, we are seeking to know the ways of God and the general will of Jesus Christ for leaders and Christians alike. There are NT principles that apply to Pastor Wendell as well as to all of us. Believers need to hold each other accountable to being faithful to the simple gospel of Jesus Christ. Your statement sounds very defensive to me like "Go away! Leave my pastor alone!" I'm sorry, we're not going away and we're not going to leave Pastor Wendell, or any other leader alone, who we feel is deceiving the Body of Christ. We might be wrong in our concern, but right now, this is what we feel the NT teaches.
I do hope that we hear from you again. I hope that you didn't visit us just to shoot emotion-based bullets that made you feel that you were doing your Christian duty to defend your pastor and then disappear under a pew at The City Church.
My own childhood spirit is making this request of you: "Come out, come out, wherever you are and let's play for real!"
RSS feed for posts
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
David, what you are saying here is what most of us who have been involved with these churches go through. It is quite a process to go from a mindless follower, to an independent thinker, but for the most part we all eventually have our eyes opened. For some of us it only takes 3 to 5 years to recognize the error of our ways, and for others it can take 20 or 30. It’s much easier however, for someone who has been “under the influence” for 5 years to come out then for those people who have been indoctrinated for 30+. For them the hole can be too big to climb out of so they just stick it out (usually as grumpy old people..he he).
What PC said was very ignorant but also very understandable. He is in the mindless follower stage. And maybe within the next few years he will begin to have his eyes opened. Either way he is one of millions all across our country who have only been taught one thing, one way, by one person so they don’t know any better. It’s like racist people. They are usually only racist because that’s all they’ve been taught. Once they get out into the real world and have to live, work, and breath with someone of a different race, the realize how off they were. That’s why I always tell young people who have spent their youth in church environments to go to college away from their hometown or travel overseas for awhile if they did go to a place like PBC. It will help them realize how much of a bubble they really do/did live in and hopefully it will begin the process of changing their mindset.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Ex, right on!
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:33 pm
David said:
Hello David, from a former student of yours with the same initials! How’s that for subtle. I find your quote intriguing, as I’ve never heard that verse taught in any other way than directed at Christians. Could you provide me with a little more explanation, or point me to a resource that may help? I’m keenly interested in the rationale behind your statement.
May 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
DM (Oh, thou subtle one!), What I meant was that Malachi 3:8-12 was written by a prophet of God during the Second Temple period to Jews who believed that the faster that they re-built the Temple and its priesthood and institutions, the faster the Messiah would come to bring a full manifestation of God’s kingdom to the earth. It was not addressed to believers who have been delivered from the Law of Moses by the good news of Jesus Christ, but to those who were still under that Law. Does that help or am I being too simplistic?
(my app’t with TR went famously all thanks to you for warning me not to bring my running shoes!)
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:35 pm
PC is number two! PC is number two!
;^) ;^)
Sam
May 24th, 2008 at 12:13 am
David,
Honestly, your statement about Mal. 3:8-12, whether or not it was written to believers implies that God somehow changed His idea of tithing and blessing between now and then. Simply untrue.
As for the comment about racism (the 1st one below the post)…Live in Richmond, Virginia (the capital of the South during the Civil War) for a little while. You’ll see very very clearly (unless you shut your eyes) that people aren’t *usually* racist bc that’s the only way they are taught. Perhaps a select few, but the use of the word usually…ignorant. People are racist for many many reasons. In my 22+ years of experience in Richmond and the south, i would rebut that reasoning and say that typically, when you find a person who is racist, they have their reasons (wrong as they may be) and it’s rarely bc mommy or daddy said this or that ethnicity is bad. I would gently suggest that you live somewhere like Richmond or Biloxi, Mississippi or Atlanta, Georgia before you make statements like that. And no, Washington DC is quite different.
Additionally, you’re both being extremely intellectually dishonest in suggesting that “we all eventually have our eyes opened” Maybe 3-5 years or 20-30…You may as well say “Well, sometime in this life we all usually have our eyes opened…” Do you realize how rare a 20-30 retention time for a member at any church in America is??? Do a little research…wonderful statistics by The Barna Group, pick up one or two books. Additionally, you’ve no idea how many of those that left were dissatisfied. they could’ve easily changed jobs (as David just has) and moved, gotten married and gone to the husband or wife’s church, etc. Sure some leave unhappy, but that doesn’t mean nearly as many as you allude to. I’ve also lived in Portland and attended City Bible Church and when in Seattle (Kirkland), The City Church. Many of the thousands seem quite satisfied. Otherwise, it stands to reason that they would leave. They haven’t, actually, both churches are growing quite nicely. It seems quite arrogant and sub-sophomoric for anyone to be so critical under a guise of “open thinking”. People are being won to Christ through both churches…isn’t that really the goal? To bring people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? It seems like David’s bashing and flaming do nothing except create division. It’s also rather sad to see that David is so obsessed with it, it appears as more of a sick sick love or jealousy than anything else. After all, he’s spent so many hours of his life and time on this earth bashing…churches and pastors with cancer? Awesome. I see nowhere in Scripture where it was ever God’s intention to divide the Body of Christ
Also, i’ve read the post about moving to Chicago and being financially blessed is completely fallacious. You see, you’ve made an a priori assumption that if you’re unrighteous that you can’t be well off financially. That’s quite a bit to assume…after all, most of the world’s richest people don’t even subscribe to Christianity. Research them…there’s really no foundation for your argument here. Actually, one could very easily argue that Satan is blessing you with worldy riches for making his job easier. Has just as much foundation, if not more, and from what i’ve read on this site…makes alot more sense. In the words of CS Lewis, copper is more easily mistaken for bronze than clay is, looks very much from many of the contents of this site like David has bought into the copper.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_billionaires_%282008%29
Actually, you guys seem quite preoccupied with money, blogging about it quite often it appears from a cursory search. Tithe came up 152 results…interesting.
