Wow. Interesting. Thanks gumshoes!

Ok, 2 brother in laws are on staff, too. ONe is exec pastor at CLC.

Nickname,

Agreed.

Go. Let them follow and support CJ. One can only imagine the kind of pressure his family felt to support him, seeing as how he primed the church to bow to his will.

I have visited the girltalk blog of the Mahaney women on occasion and lately its been obvious the wife and daughters of CJ are completely committed to the SGM system of belief. It’s like a club. If you don’t join, then tough. That’s your problem.

Seems to be the prevailing attitude. If anyone even suggests breaking away from the mindset of the club, then they’re gone. They take their marbles and go home. That’s what Nicole and Kristen’s husbands have done. I also noticed Gary Ricucci’s name wasn’t on the list. No doubt Betsy Ricucci (CJ’s sister) is part of the club. I have wondered who the pastor was who was involved in SGMnot’s story. I have a guess.

So let them go and stick together. Who cares. They obviously have been more into themselves and their family than anything else. Everything gets shouted from the rooftops in the end. Some choose to plug their ears.

Theo: With a capital N!!! practically incestual…

Not nepotism — it’s taking dominion and enjoying the providence of God. Or is it survival of the spiritually fittest.

This is so sad. How complicated it all becomes.

Here are the resignation letters of Mahaney’s sons-in-law, along with an explanation written by the Covenant Life Church pastors.

C.J. Mahaney’s Sons-In-Law To Leave Covenant Life Church

No wonder Ken Sande came to do damage control by speaking at CLC last Sunday morning.

One of the most interesting comments I have read over at SGM Survivors indicates that the mothership was forking over $800,000 a year to SGM.

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/?p=2716&cp=1#comments

“dk
August 9th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

At one of the CLC family meetings, it was stated that CLC tithes $800,000 per year to SGM.”

I’ll go on record once again and say that nepotism is a terrible thing in the church. I don’t know why so many evangelicals don’t see this.

It must be so tempting for a father to help his son or his son in law get into the ministry if there is a desire on the part of the son or son in law. But these arrangements rarely work out.

I have 2 stories that are anecdotal. My brother in law went to college with a well known Baptist speaker and writer’s son 20 or so years ago. They were roommates. Both really loved to party. In the famous speaker’s son’s senior year he said to my brother in law something along the lines of, “Well, I am getting ready to graduate soon, and I need to start thinking about a job. My dad says that I can get in the ministry, so I am going to have to clean up my act a bit to get ready to go to seminary so I can be a pastor.” Don’t know whatever became of this guy. Haven’t seen his name surface in the religion world, so hopefully, he found a calling that was true to his desire and giftedness. Maybe he’s a sales rep for Coors or something. That would be better than getting into the ministry because it’s the family business.

On the other side of the coin there is Andy Stanley. Another dear friend who became a Christian in high school with the DTS and met Andy 25 years or so ago. He told me then that he thought Andy was the real deal, that Andy was truly interested in spiritual things, and that Andy had insights and a way of presenting them that made him a true leader at the seminary among the students. So, there are cases on the other side. But I think that Charles Stanley would have been better to let Andy make his own way. I think it is much better for Andy to be in his own place than to be “groomed” for the pastorate of First Baptist Atlanta.

Interestingly, my friend who went to seminary with Andy Stanley has been a youth pastor at a large church in Charlotte, NC. Even though he is 50, he is into youth culture, and still relates well to youth. A couple of years ago, the pastor of the church moved my friend out of the youth ministry to make room for his son in law to be the youth pastor. It really hurt my friend. The church kept him on, and has put him in a position where he is thriving. The pastor has even apologized since, recognizing that he did not do the right thing.

I am glad my pastor has daughters. Our church believes in male ordained leadership, so we don’t have to worry about nepotism. My pastor is wiser than that anyway.

Evangelical lay people really need to speak up about this, in my opinion. It is not good for the church.

