Ed Stetzer and the Four Fence Posts that Define His Ministry

"At Grace Church, there are three things and ONLY three things that I do: I meet with the staff/apprentices, I preach about 70% of the time, and I lead a small group in my home."

Ed Stetzer

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=4031&picture=holy-bible&large=1Holy Bible

Church planting . . .  it's definitely in vogue in 21st century Christendom.  Ed Stetzer, who has worked full-time at LifeWay since 2007 (and continues to do so), is trying his hand at planting another church.  You may recall that a previous attempt failed.  Now he's at it again – this time in Hendersonville, Tennessee.  The church website gives all the right reasons for planting a church – in the Bible Belt no less (see below).

Why a New Church in Hendersonville?

Whereas many churches in the area are effectively engaging in the Great Commission, statistics are still concerning.

Less than 20% of the county’s population attends a Christian church on any given weekend. (American Church Research Project)
The percentage of population growth far exceeds the growth of church attendance.
There are more than 40,000 people in a three mile range of Grace Church’s plant site. This number is projected to be 42,000 people by 2014.
There are over 56,000 people in a four mile range of Grace Church’s plant site. This number is projected to be 59,000 people by 2014.
Hendersonville’s population is nearly 61,000 people. 48,000 people in Hendersonville do not attend church on a given weekend.

There is a great need in Hendersonville for a new church to reach the 48,000 unchurched people in our community.

That's all fine and good, but Stetzer has stipulated what he will and will not do in a series of articles recently published by Christianity TodayHere are "Four Fence Posts" that Stetzer believes will lead to a healthy ministry:

  1. Recognize your role in the church
  2. Pursue personal health
  3. Guard your flock even from other Christians
  4. Know your boundaries

Stetzer goes on to explain his approach to ministry this way:

"When you establish these four fence posts – recognizing your role in the church, pursuing personal health, guarding your flock, and knowing what you can and cannot do – you will enable and encourage growth in yourself and your church. Without these four, you will more than likely experience ministry burn out and hinder the development of those under your care and the church as a whole."

He then describes more specifically what he will and will not do:

"At Grace Church, there are three things and ONLY three things that I do: I meet with the staff/apprentices, I preach about 70% of the time, and I lead a small group in my home.

One of the benefits this boundary has brought to our church is that we are very clearly not a pastor-centered church. I'm very upfront with my role to my church. I explain I can't do funerals, visits, phone calls, or meetings. This leaves the door wide open for our congregation to see areas of leadership where they are needed, and to respond accordingly."

Reaching the lost is a highly commendable goal, but one has to wonder whether those who attend Grace Church will be accepting of these limited pastoral roles.  And will they be empathetic when Stetzer explains that he cannot do a family funeral or make a hospital visit?  Perhaps he has limited his responsibilities because of another trend – bi-vocational pastors.  Since Stetzer works full-time for LifeWay, maybe his salary from the church plant is considerably less than it would be if he were a full-time pastor.

It will be interesting to observe whether this becomes a trend, especially in the Southern Baptist Convention.  What are your thoughts?

Lydia's Corner:   2 Chronicles 19:1-20:37   Romans 10:14-11:12   Psalm 21:1-13   Proverbs 20:4-6

Comments

Ed Stetzer and the Four Fence Posts that Define His Ministry — 235 Comments

  1. “[T]here are three things and ONLY three things that I do: I meet with the staff/apprentices, I preach about 70% of the time, and I lead a small group in my home.”

    And he gets paid for that?
    People just give him their money, “as unto the Lord”?
    That’s nuts.

  2. I like and respect Ed a lot. I trust that the bottom line of his heart for his people will be to make sure they are pastored well in times of crisis, even if he is not the direct agent in it.

  3. I don't get it. This confuses me. It sounds like he's going to fence off an area, put a bunch a people in it, close that area off and leave. He'll come back occasionally so that the sheep know who he is but with no real interaction and probably "threats" not to interact with other sheep or pastors. Sounds like a numbers game to me. Like I said this is confusing. The word pastor seems to imply or at least suggest the things he won't do. As I've said, I don't get this. Why start a church if you aren't going to shepherd the sheep you pastor?

  4. I saw Stetzer’s article, and did find it a bit curious. But looking at http://gogracechurch.com/about/about-us/leadership-team, the church has five other pastors. Perhaps, as you say, Stetzer has limited his role because of his other job.

    The idea of not being a pastor-centred church is good. However, there are plenty of areas of church life where having someone with theological training is helpful or expected. Hopefully the other pastors will do the visiting, funerals, etc.

    But the overriding impression I got is that Stetzer wants the fame and glory from being the main preacher and public figurehead of the church, but isn’t prepared to do the less glamorous work that is an equally important part of pastoral ministry.

  5. Ian wrote:

    But the overriding impression I got is that Stetzer wants the fame and glory from being the main preacher and public figurehead of the church, but isn’t prepared to do the less glamorous work that is an equally important part of pastoral ministry.

    Ian:

    Sadly the SBC has lost its way and the emperor is not wearing any clothes. But you dare not question things from the higher ups in the SBC because you will be done at that point.

  6. I may be just one of the resident heathen, but this is the deal: Stetzer is bivocational because he can be and is enabled to be, not because he has to be. He's no doubt getting paid well at LifeWay, and this church plant gig may pay well too. (At the very least, Stetzer can take advantage of that sweet parsonage tax break provided by the IRS.)

    Why do I keep asking myself how a man can serve two masters here?

  7. mot wrote:

    Ian wrote:
    But the overriding impression I got is that Stetzer wants the fame and glory from being the main preacher and public figurehead of the church, but isn’t prepared to do the less glamorous work that is an equally important part of pastoral ministry.
    Ian:
    Sadly the SBC has lost its way and the emperor is not wearing any clothes. But you dare not question things from the higher ups in the SBC because you will be done at that point.

    I am/was (depending on your view) SBC. I see it as a dying denomination. They no longer “get it.”

  8. Ian wrote:

    the church has five other pastors.

    In that case, maybe they should each do 20% of the sermons. They could also rotate doing weddings, funerals, and hospital visits. It's fine to want to prevent burnout, but like a previous poster mentioned, maybe they should all share the visible and invisible work equally.

  9. I’ve also figured out how to get pushy church people to absolutely drop all contact: tell them very nicely but firmly that you have no problem with the Supreme Court’s recent DOMA decision. It was downright magical.

    To be clear, I’ve thought DOMA was unconstitutional since enacted because marriage is generally under the purview of the states but there are also elements of equal protection and comity involved. That said, it is interesting that simply telling someone that I didn’t have a problem with DOMA would cause this reaction. I guess I’m beyond hope of salvation. LOLOLOL

  10. Jesus wept and so did I. Based on what I saw in their website I wouldn’t attend this church if it was the last one on the planet. So many redflags going up it was impossible to see Jesus.