I ran into an interesting article asking something along the lines of “Is this the face of a bitter person?” or something of the sort…simply put…yes. Oddly enough, taking a picture of yourself smiling doesn’t make you any less bitter a person than me putting on an elephant costume would make me any more an elephant or any less a human. Painting my face or body won’t change my ethnicity either…curious thing that. I’ve read this blog periodically throughout the last 2 years, and it sounds more and more like a prideful, arrogant, group of know-it-alls, who appear to have no understanding of even the most basic spiritual principles or common decency, who parade around under a guise of questioning and reason; when in fact, the logic is horribly flawed from its outset, and the understanding even the most basic biblical principles (ie…unity in Christ, humility, forgiveness, dealing with your obvious anger, respect, oh the list…) as well as trademark infringement (you may say CBC stole their logo or whatever, but at the end of the day it’s you who were under threat of being sued, not them).
There’s also the fact that Pastor Frank Damazio has completed his PhD work at ORU, which holds the highest accreditation available to a school of theology in the states, ATS. As far as I know, you’ve no such credentials, and therefore wouldn’t really be a credible source for such criticisms as you so flippantly distribute on this site.
Have you ever thought of
After reading even the smallest amount of material on your site, one can easily see that the admins, contributors, guys who write the blog, whatever you call them…are very angry people, bitterly angry in fact, who seem to express obsessive behaviours, and are fascinated with two churches, in a stalker type “love” with them perhaps, who are unfair in the very fact that they’ve chosen to not criticize (none or EXTREMELY infrequently) Al Sharpton (0 results returned), Jesse Jackson (1 result), and Jeremiah Wright (! mention…actually more in support than anything else). You claim to be respectful and open to discussion, yet you’ve posted mock Bible verses, which isn’t even respectful or open air (giving them a fair chance) to the person, much less the Bible. This also leaves the impression that these people actually have implied their words are as good as Scripture or to be taken as such. Christian or not, you’re lucky not to have been sued for libel. Sounds like they’ve allowed you guys to really truly abuse grace. And i guess God has allowed to continued and unabashedly abuse His. Sad…
This reply is being quite gentle in its criticisms. Very sorry you’ve been hurt, but it’s time to forgive and move on. From a Christian counselor, please forgive, please get some professional help.
May 24th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Me,
Thank you for your well thought out response, I appriciate the fact that you take the time to articulate your thoughts in a calm fashion. If you don't mind, I'd like to point out that you don't actually know me or Catalyst or the majority of the peopole on this blog…and although you seem to think you are the authority on Chritian behavior, we could quickly turn around much of your comments back on you…..for instance…if you think "Unity in Christ" is one of the the most basic biblical principles I would think you would be here to support us…but I guess there are separate rules for yourself. I believe Jesus addressed this while talking about the massive log in you eye, but again, thank you for your comment…I will now remove the spec you just pointed out in mine.
One other quick thing to point out in regard to your comment where you say:
I’ve also lived in Portland and attended City Bible Church and when in Seattle (Kirkland), The City Church. Many of the thousands seem quite satisfied. Otherwise, it stands to reason that they would leave. They haven’t, actually, both churches are growing quite nicely.
Shortly before I left City Bible Church they went through the History of the church and asked poeple to stand if they were attending the church during each period. As they worked their way through, year by year, ihardly any were standing. It became increasingly obvious that the majority of the people there had only attended for less than 5 years. The pastor, aware that this was the opposite effect that he had hoped for, made some comment about "Look at all the new members of the church God has brought recently"…but of course the church hadn't really grown all that much. While talking to an elder about it later he said "Everyone has a season at CBC". My point being, people are leaving…constantly, but due to the fine marketing that these churches do, they are just able to replace the members that leave with new ones. Its sad that they are unwilling to acknowledge their issues.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Reformed Pope,
I cannot be here to support your comments that vilify pastors and churches, even congregations so openly. I am in full support of your Christian growth, and your growth within your local church. I wish you all the best in those pursuits, and i mean that sincerely.
I’ve attended both, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m ignorant of their flaws, if that’s what you suggest. I’ve looked over my post and can find no verbage where I even imply as much. I’m fully aware that they have their flaws. I’m also fully aware that ever church, congregation, and pastor in this world have their flaws as well. Imperfect people, yes, intentionally deceptive, I think not.
I would also like to point out that I’ve not claimed to know anyone here anymore than by what they’ve written, which i believe to be a reflection of their thinking. If not then we may as well throw the whole thing out, ya know? As for unity in Christ, I, through my church, am part of quite a few organizations, communities, events, and in my daily life that seek unity in Christ, in a place where something as menial as race can divide, and where there is a great deal of disunity. That said, I respectfully disagree with your comment that I am not part of unity in Christ. I’m not part of your misshapen definition of unity, which seemingly basically consists of “bash pastors and their churches”. Nor is that a unity I seek to be a part of. Unity for a negative or misguided cause is nothing I want a hand in. Muslims and Mohammedans may very well believe that murdering “infidels” and sending their 5 year old child into a bus strapped with bomb for the sole purpose of killing Jews is good and right. But believe it as they may, that does not make it any better. I would like to say very clearly I am not trying to say that what you are doing here is equal to that great evil, or suggesting you or all muslims are evil or anything of the sort. Only the comparison for the sake of the analogy.
As for my comment perhaps I should have been more explicit or explained my meaning better. It was quite late.
Again, i say it stands to reason that if people were really as unhappy as you and your colleagues suggest…people would leave the churches. If more were leaving than coming, the church(es) wouldn’t be growing. But they are growing, and expanding and people are coming to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through both places. Perhaps these people see something that your 4 1/2 (from your blog dates) of vilifying them has blinded you to? Or perhaps just escaped your eye. I would think as Christians, we could find the positive in that instead of being so overly critical and disrespectful.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
May 24th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Me,
It really tickles the sense of irony that you would be so kind as to point out the logical fallacies in our reasoning yet not notice the fallacious logic of your post.
So we’re still blessed by bringing a tenth to the Levites and Priests of Israel? Well I guess everyone in America who has anything has been, by your line of logic, blessed by Satan and not by God. I really don’t know anyone (in America, at least) who is bringing in tithes to the storehouse to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and feed the Levites and the priests. In fact, most tithers I know tithe money and not grain or animals, so their blessings are not from God either; they violate the laws of tithing God set up for the Israelites in Leviticus and, as you claim, God has not changed his idea of tithing and blessing between now and then.
I was under the impression that Christians are free from the Law. Oh right, tithing isn’t a part of the Law, right? It’s the exception, huh?