Anonymous

Sorry about your limitation to “male ordained leadership”. Patriarchy is a result of sin and is a penalty on all of us because of sin. Nepotism is a form of patriarchy. When you deny that women can be called to leadership, you starve the kingdom from half of the potential it could have.

…you know, maybe they’re not going to preach on Isaiah or Psalms because not only do they bring healing and restoration to the brokenhearted, the abused, the manipulated, the brainwashed, but they promise wrath and punishment for their enemies, their abusers, their manipulators.

Maybe they don’t want to preach that because their congregation will realize that their enemy is standing right before them continuing to make them all puppets and confuse them and abuse their goodwill and goodhearts even more. This is so terribly sad. All the confusion they have created in their attempts to continually deceive these people. This is just sad.

Dee–

That made me think… I wonder if the fact that men do that has to do with their idea that ministry isn’t so much as about gifting as it has more to do with MEN being the leaders and the ones who should preach? Maybe it doesn’t make sense. But if they thought and believed clearly that ministry is based on gifts, not sex, maybe you’d have more truly gifted ministers who are truly called to preach–and that naturally would include women. If we understand preaching and teaching to be about giftedness and nothing else. Hmmmm…? Makes me wonder.

Dee–

Hmm… true. true. I think I understand that exhaustion too. especially since being in a graceless environment, works-centered and sin-sniffing. I have felt like I have been two different people for the past two years. I told a friend right when I left that I no longer had the energy to play this game anymore. That I was who I was and I didn’t have time to fake it for folks. Truth is, when you create an image that’s not you, that want others to embrace–they do embrace it. But you still remain behind that image, the real you, and remain unloved, unknown and empty. The fake you is receiving all that you really want for youself.

You can’t experience authentic real love which is necessary and cheats you out of a much needed experience. When you know how imperfect you are and yet others love you, care for you, accept you, sacrifice for you, suffer hardship because of you or with you, and forgive you–then and only then can you even grasp what Christ has done for you. Then and only then can you experience real love–none of which any of us deserve, but yet God deems us worthy of love and acceptance.

It’s just not real and teaches you nothing, leaves you empty, when you allow people to embrace some fake exalted self you’ve created.

When a friend loves me and forgives me, or does something for me, or makes a sacrifice for me–even after I have been rotten or treated them mean, or had a bad day, or just know I don’t deserve that kind of love and kindness, I am overwhelmed and I feel deeply loved and accepted as I am. That’s so important for me. I don’t feel the need to put on a show or expend energy faking it, I can relax and I can just be myself.

You hit the nail on the head as usual-taking dominion. This dominion stuff reminds me of Mormonism.

Dee,

This is an old feature of shepherding, but it tends to be a feature of spiritual abuse, closed groups, and idealistic totalism. Power is a reward, and it also creates the illusion within the group that certain people are more “anointed” or have a more divine connection to God and should thus be obeyed. (You can see this in the corporate world, too. Middle managers are often appointed not for their skill but for political reasons that serve the needs of the top management. Appointees become tools.)

This “inner circle” within the group can be nearly impossible to pierce, and entry usually comes through invitation that is extended to trusted people who will play by the rules of the system at all costs. Though this can backfire royally if people decide to buck the system, a good guru will pick people that he can manipulate. A skilled manipulator can use those family connections for enhanced emotional blackmail. And there’s more manipulation punch if one of these top leadership draftees depends on a paycheck from the group, a nearly guaranteed way of owning their loyalty.

These coveted inner circle positions enhance the impression that followers have that the leader is on a higher divine plane through greater anointing. Someone with a familiar connection to the guru not only proves that the guru is powerful, but they get the benefit of being special because they were invited into the tight-knit group, borrowing from the power of the leader.

Anyone else who pierces through the inner circle membership barrier is also seen as a bit more divine and anointed than even the middle managers. And those who are in that inner circle are sometimes considered closer than actual family members. You become part of the real, divine family, but blood and marriage helps. You get extra star status, and it enhances control, because people want to get into these slots so that they can feel better about themselves — proof that they are honored by God, too. Some are desperate for it, just for the validation factor.