    I know covenants have been discussed here before. Could someone link me to some of the posts? I am actually looking for what the Bible has to say about covenant, especially in the body of Christ.

    I’m off to the gym to try to get my body in shape. Be back soon.

  11. Deb
    Interesting article. Two points before I head south to the Gulf.

    1. His last church plant (which was actually three church plants) all failed. Is his way of doing this a response to the failure? Since he is the church plant expert, I would think he might have done an article about why his plant failed and why he is doing things differently this time around. Perhaps he did but I sure couldn’t find one.

    2.I wonder if Ed is donating his time as lead pastor? If he is giving his time for free, then I would feel better about this. After all, isn’t that what people like elders do? They work another job and donate their time to the church? Once again, I can’t fund anything about this.

    However, if he is considered a full time lead pastor and collecting a full time salary, then I find his description of his devotion to the church disheartening.

  12. @ Wisdomchaser: Wait until Monday. I plan to do a humdinger of a post on church covenants. It should cause anybody to shudder. Beware church covenants: they are not what you think they are.

  13. @ dee:
    For now, click church contracts under categories. What you will see is an number of posts that will definitely cause you concern.

  14. I am anything but a blind follower of SBC Leadership, but this model is far better than many others. One of the major problems in Christianity today is the belief (spoken or unspoken) that ONLY pastors and staff do ministry. We often allow pastors to be elevated to positions of undue authority by our passivity in our relationships with God. The role of pastor is just that – a role. Sometimes we laypeople speak out of both sides of our mouths. We rail against the power and position of the pastor, yet we both encourage and empower that power by abdicating our role as followers of Christ.

    Sure, there are plenty of pastors who exercise undue or even abusive power. They get the press and the headlines. Here we have a man who is not doing that. I do not personally know Ed Stetzer, but I do personally know a number of people who know him well. He is an honorable and godly man by all accounts. He is said to be a good pastor. He is said to be a good leader.

    Let me give you one anecdote about Stetzer that I know for certain is accurate. When the former pastor (an unusually humble and godly man in his own right, Glenn Weekley) of FBC Hendersonville (a mega-church just outside of Nashville) died, FBC Hendersonville was devastated. Ed agreed to fill in as interim pastor. During this time, many people really gravitated toward Ed. When FBC Hendersonville found a new pastor, Ed shared with the church that he would be starting a new work relatively close by. He explained that it would be a very different church (much more contemporary) and targeting a whole new demographic. He addressed the church and begged them not to follow him – he wanted to reach unchurched people, not steal sheep. That’s not normal.

    There are plenty of things to poke SBC Leadership about, but I don’t think this is one of them (nor do I think this post is doing that). It’s time to get back to a more biblical model of pastoral leadership where a pastor acts not as a king but as a quarterback. It’s time the rest of the players got on the field and fulfilled their roles in the church. The pastor shouldn’t control it all – that’s where kings get made anyway. Is Stetzer’s pastorate perfect? I doubt it. But I like what I see and what I have heard from first hand witnesses.

    What about his prior church plant that’s gotten so much negative coverage lately? I know very little about it. I’ve seen the negative blogs posted, but they appear to be written from a perspective of speculation. Based on what I do know about Ed, I tend to reject the speculation concerning negative areas I don’t know anything about.

    Concerning whether this becomes a trend – I sure hope so. I have been a lay leader in everything from church plants to my current mega-church. I have never viewed my pastor as anything more than a co-laborer who has a role to fill, as I have one to fill as well. I do not follow a pastor – I work with him to follow God. The best pastors I’ve known assist the people to do the work and get out of the way. This bi-vocational model is one that is coming back and I think will be a trend in many ways. “Tentmaking” pastors go all the way back to the Apostle Paul. I think the heyday of fat budgets, big salaries and celebrity pastors is fading quickly, and I welcome it.

  15. Sarah

    It is weird. Remember, for some of these folks, if you do not believe exactly as they do-5 solas, comp, authority, creation, discipline-you are the enemy. They would rather talk to an atheist.

  16. In my 9:51 comment, I used the phrase “the belief (spoken or unspoken) that pastors and staff do ministry.”

    It should have read the belief (spoken or unspoken) that ONLY pastors and staff do ministry.”

    Of course they do ministry.

  17. dee wrote:

    Remember, for some of these folks, if you do not believe exactly as they do-5 solas, comp, authority, creation, discipline-you are the enemy.

    Purity of Ideology, Comrade.

  18. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    That said, it is interesting that simply telling someone that I didn’t have a problem with DOMA would cause this reaction. I guess I’m beyond hope of salvation. LOLOLOL

    That’s because church people have become tunnel-visioned on Homosexuality as the Unpardonable Super-Sin and “Teh Fags(TM)” as The Ultimate Enemy and Ultimate Other. As one of the moderators at Internet Monk described James Dobson, “fear of homosexuals drove him off the cliff with most of his constituency in the car.”

    Plus the flat-out fear (using Sodom & Gomorrah as type example) that God WILL Punish America (including Themselves) for it — “If we don’t stomp on THEM, God’s gonna stomp on Us all.”

  19. Dee:

    I seem to have read about one of the goals of the SBC is doctrinal purity. I really do not know what that means. but if it is true, the leaders will “know” what doctrinal purity is.

  20. I think one of the reason Setzer is avoiding some of the more traditional pastoral responsibilities is because he has multiple pastoral staff, and for the sake of efficiency, he is delegating much of that to his associates. I think this is a bad idea, as the work of pastoral care is just as much for the benefit of the pastor as it is the flock, but it’s a reflection of his leadership philosophy. His genius is present to provide organizational development and team leadership, giving the congregation a sense of direction and building up some inertia. I’m a major fan of organizational development: the lack thereof is, imo, the primary reason for the languishing of many congregations. But in order for a congregation to develop their organization in a way that reflects healthy priorities, the pastor needs to smell like the sheep. For pete’s sake, refusing to even do funerals just crosses the line. I get that you’re busy. Your priorities are screwed up if you can’t even be with the people you’re tasked to care and feed in their most vulnerable moments. Funerals aren’t a peripheral service: they’re a prime opportunity to bring God’s comfort to hurting souls. Unless, of course, your church is all about the young and the healthy, then who cares for all those old people who are just gonna die anyways. They should go back to their old, dying, traditionalist church with a starving pastor who will bother visiting them in the hospital. And stop standing in the way of us important and upwardly mobile youngsters doing great things for the kingdom of God. I know, this is a harsh caricature. But when “staff meetings” and “small groups” make the cut, which have never had anything to do with Pastoral ministry prior to 50 years ago, and the traditional staples of the job are spurned as unimportant, I think there is a significant unhealthy focus on new trends. Also, it always bothers me to see all these church plants popping up that open their doors starting with a whole slew of staff. It takes established congregations years of blood, sweat, and tears to work up the strength to bring on additional help. Where is all this money coming from? I humbly suggest it is being severely misappropriated. If the congregation cannot support the extra staff, it doesn’t genuinely need them. Unless, of course, you’re trying to compete with the big box church down the street.