Have you been watching us in person? Do you know any of us in real life? It seems someone who claims credential as a Christian counselor and, as such, hides behind their authoritative position on the subject would know basic principles of communication; such as that seeing just someone’s words written out on a blog makes it next to impossible to accurately make a dispositional attribution on their emotional state. You may say that you’ve seen this behavior before, but then you’ll be propagating the oft used fallacy of the general rule, so I’d avoid that line of reasoning if I were you.
Even if you were correct about our emotional state being bitter, exposing the psychological reason why we like our argument doesn’t discredit the argument, it’s simply a form of an ad hominem. So I’m not really sure what you’re trying to prove when you start out talking about our violation of reason and logic, and then make arguments and assertions built completely on fallacious logic.
Just because you’ve observed us over cyberspace for two years doesn’t make you the expert you claim to be on our behavioral patterns. I’ve observed many people purposely driving way too fast, does this mean that I can correctly make the dispositional attribution that they’re suicidal? Or what about people who get angry with other drivers and make verbal threats against the other drivers, their mother, sister, daughter, etc. — can I correctly assume that such a driver is just an angry person? I’m sure you’ve never been angry behind the wheel, right?
Listen, you’re free to support these churches in the same way that we’re free to try to tear the legs out from under them, but despite your attempts at appearing all-knowingly intelligent and your argument from the “authoritative” position of a Christian counselor, you don’t know us and you’re simply coming on here playing the same tune that is the reason we’ve all left these institutions. Case in point:
And for the record, my favorite part about your post is the fact that half of your post was spent using our jokes and our attempts at humor to prove how bitter we are. It must not be too hard to become a Christian counselor, I’d expect someone counseling me to know the difference between what I say when I’m joking and something I say seriously.
Who would you consider to be bitter about a topic: the people who can freely joke around about it and find humor in it, or the person who takes their game seriously and gets upset about their jests and satirical parody?
This reply is also being quite gentle in its criticisms. I’m sorry that you’ve been fooled by these institutions, but don’t take it out on us. From a college student, please think for yourself, please stop drinking their cool-aid.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
eleytheria,
You sound like a very confused, uninformed young person. Perhaps you should keep to your studies until they’ve given you the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions. I’ve not the time right now to reply your comments, busy with a life and family and all. I’m sure you understand, or perhaps you don’t. Either way, I’ll have to make this quick. I did not come here to argue, especially not with a hopefully maturing young adult, nor with anyone for that matter. Only to observe and express my opinion which the site claims to welcome. Perhaps its simply your age, but it appears that you’ve not learned yet to dialouge, only to make disparaging personal unfounded comments.
Your comments on rebuilding the Temple aren’t even in the ballpark unfortunately. Simple reading would show that the point of my comments is that God does not change, nor His ideas on blessing or tithe, be it the Temple or not. Actually, using your assumptions and a simple form of logic called reductio ad absurdum, we can conclude this: If tithing has changed between now and then, then God has changed, because He made the rule, and its the only place in the Bible where He tells (not asks) us to test Him in it. If He does change as you seem to imply in the underpinnings your comments, then He is not God, if He is not God, we can all stop talking and go home, and never visit the site again, because God is no longer God and the blog has been rendered pointless. So, using your logic, you’ve debunked the blog you’re posting on and God. I’ll also be getting my BS in computer science (completing it in 2 years), and though I am human and subject to err, i’m not sure logic and logical steps are quite the problem for me that you suggest.
Also, I believe it was Jesus Christ that said He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it, so your point is moot at very best, sir or madam.
As for avoiding lines of reasoning and attacks on the man (ad hominem), all I can say is that typically ad hominem has to do with the intention of the comment. My intention is not to attack anyone. Only to make observations. If you see a child writing “I want to kill so and so or do this or that or the other horrible to these people”, and you see it repeatedly, you can certainly draw inferences and use the writings even in courts of law in this nation. Certainly I can make observations. God loves the author as much as anyone, and we all have our problems. I’m simply stating my opinion, based on those writings. And giving you the benefit of the doubt, I can only assume you didn’t notice, that the author didn’t deny any of what I said regarding that. Nor did you. So again, moot at best. And regardless of what you like to believe, “general rules” as you call them, are “general rules” for a reason. They generally describe something, with variations from individual to individual.
Making allusions to people being suicidal based on their driving habits is ignorant at best sir/madam. It would be far more logical to assume that they are trying to get somewhere more quickly than they would be by doing the speed limit. If they were suicidal, any counselor would tell you, or any person using their God given sense would tell you that there are far easier and more convenient ways to end one’s own life. Additionally, one can die 5 or 6 miles an hour or a dead stop given the right conditions. Is it also safe to assume that they’re suicidal as well? Actually, using your malformed logic, we can safely assume that anyone who gets in a car is suicidal, bc they could die. Also those who get on planes or trains bc they travel quickly, and certainly fast enough to die. Simple reductio ad absurdum (and any application of common sense) says that your assertion is ridiculous, and ill thought out. As to your question about people making threats to other drivers, yes, i would say they are people with anger issues. That’s why it’s called road RAGE, and is a clinically diagnosable condition. Ummm…so yeah on that one then. Oh yes, I’ll be the first to admit that i’ve been angry behind the wheel. The difference is I did something positive about it and didn’t wallow in and increase my anger. This website does much the opposite. It allows hurting people (some of which who are bitter) to come and wallow in it instead of allowing healing to take place. I’ve chosen the road to healing.
I’m not attempting to take an authoritative or all knowing position at all. But going to school and getting your education does credential you and give you a voice. Hence, the reason you’re in college. That actually is your own logic working against you. You’re going to college for the very same reason I said that. Are you authoritative or all knowing because you decided to go to school? Certainly any reasonable person would answer “no”. It sounds like you’re the one who thinks he knows it all, making wreckless assertions with no formal training, out of context comments, and bad logic…bad form sir/madam.