But for the leader, they see this kind of spread of their power as reinforcement of their own success — God’s favor. God has blessed us, proof that he’s blessed me. Most need to believe that they are more special than everyone else, so they interpret their power in this light, even though it may have come to them through the traditions of men and authoritarian control.

It is sad, and it’s quite dramatic if not violent when the system of control begins to fail. It “breaks many covenants,” and it is a violent thing within the central group. So unnecessary.

Glad you all picked up on the “women not being able to read the documents” thing. In the midst of all the other garbage, that was actually the thing that stood out to me the most.

Pam–

It made me feel like it was some decree from Caesar sent out to all the land and the heads of households had to read it and tell the others–you know, cause women weren’t permitted to learn how to read either. That or feeling like I’m Don Draper’s wife in 1966 and have no other use other than making babies and staying home all day looking VERY pretty. (I secretly love Madmen. It’s quaint and disturbing all at the same time).

Dee,

I thought the scripture verse you posted, “They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly, Saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ When there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 6:14) was spot on.

There is no peace!

Using “Peacemakers” only serves to give the impression of peace.

What do you predict will happen?

Nepotism wouldn’t be an issue for churches if not for the paid professional clergy system.

If churches followed the New Testament model of every member ministry according to gifting (raehter than a professional minister class), with elders/bishops/pastors as servants of the body (rather than lords over it), and financial support provided to missions and the needy (rather than to salaried staff and support of “progams that benefit the membership), then money and power woud not be at the center of church life. With every member of every family on equal footing and serving one another, it wouldn’t matter who was who’s daddy or son or in-law or whatever.

As Elvis sang, “If I can dream…”

@ Cindy K: totally with you on the dominion/dominionism issue. (have seen it 1st-hand in some New Apostolic Reformation/Third Wave/etc. circles, and it’s scary.)

Numo,

If we ever have the chance to meet, I bet we could swap similar stories for at least a full day! If NLR joined us, we’d probably need another two, just to get through the good ones.

And encouraging thought springs to mind, too. When you’ve cycled in and out of more than just a single group or two, there is at least a little benefit from the bad previous experience (thought they are so often mingled with good, making them harder to work through). At least you have a developed frame of reference! You can say, “I remember when this happened…” And if you’ve figured out the true nature of the experience (using others to exonerate or accommodate the needs of the group/leader at your expense), your better judgment can kick in to remind you, “You know what they’re pulling here. You’ve seen it before.”

But, thanks to the common tendencies of human nature, I’m still amazed at how the same things end up playing out, no matter what setting you’re in. The apostolic movement does this well and seems to be more obvious, but even the post-or amillenialists are militant about the same thing on the opposite side of the Holy Ghost spectrum.

Then there are those in between. In my old New Covenant group, it was on a small scale, almost as if they were trying to recreate an idealized moment from the past, making the church a pocket of reality where it was the 1950s again, with a little of the ’70s mixed in. I guess it all depends on the target of your “dominion.” Some are just looking to make a living or set up jobs for their kids.

Arce… are you saing women can be HEAD pastors of churches?

Lew

Women in the pastorate is a secondary issue. There are people who visit this blog who would say that it is OK for a woman to be in the head pastorate and others who would vehemently disagree. There is a good book called Why I Changed My Min About Women in Leadership written by a number of prominent evangelical like Jill and Stuart briscoe. Here is a link to amazon http://www.amazon.com/Changed-Mind-about-Women-Leadership/dp/0310293154

I was privileged to attend church at Bent Tree Bible Church in Texas in which the Briscoe’s son Peter was the pastor. He now has a woman who is an associate pastor and she is very conservative.

Anne Graham Lotz has also said that she believes that women can be pastors.