    I am just not a fan of church planting, for the most part. We need healthier churches, not more unhealthy, trend focused, methodologically dogmatic ones.

  21. Miguel wrote:

    For pete’s sake, refusing to even do funerals just crosses the line. I get that you’re busy. Your priorities are screwed up if you can’t even be with the people you’re tasked to care and feed in their most vulnerable moments. Funerals aren’t a peripheral service: they’re a prime opportunity to bring God’s comfort to hurting souls. Unless, of course, your church is all about the young and the healthy, then who cares for all those old people who are just gonna die anyways.

    Awesome comment.
    If this is an example of leadership in church planting, then it is time to rethink the paradigm.

  22. SBCLayman wrote:

    I think the heyday of fat budgets, big salaries and celebrity pastors is fading quickly, and I welcome it.

    I disagree. I think that today’s megacelebrity pastor is only rising. I see it here in NC and in many other states. And the SBC leaders, including Stetzer, applaud them and emulate them.

    I am hoping that Stetzer is doing this out of the goodness in his heart and is receiving no financial benefit. That would truly be amazing. If I find out that this is true, I will be happy to write about it because everything seems to be about money and benefits these days. How many pastors are getting remuneration from promoting certain Bibles or Christian authors, for example?

    However, any pastor who says he will not do funerals is suspect. That’s not a pastor-its a talking head.

  23. dee wrote:

    I disagree. I think that today’s megacelebrity pastor is only rising. I see it here in NC and in many other states.

    Perhaps. It’s all one’s perspective I suppose – time will tell.

  24. dee wrote:

    However, any pastor who says he will not do funerals is suspect. That’s not a pastor-its a talking head.

    I agree on the being suspect part, but if the church is organized around this and covers things like funerals in other ways, then that is their prerogative. I don’t think it makes it wrong. The job description for pastor in the NT isn’t that detailed.

  25. I don’t know anything about Ed Stetzer but if his last 2 or 3 church plants have not met with success perhaps he should download this sermon by C.J. Mahaney. As you can see from the photo Mahaney’s church is bursting at the seams with new folks.

    http://instagram.com/p/QfMFWNp9Kd/

    Didn’t they also put out a letter to the local Louisville churches reassuring them they weren’t there to steal their sheep? I think they also planned on partnering with other churches in the area to reach out to the community. I haven’t heard how the whole partnering thing is going, but it looks like they are making good on their promise not to steal sheep. In spite of 7 heavy-weight evangelical leaders making guest appearances at Mahaney’s church people are staying away in droves.

  26. Even if Stetzer isn’t getting paid, he qualifies for the parsonage allowance on his tax return. That’s a significant financial incentive, imho.

  27. “There is a great need in Hendersonville for a new church to reach the 48,000 unchurched people in our community.”

    He and others are getting it backwards. Building a church doesn’t mean swarms of people are going to come to church or that existing Christians are suddenly going to win them over because now there’s a building to put them in. Christians are to go out and spread the gospel, then when someone becomes a new Christian, they join believers meeting together. If/when there’s enough for a church, *then* they start a church.

    What’s with the emphasis on church anyway? “Unchurched people” says the website, not “non-Christian people” or some other such term. The emphasis is on people being churched. Being churched doesn’t mean someone’s going to come to the Lord. Look around in many of today’s churches.

    And another thing: I can’t help but compare the way Jesus was around people, right in there with them, as opposed to this man.

  28. @ SBCLayman:

    “It’s time to get back to a more biblical model of pastoral leadership where a pastor acts not as a king but as a quarterback.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    where exactly in the bible is this model laid out?

  29. @ SBCLayman:

    “This bi-vocational model is one that is coming back and I think will be a trend in many ways. “Tentmaking” pastors go all the way back to the Apostle Paul. I think the heyday of fat budgets, big salaries and celebrity pastors is fading quickly, and I welcome it.”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    that sounds nice. what kind of salary is Ed giving himself for his limited duties? what hidden perks and benefits?

  30. dee wrote:

    any pastor who says he will not do funerals is suspect.

    How about “any ‘pastor’ who will not do funerals is NOT a ‘pastor’?”

    Where I come from (Lutheran), ministering to the sick and dying + doing christenings, weddings and funerals are day-to-day requirements of the job. *That’s* pastoral ministry, as opposed to this jumped-up, self-aggrandizing “Me Me Me!!!” stuff that seems all too prevalent in the evangelical world. (And it definitely IS the evangelical world, not Christianity as a whole, though for you Southerners, it might seem like it is the sum total of xtianity in your part of the country.)

    There are decent alternatives to this kind of craziness. I do appreciate the folks at Internet Monk who often discuss them… that’s pretty much where I’m at these days.

  31. Just wondering…

    Can’t seem to find “church planting” in my antiquated KJV.

    Did Jesus ask any of “His Disciples” to *plant a church?*
    Did Jesus give any instruction on – How to *plant a church?*
    Did Paul give any instruction on – How to *plant a church?*
    Did any of His Disciples actually *plant a church?*

    Is it – Church Planting?
    Or is it – Corporation Planting?
    Or is it – Denomination Planting?

    And Ed talks about “the Great Commission”
    I still can NOT find “the Great Commission,” in the Bible.

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

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

  32. And I like Ed Stetzer. He’s said some interesting stuff I agree with.
    And he still banned me from his site. 😉

    Here’s Ed’s guest post on Tim Challies blog.
    http://www.challies.com/guest-bloggers/the-problem-with-pastor-as-rock-star

    I wrote Ed about this article

    ————–

    “Ed

    Just read your guest post on the “Challis” blog.
    “The Problem with Pastor as Rock Star” Good stuff. 😉

    Seems we agree a lot about today’s “Pastor/leaders,” the “Led,”
    and the the importance of “de-clergification.” I like that word.
    Can I borrow your “clergification” and “de-clergification?” 😉

    You write…
    “Millions of churchgoers file in to buildings each week,
    line up in rows like shelves at Walmart, and watch the stage.
    They come for one purpose: to see a show and hear a pastor.”