As for your “joking” comments, I must simply apologize…I wasn’t aware trademark infringement was cool or a joke. I was under the impression it was an international and federal crime. Perhaps a cursory reading of James would remedy that…about the power of your tongue. Or Matthew 12:34 “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” I would expect someone as smart as yourself to choose your “joking” words more carefully. However, you aren’t joking, in the paragraph above you say openly that you’re trying to “tear the legs out from under them (the churches in question)”. That doesn’t sound like joking, and you can’t very well plead the fifth now…you’ve inadvertently incriminated yourself as it concerns the matter of seriousness vs joking. So again…your “joking” is not only moot, but a falsehood outright. Ergo, your question as to who I would consider to be the bitter ones…the ones who try to tear out the legs of churches, the jokers as you called them, or the ones who take their Bible and its contents seriously, and watch their tongues and what they say about pastors, churches, and congregations, the upset ones you said (though you didn’t give us a name)…hmmmm…I would have to say the jokers. Actually, your behaviour is usually attributed to a passive aggressive personality type, preferring sarcasm and insults (psychological) to confrontation. Internalizing anger. Freely joking has its limits, just as most everything else. Jumping, if you jump…great, if you jump off a cliff, you will mostly likely die or be seriously injured, because gravity gets in the way of your good time jumping. It appears by what’s being written here, that this website has never been “freely joking” as you suggest, but quite serious and trying to “tear the legs out from under them”.
I’ve to go now, family responsibilities. I’m very sorry you’ve been hurt, and I assure you i’m very sincere in that. I deal with many people who have been hurt by and in church everyday. And its very sad thing, it would be very nice if we could get it all straight and have a utopian community where people perfectly loved as Jesus did and does. But at the same time, you don’t have to keep being a victim. I hope you’ll see the errors in your post, the first in your philosophy, the second in your logic, and the third in your spelling. Kool-Aid is spelled with a “K”.
May 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Me said:
I don’t think any one on this blog thinks that the leaders of CBC or TCC are deceived or deceive intentionally. I attended CBC and I know many members and leaders of the TCC, in fact, I was at CBC in leadership full-time for 7 years. I can tell you based on my experience back then if you walk up to me and said “dude, your deceived”, and kept rambling on about how I did not get the gospel, that the gospel I was preaching was a different gospel, that I was the kind of guy Paul preached vehemently against who added to the gospel, I’m sure I would have rebuked you. But the deal is this, I was deceived (unintentionally ignorant) because I didn’t get the gospel, I missed it entirely yet thinking the gospel I was preaching was on point. It is for this reason that this blog was created. Can we be harsh? yes. Could we be a little more tender and balanced in our critique of CBC and TCC? absolutely. But, when I read the Apostle Paul’s epistle’s in the book of Romans and Galatians I think he would have taken up issue with the gospel both these churches pervert and peddle.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Wait… “dialouge” is spelled “dialogue”
Sorry “ME” … had to throw that one out there (:
God does not change? He became a human… that’s change! He changes his mind… that’s change too!
But I do respect the use of “reductio ad absurdum” in your prose… speaking as a college GRADUATE with a degree in philosophy… it makes me happy. Of course, your argument is wrong. The form is valid (deductive), but your premises are false, thus your argument is unsound.
I’m sure you can kill me with computer science though!
Seriously, stop the long posts too (:
May 24th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Me,
The real problem here, and the reason why arguing is fruitless is that you see their (prosperity teachers at CBC and such) teachings as Biblical and Theologically correct while I see their teachings as being Un- Biblcal and Heretical.
Here is the question that i have asked a hundred times that typically ends the arguement…Is there ever a time to speak out against a preacher who claims to love Jesus? Or…should we give each and every teacher who calls Jesus his Lord a complete pass no matter what junk they spew from week to week? I think we both know obvious answer is that there comes a time when you should stand up and speak. How many people have died in cults that claimed to be followers of Christ?
So…you have one line of beliefs we have another…i feel called to stand against these false teachers while you accept them for being “good’. So be it.
Of course I would once again like to point out that what you are doing here by taking a stand against us…is the exact same thing that we are doing to them. You are always welcome to comment here…but as soon as you pull out the “Unity in Christ card” you become a hypocrite.
NegroD,
I agree completely with your comment. They are not intentionally deceiving…they are unintentionaly decieved. What’s that scripture… The God of this age has blinded their eyes?
May 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Negrodamus, (great name btw)
As a matter of curiosity, and i mean this will all due respect, what Gospel were you preaching at CBC? And I request specifics because I know the Gospel I heard preached while I was there. I know and have had very personal conversations with Pastor Frank, Doug and Donna Lasit, Ken and Glenda Malmin, Lanny Hubbard, Asim Trent, Marc Estes, Jack Louman, Brian Dahne, and many many others. Also, while at PBC and CBC, I was also in leadership in Gen Church. I never heard any Gospel that I couldn’t read in the Bible. So i earnestly ask what it was you were preaching, and if you feel as though you were taught that or somehow formed it on your own. Please if you’ve time, explain a bit more.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
God becoming human does not change His character nor His principles…therefore the premises are correct. Thank you for correcting my error in spelling, I’ve just been hurrying through that post, it’s been a long day already.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Wow! Seems like the hornets are stirred up today.
Me, I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and I’m pleased that you are interested in logic and clear thinking as evidenced by these snippets:
But then you make these statements:
I’m mildly irritated (maybe I need more coffee) because it seems to me that you have violated two fallacies:
The other fallacy is closely related:
These definitions are not original to me, I scraped them from here.
Although I’m not trying to pick a fight I would enjoy your rebuttal, as I do believe you are intelligent. Maybe I’m taking your quotes out of context but I need more than just because thousands of people attend CBC it makes it right…
Just to show that I’m not entirely out to get you:
Good on ya! If you are in the Portland area and have .Net, C#, CSS, HTML, Subersion, Java and SQL and are looking for a job - let me know!
May 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Hello C.T.P. -
Thanks for the reference to your blog - I have bookmarked it and it looks like good reading! I skimmed but have not digested your post on Why I am not a Calvinist. Are you reading the Walls and Dongell book by the same title? I’m trying to work through that and “Why I am not an Arminian” by Peterson and Williams.
P.S. Lame joke for you:
Two guys go into a McDonalds and survey the menu. The Calvinist says to the Arminian: you order for me. The Arminian says: wow! so many choices!
May 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Negrodamus,
Very respectfully, I offer this..I don’t think those are the right questions to be asking. Perhaps the first one is…but the way you go about doing that is just as important as what you say if you wish it to be received properly. Speaking the truth in love you know…
We do disagree about CBC and TCC. And we disagree about what the truth is. Fair enough, but i do not see a reason why what you’re saying has to be said the way it is. Or why you feel the need to comment on a church you’re no longer a part of. It causes me no small distress to think of the impression a fledgling Christian or agnostic, atheist, or member of another religion would get reading some of this. It would give a great impression of discord and disunity. Other things additionally i think as well.