Now, I understand the controversy and realize that good Christians disagree on this issue. I see the side for no women in the pastorate and get the Scripture. I also get the Scripture stated by those in such groups as the Council On Biblical Equality.

I vehemently disagree with the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which has stated that women are gullible and easily deceived. I think this blog has adequately presented a whole bunch of men that fit that category as well.

I enjoy the discussion of the pros and cons in this area and believe that we can discuss this with charity. Those who cannot and get very, very upset are those who have made this secondary issue into primary importance and that’s when I get very touchy.

Today, in a post, I will make the point that the SBC is far more concerned with women in the pastorate than with pedophiles in the church.

Dee, your example would be loved by the Family Integrated Church. They say youth pastors and Sunday School turn the hearts of children away from their fathers and are not listed in the NT either. They also have elders instead of pastors (though it is clear who pastors those churches, and it is not a shared duty in most cases).

To them, I would say that indoor plumbing was neither noted in the Bible nor to be had in the First Century AD, so maybe restrooms inside the church building are not Biblical either. But I’m sure they’d come up with some obscure proof text… Probably about being clean.

Anybody see the new post up at Survivors about the letter sent out about CJ going to CHBC and Josh’s response? Check it out.

A. Amos Love–

I loved your post. How insightful and VERY clear.

I have to admit, I’m not interested in what others like Briscoe, Rick Warren, Piper, Joel Olsteen or anyone else has to say about it. These are the qualifications.

Qualifications for Elders
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— 6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,[c] and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. 7For an overseer,[d] as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, 8but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. 9He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound[e] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

10For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. 11They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. 12 One of the Cretans,[f] a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”[g] 13This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. 16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

Qualifications for Overseers
1The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Qualifications for Deacons
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued,[c] not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must[d] be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Lew

I want this comment to be limited to this one point. I will write another in short order to discuss other points. To place Stuart Briscoe in the same category as Joel Osteen is so far off base that I find it difficult to respond to you. He is a wonderful pastor who loves the Lord and has had significant impact throughout the world. His wife, even more so.

I love the Briscoes. Their son, Pete, profoundly impacted my life as a Christian. And if you don’t think they know about the passages you have quoted, and have a Scripturally based response, then you have firmly stuck your head in the sand.

Dee,

He did throw Piper in there, too! 🙂

Cindy

Actually, that is why I didn’t get all bent out of shape at him. However, Piper would commend his premise.

@ Cindy K: Yep (on “dominion” also being an attempt to recreate some supposed lost paradise, complete with Barbara Billingsley moms wearing pearls).

And yes, we could swap stories!

Arce:

I was talking about nepotism. I would enjoy talking with you about that.

You and I are firmly planted in different camps on the gender and leadership issue. Arguing with each other would be a waste of time.

Dee, same answer.

But I thought the point of the post was interesting. There is way too much nepotism in some places. It’s understandable why people want to do it. It’s natural to help one’s offspring.

But the lay leadership in the congregation should understand the nepotism issue and help guide the churches they oversee.

Lew, If you look closely at the Greek in both the Titus and Timothy passages, it uses “tis” which means “anyone” but was translated man. Also “wife” in that passage can be translated as “woman”. Also, women in that culture did not have more than one husband so it was not a problem. But many men (mainly converted Jews) had more than one wife. And that could cause problems in the Body if they were overseers.

If we take your interpretation we must conclude that overseers must be married and have children. And we know that is not true.

Arce and as you stated earlier, patriarchy is rooted in sin. I cannot think of any of other front burner issue for Christians to confront than the issue of sin as it affects the church. Jesus is coming back for a church that is cleansed of sin (no spot or wrinkle), and how will this take place if sin is allowed to characterize our relationships within the church?

Like other issues that have sullied the church like slavery, it must be confronted and steadfastly resisted. Personally I am completely confident that this important issue will become a litmus test, and those who pass will enjoy a greater degree of His favor.