    “In the case of the “lord on high” superpastor, the leadership culture
    is just as toxic, because staff and member tend to affirm aloofness
    and enable dysfunction. In either case,
    the biblical view of equipping others for ministry is absent.”

    “A community “won” to a single voice
    is not won to community, but to spectatorship.”

    “Either way, if you get thousands sitting in rows but can’t
    move them to sitting in circles, true community is hard to find.”

    “An approval-addicted pastor develops
    the split personality of an insecure bully.”

    “This is an opportunity for the church to abandon the
    “clergification” virus that plagues us.”

    “The mentality that only the professional clergy,
    especially the superpastors, can do ministry
    never shows up in Scripture.”

    Seems we are seeing, and want, similar things for God’s ekklesia.

    ———-

    But alas – Ed still banned me… Go figure… 😉
    He said it was because I cut and pasted my comments used on other blogs. – Guilty as charged.
    And Ed said I was repetitive. – Again, Guilty as charged.

    I tried to explain – why the repetition.
    It was because – I kept asking some questions that NO one wanted to answer… 😉

    Hmmm? Today’s “Pastor/leader,”
    is this a “Title” or “position” in the scriptures?

    In the Bible, How many people… have the title pastor?
    In the Bible, How many people are… referred to as pastor?
    In the Bible, How many people are… ordained as a pastor?
    In the Bible, How many congregations are… led by a pastor?

    Ever try pointing that out to a “Senior Pastor?” Ouch!!!

    ————–

    Yup – No one wanted to answer these questions…

    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 Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd

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

  33. Like others, don’t know anything about Stetzer so can’t really comment on his setup. I don’t have a problem with either bivocational pastors or full-time pastors, but I would like to add that I have seen full-time pastorship become rigid. My ex-pastor (PCA) absolutely refused to become bivocational on principle, even though the church was composed of 4-5 families and an older single lady. Aside from our family, each of these families had at least 2 kids.

    The pastor had three daughters (and was putting the oldest through college), and did basically nothing but preach on Sunday. The church was small so he didn’t have to do marriages, funerals and visitations, though he did baptize one of the new babies. He never talked to any of the other pastors in town, and kept no office hours because the church had no office. Meanwhile the church was 5 figures in the red, and he insisted on not becoming bivocational even though it was clear that supporting his family entirely was killing the church. Not surprisingly, he had to take a pay cut near the end of his tenure. IMO he should have become bivocational to avoid being a burden to his parishioners. (This was also the same guy who insisted that tithing was mandatory for Christians…wonder why, perhaps?)

    The church hasn’t learned anything BTW, because only a few months after letting my ex-pastor go because they couldn’t afford him, they hired a new pastor with 4 little kids who wants to homeschool. He’ll likely have even more kids. No financial sense being made.

  34. @ Numo:

    “Where I come from (Lutheran), ministering to the sick and dying + doing christenings, weddings and funerals are day-to-day requirements of the job. *That’s* pastoral ministry, as opposed to this jumped-up, self-aggrandizing ‘Me Me Me!!!’ stuff that seems all too prevalent in the evangelical world.”

    Amen!!!

  35. The OP (original post) said,
    “The percentage of population growth far exceeds the growth of church attendance.”

    I can see how that could be possible but it still sounds very strange when nothing but “the American birth rate is at its lowest point now” has been in the news steadily the last few weeks.

    The OP:
    “Less than 20% of the county’s population attends a Christian church on any given weekend. (American Church Research Project)”

    I can’t promise you this, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if churches stopped chasing after only, or primarily, the “young married couples with children still living at home” target and went after the currently marginalized groups (singles over 18 years old make up over 40% of the population, for instance), they might see an increase in new members.

    If churches actually welcomed any one and every one, not just married couples, or people in good physical/mental health, they’d probably see an increase in members.

    I saw a series of blog pages by a Christian woman who is now in her 40s or 50s, and after she did a few blog pages about what it’s like being 40+ years old in church, she started getting deluged with stories from 40-something Christians who stopped going to church, and these are married people with children.

    These married couples, who attended the same church for over a decade, say even they get ignored at their church eventually, because once their kids “age out” of church activities (which are usually aimed at small kids to teenage years), it’s like churches have no purpose for the kids or for the parents any more.

    These parents say once their kids reach college age, the parents feel left out of church.

    I’ve been saying all along that this happens to ‘unmarried with no children’ people too, only we ‘never married, no kids’ types notice it years before the married couples do, how churches slavishly cater to married- people- with- little- kids/teens.

    With most churches bound and determined to attract and keep married- couples- with- kids- at- home, and unwilling to get involved in people’s messy problems (such as wives in abusive marriages, people who have depression, etc), they’re going to keep losing people.

    Churches not only seem to want only young married couples who have children, but they only people who do not have any sort of problem or crisis going on.

    I just saw a good blog post about that. A woman who is around 30 years old was church shopping. She has an abusive past and PTSD, and some other problems.

    She visited a new church where the preacher encouraged folks to get up during the service and hug every one next to them and things like that. Some guy this lady did not even know picked her up from behind and hugged her tightly.

    There were other aspects of the service like that which made her uneasy, including some comments the preacher said during the sermon which suggested he was blaming people who have depression for causing it themselves.

    She went home and fired off a polite e-mail expressing concern to the church.

    She mentioned her history of abuse, PTSD, etc. They got someone from their church who is a recovered abuse victim to answer her e-mail, which she copied to her blog page.

    Basically, she was told by the church person who replied to her e-mail to suck it up, stop the pity party, ‘if I got over the abuse so can you,’ she needs to find a place outside of the church to get healing, part of getting over abuse is to stop closing yourself off from people, so no, at our church, (she was told), we will not protect you from random stranger hugs, that is part of our church culture, getting hugged and being around people will heal you faster.

    They worded it much nicer than what I make it sound, but you see the problem.

    That church was not the least bit concerned with meeting a hurting person where she was. They would rather she only come back when she is healed, whole, and okay, which is backwards, I think.

    It seems to me one reason we have church is so that believers can help other hurting believers get healing and whole by walking with them through their hurt. Some churches don’t want to deal with your problems or help you with your pain. They expect you to get help somewhere else and only return to their church when you are cleaned up or functioning.

  36. @ Hester: You know, there are posts here that just make me shake my head in confusion (like this one), because I’m an outsider as far as these denoms and churches are concerned and can’t find anything terribly helpful (or trenchant) to say.

  37. SBCLayman wrote:

    Perhaps. It’s all one’s perspective I suppose – time will tell.

    I’ve seen both perspectives. I’ve seen some blogs predicting the demise of the mega churches, while others think the trend will continue.