I’m all for standing up for what you believe, and believe as followers of Christ we should do just that, but i feel the method in which we do so is vital.
I’m not really looking for an argument with you or anyone else here, nor to end one. That said this will probably be the last post because I don’t want the whole thing to blow up into a flame war. It’s probably best I go, I just have questions about the methodology used in this blog. It seems to be fueling an unhealthy fire, that is one of disunity and libel amongst the Body. Questioning is good…this doesn’t seem to be questioning as often as condemning they and their methods.
Nor can I agree with your comment on my “hypocrisy”. I want unity in Christ, but not at any cost, not at this cost. After all, I’m not the one who’s broken away from CBC (i simply moved back to my home state). And I really honestly say that respectfully, and mean you no harm by it. I’m not really sure how many have died in cults that claim to be following Christ…I don’t know if there’s a hard figure out there or not. I know it’s not close to the number of people that have died because of so-called “revolutionaries” (Stalin, Hitler, etc) coming in and mucking things up by trying to create discord in critical times. Which seems to be what you’re promoting here. Christ loved and died for the Church (and for all people for that matter), I don’t think it’s your job to “take its legs out” as some of your posters here have said.
As i said, I wish you the best, and perhaps it’s best for us to end this, and i take my leave of this community. It just saddens me to see people saying what they say here. Not just about pastor frank or judah or doug or whoever else. But about brothers and sisters in the Body, and the promotion of “strong negative emotions” that go with this blog. Anyway, as i’ve said. I’ll take my leave, I don’t wish to hurt or defame anyone here or elsewhere, and I don’t want it turning into an angry battle, so more than likely won’t be posting here again. Thank you for the discussion, and I wish you all the best in your pursuits.
May 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
After reading all your posts “ME” it sounds like you are just another spoiled white church boy who has grown up in this environment and has little ability to think for himself. That being said, I realize that no amount of yelling, screaming, debating, and arguing is going to change your mind. So in trying to attack my point you actually strengthened it. You see you are only saying what you’ve been taught. You are the racist who believes what you do because you don’t know any better. But your day will come. Could be 5 years from now, could be 20 or more. Some day you will go to cash your check, only to discover that all you’ve been taught, all you think you knew that was right and to the point, is just a bunch of empty doctrine and words with no substance. It will be returned insufficient funds. Then we will see how “angry” and “bitter” you become.
Only thing I recommend is that you start with a different approach. Instead of attack, attack, attack, try asking why? Because if you really asked why, then you might start to think for yourself that maybe there is something wrong with these churches. But instead you choose to defend something that you haven’t personally experienced. Have you personally had Dougie boy offend you? Has Pastor Frank ever intruded on your personal life and tried to tell you what you can and can’t do? Have you ever had childhood friends turn their backs on you because you don’t agree with them? I am guessing not, but if you have an ounce of sympathy in your bones you may figure that those kinds of actions directed toward a 17 year old kid who had faced hardship his whole life then escapes to the church where he thinks he is safe, only to have the church be more abusive then the world…well I think you might understand then, correct?
PS - I am a lawyer and you cann’t sue someone for libel based on what they right about you on a blog. It’s called the 1st Amendment. Read it when you have time. Good stuff.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Me, you’ve obviously been thinking about these things for awhile. Here are a couple more things to think about:
~~ Would you agree that biblical unity only occurs when we agree with God, not just with each other?
~~ Would you say that doctrine which is man-centered is false doctrine and that a sermon which appeals to self-enrichment is false teaching?
May 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The “Christian Church” has suffered “discord & disunity” for thousands of years…and the world is well aware of it already. This blog isn’t making that impression any worse than it already is or already has been for a long time.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Me said:
I’m glad you ask. Here’s what I was preaching, a gospel of works. I don’t know if I can keep it anymore simple. Hence, take one of Frank Damzio’s newest books, say, “The Unshakable Life” http://www.citychristianpublishing.com/books/?isbn=1-59383-039-4, the comments from Frank read as following:
This book is written for those in the trenches of real life. It is written for those who experience challenges, surprises, disappointments, successes and failures that shake up their days. It is for those who are ready to build an unshakable life—a life that is anchored, immovable and indestructable. Join with the author as he develops each one of these Seven Declarations for an Unshakable Life, based on the unshakable Word of God: I will live life strong. I will love God’s house. I will hold my head high. I will have an overflowing heart. I will turn to God at all times. I will walk on a level path. I will not lose heart.
Me, do you seee what’s wrong with the premise here? The onus, the weight, the burden of living an unshakable life starts with you, not Christ. Look at how many times Frank says “I will”, count them, it’s seven. I will live, I will love, I will hold, I will have, I will turn, I will walk, I will not lose. Do you see that? It’s all about I…I…I…I… The gospel always starts with Him…Him…Him…Him… The unshakable life is not found in a set of principles, it’s found in a person, JC. Now of course, you could combat this by saying “Well, Frank does talk about Jesus in the book!” Of course he does, but only as an after thought. Christ is never the hero of the book, we are. In fact, they nicknamed Frank amongst his peers as the Porcupine Preacher because he was good at giving so many points and principles. I remember listening to those sermons back in the day like “wow, how in the hell did he find so many principles in that one passage???” He would take a biblical story like David and Goliath and teach on “how to face your giants?” He would say stuff like David didn’t just have one stone, he had five other stones because David had brothers. I would sit there, clutching the pew in front of me totally mezmerized as I hung on to every point Frank made. Frank would say “do you know what those five stones represented?” I would think to myself “No, but whatever they are I need them to face down my giants!”
So Frank would go on point by point, he even had sub-points within the points and I would walk out of the domes that Sunday morning with a fresh commitment to living out those points. I think if you added it all up he gave something like 15 points that morning. Then I would go next week and there would be another 15 points if you included the sub-points and by the time I finished year one of listening to Frank’s sermons I had something like 720 principles or points to cultivate in my life in order to have an unshakable, over-flowing, spirit-filled, set the atmosphere, leaving my past behind me, breakthrough, successfully achieving, financially providing, leadership developing, spiritual warfaring kind of life. And the list went on and on.