What is your perspective. Do you sit back and allow these things to sort themselves out? As an academic, are there examples from history we can draw upon for instruction as how to position ourselves for the conflict between those who believe the scripture, when properly interpreted, encourage and support all believers, regardless of gender, from full participation in every aspect of church life? (trying to avoid words like complementarianism & egalitarianism)

Again, please do not bring anyone else into this situation. I don’t care what Dever, Chystostem, or anyone else says.

Who wrote the text? It was given to Paul by God. Mark Dever was NOT given ‘revelation’ on marriage. Paul was. Paul is the writer of cannon, not Dever, Not Briscoe. Nobody else.

The bible is EXPLICIT in what it says. HE shall be, He shall be. He has not. He shall be the HUSBAND. He shall be. He shall not

Go outside of scripture at your own peril.

Lew, the “translators” wrote the text you are using. Look at the Greek. Do you think the translators were all inspired by the Holy Spirit? If they were, I can give you quite a few examples to prove they were not.

Chrysostom was much closer to the Greek than we are today. And he was patriarchal and still wrote that about Junia!

He also wrote in Homily 10 that a man should not “authenteo” his wife! And that turns 1 Tim 2 totally around from what we are normally taught by the masculinists about women teaching men. Autheteo does not mean “authority over”. Even Calvin translated it as domineer. A bad thing. A thing it is bad for men to do, too. In 1 Tim 2 she (a woman as in singular) was teaching false doctrine. (The whole book is about that and starts out in chapter 1 concerning that issue)

It is our job to dig and the Holy Spirit will put it in our hearts to do so when we totally erase our man taught filters and allow the Best Teacher to teach us..and what a joy it is.

“Who wrote the text? It was given to Paul by God. Mark Dever was NOT given ‘revelation’ on marriage. ”

True Lew. In fact, the ONLY place Paul uses clear “authority” Greek words for marriage is in 1 Corin 7 and it relates to both husband and wife.

the Holy Spirit could have inspired clear words for authority over in Ephesians but did not. 1 Corin 7 is the only place. And in the Greek, there are several VERY CLEAR words for authority over. “kephale” is not one of them.

I wish more people would study on their own.

“Not that they were ‘blood’, but Jesus’ mother and siblings along with other ‘relatives’ started the church if I’m not mistaken. Surely, that would be considered neopotism wouldn it not?”

Lew, Jesus’s half brothers did not come on board until after the Cross. At the cross, we know that Jesus asked John to care for his mother, Mary.

So they did not help “start” the church but came on board soon after. We know James was an elder in the Jerusalem church because of the Jerusalem council. If you notice, Jude does not claim to be a brother of Christ. He said he “serves Jesus” and then is a brother to James.

It had nothing to do with their blood but their conversion.

“I suspect that since you can’t trust translations you can’t trust ANY translations. And since you can’t really trust ANY translations, you can’t really trust the bible!”

Lew, when scripture appears to contradict itself as it does from the Joel Prophecy in Acts to Ephesians, it is ignorance not to check the Greek. We have the tools to do so easily. Just to give on you one example, the KJ was translated to give King James much need credibility as a Protestant. It was politically motivated and has a church/state mentality slant.

We have no excuses to be ignorant. We can easily research to see, for example, that the word (teshuqa) “desire” in Gen 3 was actually translated as “turning” up until 1300’s when a monk named Pagnini changed it to desire in his translation. It changed the meaning and has done some harm. This is a fact that is easily researched if one cares enough.

One area the translators have not touched (almost… except in Phil 2…where they play with it to teach ESS) is Messiah as God in the flesh. His death on the Cross and resurrection.

The cultural aspects they played with. For women as with slavery to condone slavery as God’s intention.

A history of translations is very interesting, too. When all is said and done, the Holy Spirit is Who teaches us by the Word. Otherwise the bible is just a history book or a giant baseball bat to keep some people in line like women the pew sitters who are told they are not “God’s anointed” or as we all know…. it used to slaves.