    I saw one blog say the trend is kind of toward megas, but megas with satellite campuses, where people will sit in small church buildings and watch the preacher beamed in on a screen from another locale.(*)

    I’m pretty sure the site I saw that on had the phrase “church for men” in its title or URL.

    I was looking it up, and lo and behold if this did not turn up on page one of the results (I think this is Driscoll’s church?):

    Mars Hill Church: Welcome marshill.com

    I’m tempted now to do a search for the terms “He Man Church,” “Manly Man Church,” “Cage Fighting Church,” and “First Church of Testosterone Seattle” to see if that also does not bring up ‘Mars Hill.’ 😆

    I think this was the page I was thinking of:
    What Church Will Be Like in 50 Years

    (*) That reminds me of a movie I saw in the 1980s of a college kid who showed up to class one day, and his classmates had not.

    His classmates had left small tape recorders on their desks to record the professor’s lecture, so that they could spend the day somewhere else.

    The next time the kid showed up to the same class, even the prof had gone this time, but the prof left a recorder of his lecture.

    The camera sweeps around this room and all you see is this big recorder with the prof’s voice on it giving the lecture and the small tape recorders on each student’s desk recording the big recorder’s sound.

    The movie’s main character is the only living, breathing person in the classroom looking around at this. It looks like churches are going this route.

    I wish I could remember what movie that was from.

  38. Daisy, it’s “Real Genius” from 1985 starring Val Kilmer. (I love hunting for things.)

  39. elastigirl wrote:

    where exactly in the bible is this model laid out?

    As you probably know, the NT gives more principles and examples than a clearly laid out model. Same for church organization – Scripture leaves lots of room for flexibility. Some clear principles, however, in Paul’s charge to the young pastor Timothy are appropriate I think:

    1 Tim 1 – Oppose false teaching
    1 Tim 2 – Guide corporate worship
    1 Tim 3 – Exhibit impeccable personal character and be able to teach. Organize leadership.
    1 Tim 4 – Be careful with the truth, unafraid to boldly teach it. Be careful with your way of life.
    1 Tim 5:17 – Direct affairs of the church, preach and teach.
    1 Tim 6 – Avoid materialism, pursue righteousness, teach others.
    2 Tim 1 – Be willing to suffer for the Gospel.
    2 Tim 2 – Identify and pass on teaching to other trustworthy leaders, avoid/rebuke false or pointless teaching.
    2 Tim 3 – Stay true to the teachings of Scripture.

    and Paul’s culmination to Timothy

    2 Tim 4 – Preach the Word.

    You can go to Titus, the examples of Acts and any number of other places in the NT, but I think you’ll find pastoral roles mostly falling within what is listed above. There is much that can fit within it (or outside) the pastoral role depending on how the church is set up.

    I think Ephesians 4:11-13 sums it up pretty nicely:

    Eph 4:11-13
    11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

    Paul didn’t give a lot of detail on the “hows” but focused more on the “whats”. The leaders are not primarily there to do, but to teach (including by example) and build others up to self-replicate the Body of Christ. It doesn’t mean they don’t “do” – that comes with being a Christian – but their primary task is to teach and lead others to “do”, as well as identifying other pastor/teacher/leaders who can in turn continue to train others and spread the saving news of Christ.

    I believe being a pastor is less about a job description and more about guiding the group to grow in Christ, regardless of the particular way that it needs to play out in a given church. At least, that’s the way I read it. That’s why the quarterback analogy fits for me.

  40. @ Daisy:

    The author of that “50 Years” article is pretty delusional on multiple levels. Thankfully he appears to have been promptly demolished in the comments.

    1) He seems completely unaware of a whole universe of denominations that don’t fit his megachurch mold and really are unable to doctrinally without completely losing their identity (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Episcopalian).

    2) “These so-called ‘family churches’ are already losing members to megachurches that offer superior preaching, music and programming.”

    Superior preaching and music? Yeah-flippin’-right. I’ll believe it when I see it. Also, what this basically translates into is: rather than supporting their local communities, people are being seduced by the shiny celebrity pastor and band. Congratulations, megachurches – you’re helping to destroy community! God forbid we actually know the people in our church!

    3) “By 2062, America will have about 200 well-known preachers. … Their messages will be so compelling and so widely distributed they will make mediocre preaching obsolete. That quality gap will drive many churches-on-the-corner out of business.”

    So just because someone is famous means they’re a good pastor? And later he implies that Joel Osteen is one of these people? The man who brought us this theological train wreck, which would make a Seventh-Day Adventist grin like a kid at Christmas:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dYheb6OwVQ

    Good communicators are good talkers. Nothing more. And he still hasn’t proven that their preaching is better, he’s just assuming that it is. And my local LCMS pastor is a far superior preacher to Joel Osteen, thank you very much.

    4) “Churches will be less ‘preacher driven.'”

    See blatant contradiction with previous statement that only 200 pastors will dominate American Christendom.

    5) “Since 1517, churches have branded themselves around denomination. … In 2062, churches will brand themselves around their teaching pastors (see 1 Cor. 1:12):

    1600s brands: Calvinist, Puritan, Anabaptist, Quaker, etc.
    1800s brands: Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Church of God, etc.
    2000s brands: Joel Osteen, Mark Driscoll, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, etc.”

    OMG the rank historical ignorance of this passage. The “brands” between the 1600s and 1800s lists didn’t change at all. The basic theologies behind them were the same. (Not to mention Puritan is a subset of Calvinism so he’s just plain wrong there.) He’ll encounter the same difficulty today – fat chance getting the Catholic and Orthodox churches to “rebrand” themselves. It’s also pretty grossly anachronistic to read the modern commercial notion of “branding” back into the Reformation and then imply that that’s all the divisions meant. As if the difference between Episcopalians and Lutherans is analogous to the differences between Nike and Reebok.

    Also, why did he cite 1 Cor. 1:12 for support when that passage explicitly says that “rebranding” your church “around [your] teaching pastor” is a bad (or at least non-desirable) thing?

    If what he’s describing actually happens, it most definitely will NOT be a good thing for American Christianity. Which is the only thing he’s talking about – none of this applies to Africa, Asia, etc. And clearly American Christianity is the only thing that matters…

  41. elastigirl wrote:

    what kind of salary is Ed giving himself for his limited duties

    That’s between him and his church. If the church wants to pay him, fine. If he serves for free, even better.

  42. Shannon H. wrote:

    Daisy, it’s “Real Genius” from 1985 starring Val Kilmer. (I love hunting for things.)

    🙂 I thought that might be it but wasn’t sure.

    Some people don’t attend church in person at all anymore. They watch online. Before that, there were tele evangelists.