After a while I would be like “how in the world can I do all this????” Christianity became too exhausting, I wondered to myself “Where is the peace and rest that Chrsitianity offered?” I weighted and burdened the youth at CBC shoulders with principles and points that were impossible to keep. To put it simply, I burdened them with the law because I didn’t get the point of the law. I used the law as a system of salvation. It became my savior. If I was keeping the law, the principles and the points then I assumed I was succeeding spiritually, but if I failed at any one of those 720 points Frank preached then I was crushed spiritually and emotionally. I didn’t realize that I was saved from the law and yet saved for the law. I was saved from it in the sense that I can find my rest in Christ, my perfect life is found only in him. There is nothing I can do to get God to love me more and yet there is nothing I can do to get God to love me less. He loves me period. My role is to accept His acceptance of me. I am saved by grace and changed by grace. He met every point, every principle, every standard for me, so I can get off this treadmill of works, expending energy and yet ending up nowhere. And yet on the other hand not do away with the law because it is a good guide to life.
Now, back to Frank’s David and Goliath point. If he, we and all the Christianas in that building would have seen the real hero of the story that fateful morning, we would have walk out liberated, not burdened because we would have looked to Him and not ourselves to defeat our enemies. Christ stood like David as our representative, he faced down our giants when we were cowering in the hills like Israel’s army defeated by our foes and He and He alone stares down, faces down or better yet beats down our ultimate enemy–sin and death. This is the heart of the gospel, not some man-centered gospel that brings into focus us when we approach a biblical text, but rather the true gospel of the bible all brings into focus Him, period. If Christ is is not the hero, than we make Him merely a helper but not a savior.
May 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Great. Glad you enjoy the fun stuff on my blog (:
No, I have not heard of that book
Awesome joke by the way
CTP
May 25th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“ME”…. your tagline leads me to think you are quite a self-absorbed person. You slam David Mackin who had the balls to ALWAYS post and sign his name… not hide behind an egotistical name such as you….
You don’t have much credence to denigrate someone else if you are hiding behind ego. At least grow some hair on your chest if nothing else and post under your actual name as David HAS and IS doing.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:13 am
The 1st Amendment does not protect Libel/Slander, it only limits potential recovery. To say you can WRITE whatever you want because the 1st Amendment will protect you is flat wrong. You can sue someone for what they WRITE in a blog.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Me, Thanks for posting. I will be responding to a few of your remarks in a blog article soon.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Alex wrote: “You are so bitter and theologically arrogant David Mackin. over the years you’ve jumped from church to church leaving turmoil behind you, jumped from job to job leaving employers to think your mentally disturbed, ruined your first family creating hell for a wonderful woman named Bobbi. leaving a path of negativity and destuction behind you where ever you go just like your doing in this website. Repent and get a life David before its too late.”
Alex, I am posting here a copy of the email that I just sent to you. I hope to hear from you.
Hi Alex,
After I read your blog posting, I felt very shocked. It made me feel very slandered, especially not knowing who you are or upon what you base your judgmental comments. I would like to know who you are, and, if you live in the Portland/Vancouver area, I would like to get together with you so that we can talk about these very hurtful and extreme statements that you have made about me and my character. I would appreciate it if you would return this email.
Sincerely,
David Mackin
P.S. I just emailed you, but received it back. I will try again. If you have a different email than the one that begins with “alex7@…” then please let me know how we can get together and talk.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Pretty chickenshit in my book. Come out Come out Alex whereever you are and whatever rock you have crawled back under.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I didn’t want to get in this discussion, but you’ve baited me in. Yes you are right (or is that write - they don’t teach us English in law school), it is possible to sue someone over what they say about someone else on a blog, but it would be next to impossible to win. Here’s the truth, straight out of Torts I and Constitutional Law I:
- Defamation is a communication that damages a person’s reputation by diminishing the respect, good will, confidence or esteem in the community in which they are held or to excite adverse or unpleasant feeling about them to deter a third person from associating with them
- Libel is the publication of defamatory matter by written or printed words which has potentially harmful quantities
- Statement made by guilty party must be: defamatory (expose injured person to distrust, hatred, scorn, ridicule, contempt, obloquy or shame, lowers their esteem in the community, or causes adverse affects) of and concerning the injured party (a reasonable listener or reader would understand communication to be about that person) published to a third person (can be done intentionally or negligently)
- When the speech is about a public person or relates to a public matter, the 1st Amendment requires the highest standard of fault: the injured person must show actual malice from the speaker, by clear and convincing evidence, and actual damages that cause personal harm
(Actual malice means the speaker had knowledge that the statement was false or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth)
(A public person/public matter is anything with special prominence - government officials, entertainers, public speakers, those who inject themselves into the spotlight, high profile issues, things that attract the media, etc.)
- When the speech is about a private person, that person must prove the elements of negligence on the part the speaker and prove actual damages/harm connected to the statement(s)
(a case for negligence requires a showing of duty between the two parties, breach of that duty by one party, causation of damages, and actual damages)
- Opinions are not actionable unless they are made with an implication that they are the truth
- There is generally no liability for publication of truthful information lawfully obtained or information that is of public importance
So give it your best shot people. Show me how that things that are written on this blog can live up to this standard, and remember most courts would say high profile pastors are public figures, which means the level of proof that is required to show fault is extremely high.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
This is my first time on this site. I am appalled and fascinated all at the same time.
I spent about 11 years in MFI type churches and was on staff as well. I now work with a para-church org and a Christian college from another tradition. It is completely different. I can say, “I have a question about this that or the other.” We have a discussion without someone setting me straight, questioning my understanding of the Bible or making me feel like I am crazy. My new situation accepts the core truths, yet understands that faith and biblical interpretation are much more messy than we want to believe. In fact, there are Christian traditions that think our systematic theology only complicates our ability to understand Christ. We have a tendency to believe that we can understand everything about God. The only way to truly do that is to make Him smaller than He really is.
What can happen in MFI type churches is that one person’s or group’s interpretation becomes the absolute Word. It is then seen as wrong to ask the tough questions about teachings, doctrines and practices.
May 27th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
ND, that is one of the best posts I’ve read on here for some time! Thankyou for taking the time to think it through and write it out.
May 28th, 2008 at 9:44 am
ND, I agree: great and practical post!