Without the Holy Spirit, the Word is meaningless. (shock!)

LIn,

If the Holy Spirit teaches then maybe Oral Roberts was right about that 900 foot Jesus right?

Yes, and Oral was right about the hospital and the 8.7M, and a boatload of farcical things wasn’t he? Maybe Eddie Long is right too? Or, Todd Bentley, or maybe the pastor at my Saturday morning breakfast who said there WAS someone who had a word, yet… there was no word.

This list could go on forever

Lew, if you want to converse with content and examples from the Greek word meanings, let me know. I don’t do silly when it comes to the Word. Oral Roberts and many others mock God with their extrabiblical silliness.

I am sticking with the Word, Greek word range of meaning and basic hermeneutics they teach in seminary.

Lew

In several places in the Bible, the Hebrew word translated in Genesis as helpmate is used in the form that God is our helpmate. Surely you do not believe that that means He is subservient to us! It is somewhat akin to rescuer or strengthener. Be careful how you proof text, you just contributed to our side of the argument that women and men are equal, since the word you cite shows woman in a role to the man as God is in that role elsewhere in the Bible.

Patriarchy did not exist in Eden, but is a result of the fall and is part of the punishment of the human race for sin. Now that we are post-resurrection, we should be moving again toward the perfect circumstance of the era that will follow the second coming. “In Christ there is neither male nor female.” If you are in Christ, you cannot be patriarchical for that is sin. Or you can insist on patriarchy and be outside of Christ. Your choice.

Anyone… I was wondering…
Where are you with the use of the word “leader” for a“Disciple of Christ?” 😉

Jesus always took and recommended the **low place.** Yes?
The word “leader” seems like a “high place.” Yes?

Seems Jesus has a unique take on “Leaders” for **His Body.** “ONE”

As man – Jesus humbled Himself, made himself of NO reputation,
and took on the form of a **Servant.** Php 2:7-8. 😉

Why would anyone, male or female, want to be known as a “leader?”
Jesus taught “His Disciples” NOT to be called “leader?”

Jesus, in Mat 23:10 KJV, told **His disciples** “NOT” to call themselves
“Master / Leaders,” for you have “ONE” “Master / Leader” “The Christ.”

King James Version –
Neither be ye called masters: for “ONE” is your Master, even Christ.

The Interlinear Bible –
Nor be called leaders, for “ONE” is your leader the Christ.

Phillips Modern English –
you must not let people call you leaders, you have only “ONE” leader, Christ.

Today’s English Version –
nor should you be called leader, your “ONE” and only leader is the Messiah.

Jesus told **His disciples** NOT to be called **leaders** and NONE did.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ,
Col 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ,
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God,
Jas 1:1 James, a servant of God
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant

**His Disciples** all called themselves **Servants.**
None called themselves “Leaders.” None? None.
None called themselves “Servant-Leader.” None.

If Jesus instructed **His Disciples** NOT to call themselves “leaders”
and someone calls them self a “leader” or thinks they are a “leader;”

Are they a “Disciple of Christ?”

Why isn’t what Jesus said important? 😉

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall **hear MY voice;**
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice – One leader

{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

Amos,

I love your post. Pastor means shepherd, which was a follower of the flock, not a leader in any usual sense. Jesus the Christ is our only leader.

Dee,

Jon Zens (a strong advocate for Viola’s “Pagan Christianity”) just recently published his own along those lines entitled “The Pastor Has No Clothes: Moving from Clergy Centered Church to Christ Centered Ekklesia.” It’s sitting here on my book pile, but I haven’t had an opportunity to read it yet.

http://www.amazon.com/Pastor-Has-No-Clothes-Clergy-Centered/dp/0982744641/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313168945&sr=8-1

dee – thanks

Yes – I’ve read Pagan Christianity – good stuff.

IMO – Here’s a great blog from an ex-pastor. Really good stuff. Enjoy…

The Glass Pastor

http://theglasspastor.wordpress.com/