  43. @ Hester:

    The guy’s primary goal on his site is to get more males to show up to church, so that was the intent behind him writing that.

    I do kind of agree with him that there does seem to be a trend towards “satellite campuses” among churches now.

    I’ve seen some spring up in my area, and I hear tele- evangelists mention them on their shows. I’ve seen the YRR guys mention them on their blogs.

  44. @ Hester: Yep – there’s an entire *universe* out there per churches that don’t fit into this mold.

    would be nice if people started exploring, as the models being suggested are really dead-end, no way out traps.

  45. @ Daisy:

    He is right that it’s a growing trend but I do think he may be extrapolating it a bit far.

    I’m curious how seminary/pastoral training would work if the attitude developed that only those 200 or so elite guys are teachers. What happens when they die? Do we only get to choose from their handpicked replacements? I smell nepotism.

  46. Addendum @ Daisy:

    BTW I didn’t mean for that long response up there to be hammering you, only the author of the article. Sorry if it came off that way.

  47. Deb wrote:

    The word ONLY has been added to your original comment.

    Thank you – that word was critical to the comment.

  48. Dee, I just don’t think Evangelicals are capable of re-thinking the paradigm, at least, not on a large enough scale for one to be able to count on finding a more intelligent approach locally. The big name media and publishing industry control the thoughts of the whole movement, which are driven by the bottom line. There is no reasonable way to expect churches in this paradigm to quit acting like the business model they’re bought into. It’s easier to just find a non-Evangelical faith.

  49. Here’s an article on Ed Stetzer’s previous church plant–the author notes “one of the fastest growing areas in the nation, and only about 20% of the population regularly attended church on any given Sunday.”

    The OP similarly notes from Grace church ” Less than 20% of the county’s population attends a Christian church on any given weekend. (American Church Research Project)
    The percentage of population growth far exceeds the growth of church attendance.”

    Here’s the article: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/05/whatever-happened-to-lake-ridge-church.html

  50. Miguel wrote:

    The big name media and publishing industry control the thoughts of the whole movement, which are driven by the bottom line.

    Miguel — Is there some particular book/TV/radio program that concerns you?

    I agree with much of what you wrote, but I am seeing some very good evangelical churches refusing to ramp up the culture wars–choosing to do what Jesus did instead.

    There are still a lot of sensible people in Christian media and publishing. They know the extremist stuff doesn’t sell beyond the pastor’s own audience (which isn’t as large as they want it to be).

    That’s why many of the extremist authors are consolidating with certain conferences and publishers (who don’t have any books on this top 20 list).

    Look at the best-seller lists for Christian books.
    Not many titles are from the neo-Calvinists or hard-core political right-wing Christians. Even pastors who are popular flamethrowers cannot get their books on the top 20 list. No end-times panic-mongers, no culture warriors, no YEC 6-day creationists…

    http://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/nonfiction.php?id=0813

  51. Sarah wrote:

    “Guard your flock even from other Christians”
    …really? That’s fairly weird.

    Depends. When you’ve been around as long as I have you, you’ll realise that there those who go to a church for a bit, try to push their personal agenda (usually some extreme fringe beliefs involving the second coming, conspiracy theories, or other strange doctrines) to anyone who’ll listen, cause a lot of trouble, and then move on another church. In my experience they’re normally single women with mental health problems. I know of at least two in the city where I live that have been banned from several churches. I’ve seen the huge disruption people like this cause and can fully understand why a pastor would want to protect their flock from this type of Christian.

    Stetzer, may, of course, be referring to something completely different…

  52. Ian wrote:

    In my experience they’re normally single women with mental health problems.

    Hmmm… maybe the men with mental health problems find a comfortable corner in “the ministry”. Narcissists men fit in quite well, in my experience.

  53. Miguel wrote:

    Dee, I just don’t think Evangelicals are capable of re-thinking the paradigm, at least, not on a large enough scale for one to be able to count on finding a more intelligent approach locally. The big name media and publishing industry control the thoughts of the whole movement, which are driven by the bottom line. There is no reasonable way to expect churches in this paradigm to quit acting like the business model they’re bought into. It’s easier to just find a non-Evangelical faith.

    I think I’d also respectfully disagree. Evangelicalism is a broad movement with many different tribes (who frequently disagree). Yes, there are churches which go with the flow and buy into every fad, but there are others who are more selective and less influenced by what the media pumps out.

  54. This is interesting but I don’t see anything that makes me highly critical of Stetzer for his role in the plant.

    1. It is assumed that this arrangement is acceptable to all involved. Churches, even whatever team that constitutes a new plant, are entitled to define what duties their pastor/planter will have.

    2. The duties of 70% of the preaching plus staff leadership is almost word-for-word what I have seen some higher profile denominational staffers expect when they do interim pastorates. If the church agrees, that’s their business.

    3. It may be beneficial for staff and laypeople do fill all the ministry needs so as to build strong relationships with the members and attendees of the fledgling congregation. Stetzer will doubtlessly be in for only the short haul.

    I may prefer a different model but don’t see anything here that warrants much concern.

    For the commenter above re: housing allowance. Denominational employees are able to have a housing allowance according if the IRS requirements are met.

  55. @ Ian:

    If these women get banned from churches, where are they to go? I kind of feel sorry for them. I understand if a church does not want one or two individuals disrupting things for everyone routinely, but it seems kind of unChristian to ban people who are already probably outcasts by the rest of society.

    Some older singles don’t have any living family left. I am an older single, I do have some family but am not on good terms with most of them, or they ignore me, so I’m basically pretty much alone. It’s a shame for churches of all places to “ban” people just for being kind of eccentric.

  56. @ Janey:
    I’m not just concerned with the neo-Cals or the religious right fundamentalists. I’m also frustrated by the endless varieties of moralistic theraputic deism that has gutted the mega-church/Christian popular culture of anything resembling historic Christianity. The roots and traditions of most Evangelical churches seldom go back over 75 years, and those who have such roots usually downplay them. Case and point: where are you likely to find a pastor who takes pastoral care seriously? The historic mainlines. Where are you going to find use of the historic creeds and other identifiers of orthodoxy that root doxological expression in something older than the flavor of the month? Again, the mainlines. Evangelicalism tends to be overwhelmingly dominated by top 20 pop hits and pastors acting as CEO’s. There are many Evangelical congregations who don’t get sucked into the culture wars and other peripheral hobby horses, but chances are they’re selling you Jesus as a life coach. Or some other niche emphasis invented in the last 30 years (stories of going to heaven and back, end times rapture scare-thrillers, you’re-not-doing-enough-for-Jesus-TRY-HARDER, etc…). I’ll take old-fashioned and boring, thank you very much. There’s much more beauty there than meets the eye.