As an aside, I believe that preachers like this who are in the habit of giving long, long lists of “principles” are doing so because their main sermon preparation method is going through a concordance list of key words. Every time they write down a verse they like from the concordance listing of words, there you have another “principle.”
May 28th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Cat, Pope, David…can we please make this a general post for all to read and comment. This is the truth of the Gospel and should be the declaration of faith for this blog.
May 28th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Fred Flinstone wrote: "I spent about 11 years in MFI type churches and was on staff as well. I now work with a para-church org and a Christian college from another tradition. It is completely different. I can say, “I have a question about this that or the other.”" Fred, I would be very interested in your thoughts as to why this has been your experience. In my view so far, the disparity between MFI churches and other traditions would be, at least in part, because: (1) MFI churches are run by pastor-kings who treat their brothers and sisters as their slaves who are expected to serve the leadership and their children who are expected to obey them without question; (2) MFI church pastors, for the most part, are not that well-educated, or if educated, they do not allow their broader education to "ruin" their personal agendas of building for themselves "a big church" (3) MFI was begun by a man who has no earned college degree; thus, a liberal arts education was not considered that important for ministry P.S. (there's a conflict of stories as to who really began MFI, but I say this according to one theory of origins without going into it right here)
May 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I have no quality, concise answers.
I feel that a lot of it has to do with the need for certainty. The need to have a ready answer for everything. If there are tough things that you have no good answer for you can feel a bit helpless. What do most of do when we feel helpless? We find ways to control the situation or we come up with answers and solutions.
There is also a general unwillingness to accept the tensions within scripture. There are some areas where we have all learned to accept incongruities in our theology. Rather than say acknowledging the inconsistencies, we build 720 points to show why we can ignore the incosistencies. Now, we are back to certainty and ready answers, because someone has challenged the easy answer and made it more complex.
When challenged the pastor cannot say, “I do not believe that way, but understand how you could read the scripture that way.”
For example, I have been in everyone should speak in tounges churches and tounges is not for today churches. The funny thing is that they both use a pretty similar set of scriptures to prove their points. Both have fairly decent explanations, but neither side will give any credence to the other’s views. I was at the MFI conference a few years ago, and someone from the main pulpit was explaing about the gifts of the spirit. At one point he said something along the lines of “if we are going to make an assumption here, why don’t we make it in favor of the gifts.” What resonated with me is that both sides are making certain assumptions and are almost afraid of letting go of the certainty of their assumptions and what it might do to their theology.
Let me give you another example. All the churches I have been in are definitely tithing churches. For sure. No doubt. At the same time, I have been in counseling sessions where the pastor told a family that getting the family above water was more important than the 10% number. Don’t think I ever heard that in a teaching but I heard it a number of times when dealing with real situations. Publically, you cannot show any theological uncertainty when on the ground things are much more messy.
Also, once you begin down the road of conditional blessings, you need to make sure all of your i’s are dotted and your t’s are crossed. If not, you may miss out on something that God has in store or you may be putting yourself at risk. From there, things can get a bit out of control. They do not always and do not have to but they most certainly can.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Fred, Your answer sure was a “quality” answer to me! It was fabulous because it gets right to the roots of human beings: personal inability to live with discrepancies/tensions and public power and control. Thanks a lot!
May 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
David Mackin said:
Your absolutely right, back then I thought if I put enough Scriptures behind a point, even if it really had nothing to do with my point, then for some reason it gave my point more authority. I learned this method too too well. In fact, the Dean of PBC taught me this trick in his OT history class. The class had little to do with biblical OT history and alot to do with combing through text and finding practical principle that we could apply to our leadership. There was hardly anything about Jesus, just anecdotal principle for godly living. Every so often I listen to Frank’s Sunday morning sermons and it seems like he has turned Sunday morning into a glorified success seminar.
May 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
When I read the manuals from TCC and CBC, I am amazed at the amount of scripture but at times, I was miffed because all of the scriptures did not really support the point being made.
What I have enjoyed in my less than 24 hours on this page is that it has provided flesh to a few of the shadows I have seen in my time in church.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Like when Pastor Wendell says “Jesus talked about money over X number times” to support the prosperity gospel. You know all he did was look in the concordance and count how many times the word was used. Many of the references he counts are warnings about money, and none were telling us to seek after money.
Its like saying, “Jesus talked about adultery X number of times! Lets have conferences and preach on the blessings of adutery.”
You can’t take the scriptures out of context to support your view, you lose credibility and sound desperate.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Craig,
Back in it’s hey day, Bible Temple was seen as the Mecca of balanced biblical Charismatic/Pentecostal teaching. One elder use to say “the nations drink from our spout where the glory comes out!” It was assumed that if you served full-time at CBC you are either a great teacher or sat underneath great teaching. All we did was pull out our concordance, identify 10 verses that had the word ‘power’ in it, attached it to our point, then preached it authoritatively and people ate it up. Every so often I listen to old sermons I preached up at the hill and die laughing because so much of what I said then was so woefully off. But of course you couldn’t have told me that back then!
May 29th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Also, I loved the alliteration sermons we were trained to preach. i.e., you take the work “P” and then you get your Thesauras or dictionary out and find all the words that are in the “P Family” and then you make points out of them. Here’s how it works:
Take a passage like Acts 3:1-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%203&version=31) where Peter and John were on their way to the Temple for morning devotions and they encounter a crippled man from birth begging for alms, Peter and John being quick on their feet realizing knowing that they nothing to give the man, except of course God’s healing power! So we would teach the text this way, THE 5 POINTS TO POWER!!!!!
FIRST, “P”osition (remember peter and paul were positioning themselves for power by heading to the temple)
SECOND, you must “P”RAY (what did peter and paul go to the temple for? to pray man!)
THIRD, “P”urity (of course only laying Prostrate (ooo, look what we have here another “p”, can you be pure enough for God’s power to flow through your life)
FOURTH, “P”rovision (once God purifies you though prayer then he provides you with the necessary power to raise up a crippled generation of people begging for alms)
FIFTH, ahhh we are here finally here, we get the “P”ower (once you POSITION yourself by setting your face like flint to God and then pursue Him through PRAYER, PURITY is the natural by-Product “uh oh, look what we have here, another ‘P’” but anyway let’s stay on track, purity is the by-product of prayer, so when your vessel is clean enough God can now PROVIDE you with POWER.