  57. @ Ian:
    My experience has just been so different. While many churches are not captivated by EVERY fad that comes out, it is very difficult to find a congregation where the leadership practices serious discernment in this area. Case and point: by “publishing,” I’m not just referring to books, but also music. Look at the worship service of an Evangelical church and this is usually telling of a tunnel-vision onto what’s popular now, over and against what is true, important, and central to the identity of the Church. Just the other day, I encountered an Evangelical who was enamored with the “wonderful music” at her congregation because they played the latest hits from [insert CCM superstar here]. I just don’t know how to respond to that. Doctrine and practice seem to just be totally driven by celebrity culture, regardless of which Evangelical “tribe” you’re in, and questioning this is virtually anathema.

    Its possible to have a congregation that practices great discernment, but it’s just such a hard sell to the Evangelical sub-culture that is constantly enamored with some silly gimmick, invented recently and without which the Church apparently cannot thrive in contemporary culture. IMO, it’s a systemic sickness. God bless the people able to thrive in their faith despite the circus. I wasn’t one of them. And God bless the congregations who are able to rise above the mediocrity of popular culture. Had I found one, I might have remained an Evangelical. I owe much gratitude to Evangelicalism for bringing me into the faith, but I can’t help but think it has become the reason for its own decline. I remain highly skeptical.

  58. @ Miguel:

    I agree Miguel. I remember in the VA hospital toward the end of the Vietnam era, it was an old retired Lutheran pastor who used to come around and just be with us and talk. No preaching, just real life talk. The old stable mainline denoms will still be around long after the fundagelical mega-biggies have gone the way of the Tyrannosaurus. Extinct.

  59. TW wrote:

    In spite of 7 heavy-weight evangelical leaders making guest appearances at Mahaney’s church people are staying away in droves.

    That is because Mahaney was accused of pretty horrendous crimes, and his buddies did everything they could to cover it up, ignore it, and marginalize it. Mahaney never had his day in court, never cleared his name, and frankly, people don’t trust him. A man who lacks the basic charity and wisdom to step down from the conference tour while named in a lawsuit for covering up child predation deserves neither respect nor trust. I don’t know if he is innocent or guilty; I don’t know if he is a good guy or a wolf in shepherd’s clothing; I do know that his behavior, and the behavior of his friends has been shameful and I cannot bring myself to trust him, let alone attend his church. The presence of 7 “heavy-weights” actually makes it worse.

  60. Miguel wrote:

    I’ll take old-fashioned and boring, thank you very much. There’s much more beauty there than meets the eye.

    Ditto. I’m so burned out on the rest. So very burned out.

  61. I have no judgment against Stetzer, and I approve of building biblically faithful churches, although I disagree with some of Stetzer’s theology. However, his “fence” is very, very concerning. Why? Because of the three things mentioned, only preaching has historically been a part of pastoral care – and I firmly believe that a pastor who doesn’t do funerals, for example, can’t be a very effective pastor.

  62. Miguel wrote:

    I’ll take old-fashioned and boring, thank you very much. There’s much more beauty there than meets the eye.

    I have a lot of respect for liturgical churches, and over the years have worshiped in a wide variety of venues. But for those of us who prefer a non-liturgical setting, I do think there are some wonderful evangelical churches that love Jesus and do what he says, rather than getting caught up in celebrity or faddish Christianity. I left my home church earlier this year and switched to one that’s fantastic.

  63. mot wrote:

    the leaders will “know” what doctrinal purity is.

    Dee now declares that everything she writes is doctrinally pure from her perspective. It is also gospel and biblical.

  64. @ SBCLayman: When SBC guys start satellite churches all over kingdom come with their visage the draw, something really bizarre is happening. I am not talking about a few satellites in a metroplex but satellites states away. It is nice though, to set up a satellite in a nice state and be able to get a nice vacation on the church dime.

  65. SBCLayman wrote:

    The job description for pastor in the NT isn’t that detailed.

    Seriously? You think that the NT pastor would not help with the funeral of a church member? I must be thinking of a different definition of church and pastor. Did I get off at the wrong stop? Where is the heart?

    This is not the faith that I experienced when I became a Christian. The pastor was loving and supportive. he knew his people. He made a young woman feel welcome. I do believe he would have done my funeral but God saw fit to keep me around to express my dismay at this nonsense.

  66. TW wrote:

    I haven’t heard how the whole partnering thing is going, but it looks like they are making good on their promise not to steal sheep.

    I bet he won’t let any of his sheep go as well! Funny picture.

    You will have to read my post on Monday. Got the goods on church covenants. I have been looking for this for awhile. Warning: Never, ever sign one of those things without passing it by your attorney.

    Thank you for making me laugh a lot!!!

  67. Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    Even if Stetzer isn’t getting paid, he qualifies for the parsonage allowance on his tax return. That’s a significant financial incentive, imho.

    I would love to see what kind of incentives are included. I knew one pastor who totally blew a church plant. He got several IPads, an IPhone, a computer, and money towards a car along with being able to deduct housing costs. The church went under but he did just fine. He had another job as well.Oh, almost forgot the paid conferences.

  68. numo wrote:

    There are decent alternatives to this kind of craziness. I do appreciate the folks at Internet Monk who often discuss them… that’s pretty much where I’m at these days.

    I do not blame you. I love the Internet Monk. Chaplain Mike is wonderful.

  69. SBCLayman wrote:

    hat’s between him and his church. If the church wants to pay him, fine. If he serves for free, even better.

    When somebody decides to tell us all how to be a good pastor by protecting one’s health and not doing funerals, the issue of financial renumeration is not out of bounds.

    Both Deb and I hold MBAs and the financials of well known pastors is of interest to us. If Stetzer was quiet and went about his business without telling us how he does stuff, we would not be asking.

  70. @ dee:
    Psalms 116:15 says “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” For Christians, the end of life is an important occasion to commemorate. I, too, have a difficult time with a pastor who cares so little to remember a dead congregant, or to support the grieving family.

  71. Miguel wrote:

    There is no reasonable way to expect churches in this paradigm to quit acting like the business model they’re bought into. It’s easier to just find a non-Evangelical faith.

    I am quickly coming to that conclusion.

  72. Ian wrote:

    Stetzer, may, of course, be referring to something completely different…

    Probably people like me! 🙂

  73. Dee:

    There is quite a bit of arrogance for those in the SBC who think their doctrine is pure IMO.

  74. William wrote:

    It is assumed that this arrangement is acceptable to all involved. Churches, even whatever team that constitutes a new plant, are entitled to define what duties their pastor/planter will have.