Yep, that’s how we twisted the gospel, people would try to get those “P’s” lined up in their life the same way an astronomist tries to get the stars lined up in their life.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Wow…
I felt the anointing on that sermon…where have I heard that before?
When the word of God isn’t enough, we have to make up different meanings for the scriptures keep the people interested. Quite sad.
I go to a church now where they talk about the scripture, and explain what it means and the context of the passage. In stead of making you feel like less of a Christian for not doing all the same things the apostles did (miracles and stuff), they teach you the truths of scripture and develop a love for Christ. The scriptures should point us to Jesus Christ, not ourselves.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Ironically, I went to a Baptist Seminary while on staff at CBC. Of course they discouraged it. I heard all the typical jokes like “what, your going to a cemetary, uhhhmm I meant seminary???” But it was there that I started interacting with the text and I knew then that there was no way I could stay. I made like Tim Robbins in Shawshank Redemption, I was just chiseling through the wall planning my great escape.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Negrodamus,
Was there a life-size poster of the cover of “Team Ministry” covering your escape hole …?
…. when you finally chiseled out did you have to wade through a a bunch of …mmm …uh …you know … stuff … before you found freedom?
Big props bro for finding the courage to get out. Free at last … free at last
Ice man
PS Remember the time You gave a word in Chapel complete with a Brady Bunch reference? You had “mad game” in the pulpit back then too…
May 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Life size “Team Ministry” poster in my cell covering the escape hole, hilarious!!!!! Your stupid for that one! Brady Bunch analogy???? I’m sure I did, I said some whack stuff back then. And yes, I had to wade through a lot of shit to get out of that place…
Ice man, Did you stay in Dorm 4?
May 30th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Negrodamus,
you said: “Your stupid for that one!”
Hey bro , no offense intended .. put the sword down …please..
Forgive me for my swing and miss at a humor attempt, I thought for sure the Shawshank reference was right in my wheehouse….forgive me
I just had this picture of Frank rushing into your cell thinking all along that you were one of THEM (after all with the life size poster of the cover of Team Ministry would be a SURE sign you were down with all doctrine MFI), shouting out in a rage “DAM IT !! HE JUST DIDN”T VANISH INTO THIN AIR! Picking up a rock and in blind anger throwing to against what he thought was the wall only to have the object continue on it’s path through the wall. The deer-in-the-headlights look on the face of Frank and the Elders at that moment when they realize …. you’ve ejected … priceless
Nd, I’ll try to be a little more sensitive in the future. I have all the respect in the world for ANYONE with spine enough to obey Jesus, leave “any organization skilled the art of over-lording” and follow HIM and HIM ALONE!
Was I in dorm 4? No. I was a person of very little significance just taking up space getting indoctrinated like everyone else! At that time I was very young in Christ and DID need a season of getting the ME out of me! It was a good start.
Ok, pick your sword back up …
later
ICE
May 31st, 2008 at 6:22 am
IC Emancipated,
When I said “your stupid for that one!” that is slang for “super hilarious!” That’s black folk humor. Stupid in that sense is a good thing, not a bad thing. I can say it the way you are probably use to hearing it, like, that was “freakin’ hilarious!”
May 31st, 2008 at 7:33 am
That’s freakin’ hilarious.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:06 am
Chalk that up to living in Oregon for 20 years!
June 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
This is great. Even funnier if you no how ND left. Ol Franky did all he could to butter him up to stay when he heard that ND got an offer to go somewhere else. It was a deer in the headlights moment…they had just lost the one guy that made them relevant to pop culture in the outside world. When their P Diddy snuck out the back door they were in a tail spin. I know cause I stayed around for a few months after he left and watched as they tried all they could to keep NDs crew from jumping ship. Thank God we were rescued.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
You should have stuck around a little longer. You’d be up for eldership right now.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
For sure…he was dating a BT princess…he was an articulate…him and Asim would have eventually been site pastor’s by now…
June 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Hey ex-City Bible Slave,
With Nd gone, where does CBC get it’s “street-cred” now?
…. they were in a tail spin? It was probably more like bailing water on the Titanic with a tea cup trying to convince each other that everything is ok … don’t worry … don’t worry guys we’re fine …
- y.t. damus
June 6th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I’m putting this one out to ya’ll …
Anybody figured out how to make their own gasoline yet ????
Cat? …. Sam? … David Mackin …. someone?
June 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
The Holy Spirit is telling me that Joebib is about to reappear and start droning on and on about how he “makes his own gasoline” because he rides a bicycle.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The return of PC,
I just wanted to say how entertaining it was to watch Me (that’s funny how that looks) breath truth into a room full of smoke. So Me, good job.
Also, this is probably the last thing I’ll post here (ever) so here it goes. I’m not against discussion for the sake of taking the kingdom farther but I am against anything that would bring division. It is much easier to defend and follow good fruit, then to follow dying branches. It will be interesting to see how that sentence gets pieced together in replies. 
And by the way, for those who advised me to not follow my pastor blindly and to get out of the City Church bubble and look around…Pastor Wendell is not my pastor and I don’t attend his church. I live 3000 miles away from The City Church and pastor elsewhere. The funny thing is that when fruit is good…people will come from all over the world to taste and see.
Have fun with that boys and girls. I’m sure there are many replies coming to shred me again but I wouldn’t want “ya’ll” to get bored.
God bless
PC
June 9th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Ok, PC I’m first one in …
you said: “I am against anything that would bring division.”
How about the greatest division-bringer of them all? Luke 12:51. Are you against Him too?
June 9th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
PC,
I don’t mind chiming in on your taunt.
If you think what we are doing is sinning, and then you come here to taunt us into more of it, do you think that is the Christian thing to do?
The not so funny part is that the Bible predicts that many will follow the pericious ways of false teachers who talk a lot about money…so what is the good fruit you speak of? Of course the world wants health, money and security (just look at the industries build around those things)…so if that is what you preach then you will get flocks of the unregenerate in your church. I’ll stay away.
Your comment on the dying branches really says a lot about you.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
No way….you mean I passed up the opportunity to become rich without working for it, and get to control other peoples lives through manipulation and guilt using a wrong interpretation of scripture? Now you tell me!