    Yep- this is America, after all. However, when someone write about what he is doing. brags about it, and falls all over himself saying how he doesn’t do funerals, meetings, etc. then we get to comment on it. And frankly I see it as a sad statement for what constitutes a pastor. And I would not go to his church and I am sure he is quite relieved at my saying so!

  75. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    For Christians, the end of life is an important occasion to commemorate. I, too, have a difficult time with a pastor who cares so little to remember a dead congregant, or to support the grieving family.

    Amen.

  76. mot wrote:

    Dee:
    There is quite a bit of arrogance for those in the SBC who think their doctrine is pure IMO.

    Arrogance is often considered a family value in some of these churches.

  77. dee wrote:

    You think that the NT pastor would not help with the funeral of a church member?

    I don’t believe I said that. My intent was to say the NT definition of a pastor isn’t so detailed as to clearly specify what is and is not required or even typical in regard to funerals. I can’t think of a single NT verse that even describes one Christian funeral or how they are to be done. It’s purely tradition, though I will agree that it is normal for pastors to do them. But I see nothing rigid in the NT about who does them. If a person wants their lead pastor to do their funeral, they should probably avoid Stetzer’s church. If it doesn’t matter, then they might like it. Is whether or not a pastor preaches funerals a heart issue? I can’t read the heart. If I believed that any pastor who didn’t perform funerals had a heart issue, then I would avoid such a church. I’m just not there as a blanket response. It all depends on how the church handles it.

  78. Ian wrote:

    Depends. When you’ve been around as long as I have you, you’ll realise that there those who go to a church for a bit, try to push their personal agenda (usually some extreme fringe beliefs involving the second coming, conspiracy theories, or other strange doctrines) to anyone who’ll listen, cause a lot of trouble, and then move on another church. In my experience they’re normally single women with mental health problems. I know of at least two in the city where I live that have been banned from several churches. I’ve seen the huge disruption people like this cause and can fully understand why a pastor would want to protect their flock from this type of Christian.

    In my short life, I’ve seen this kind of behavior from men and women. Sometimes it’s a crazy man, and sometimes it’s a crazy woman [who – in conservative evangelical circles – “submissively” pulls the strings of her puppet husband]. I’ve found spreading doctrinal weirdness to be an equal opportunity employer with respect to gender.

    That said, the best way I’ve seen this handled was as follows: the church didn’t let the person have an official teaching or leadership role, and the pastor tracked the pulse of the misinformation so as to counter it from the pulpit if necessary. None of the cases I saw lasted long once they realized that the pastor was going to counter them boldly (even though not by name) on Sunday morning. They became frustrated that their craziness was denied a foothold, and went to bother another nearby church. In these cases, I can’t say I fault the pastor for spilling some of the beans on these folks when their new (oh, so blessed!) pastor called to find out the back story.

  79. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    That’s because church people have become tunnel-visioned on Homosexuality as the Unpardonable Super-Sin and “Teh Fags(TM)” as The Ultimate Enemy and Ultimate Other. As one of the moderators at Internet Monk described James Dobson, “fear of homosexuals drove him off the cliff with most of his constituency in the car.”
    Plus the flat-out fear (using Sodom & Gomorrah as type example) that God WILL Punish America (including Themselves) for it — “If we don’t stomp on THEM, God’s gonna stomp on Us all.”

    Have you heard about this “Harbinger” video that came out … uh, in internet time, ages … ago? Unlike our timely blog hosts, I find out about things like this a year or two too late. But anyway, the video makes the case that 9/11 was the first in a series of ever increasing judgements that God will punish the US with because we broke our covenant with him (or something like that). Notably, we’re being punished for [mumbles] pride, greed, etc., and [loud and clear] 5EXUAL IMMORALITY. The latter, of course, being code for one thing and one thing only. Megasigh (I don’t remember whom I should thank for that, but it so fits here).

  80. While Stetzer’s self-written job description seems extreme to me, I like the idea that the man does not think that a pastor should be all things to all people. Many of us are guilty of erecting a dividing wall between clergy and laity, and believe that clergy should do all the work of the ministry. If Stetzer and the church work out the details, everyone’s giftings can come into play; the preacher-types will be equipping the congregation so that members as well as pastors can do the work of the ministry.

    One of the problems we have, I think, is using the word ‘pastor’ to mean ‘paid church employee who does everything whether he’s gifted at it nor not.’ Somehow, we think that the pastor is the only one whose presence in a hospital counts. If we’d stop looking at the guy in the pulpit as the main minister, and realize that he’s only one person out of a plethora of ministers, vocational or otherwise, I believe we’d be a lot closer to the scriptural descriptions of church. When the spiritual gifts of any person, pastor or not, are put to use to minister to another person, ministry is real and authentic. Practically, those who are vocational pastors have more time to do such things as funerals, weddings, hospital visits, counseling, etc., so yeah, they ought to do them when they can — but also have enough integrity to say, “I’d love to help you with that, but really, So-and-so is much better at it than I am…”

    ‘Pastor’ in it’s current practical usage has come to mean something entirely different than shepherd. Kind of an ‘all shepherds are pastors, but not all pastors are shepherds anymore.’ Churches have worship pastors, counseling pastors, preaching pastors, visiting pastors, outreach pastors — you name it. I wish they’d find another word to misuse!

    But because of the mis-elevation of the office of shepherd in so many places, I don’t like to use sheep/shepherd comparisons much anymore, because I think we’ve elevated the earthly shepherds far above their true place in the grand scheme of things. Many of these elevated shepherds have forgotten that the shepherds who witnessed herald angels telling of His birth were on the bottom of the prestige and pay totem poles.

  81. “Religio-Tyrannoterrorist, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    Muff, 

    hey,

    @ Muff Potter

    Sorry,

    The Tyrannocalvinist is here to stay.

    Bedder get a bigger bone.

    (grin)

    The only thing becoming extinct  perhaps is christian sensibilities.  

    What a shocker, thirty-four percent of the christians  in this country don’t even read their bibles.

    Gump !

    (They could be reading the Bhagavad Gîtâ from the pulpit, and many wouldn’t even have a clue.)

    “…whatever is a man’s faith, that is a man himself …”

    “…Calmness of mind, mildness, taciturnity , self-restraint, and purity of heart, this is called the penance mental. This threefold penance, practised with perfect faith, by men who do not wish for the fruit, and who are possessed of devotion is called good. ”

    huh?

    “it is not good for the christian’s money to be alone.” -501c religious non-profit rule # 1.

    “Get them to sign the membership covenantal agreement, and they will fall for anything…”  -501c religious non-profit rule # 2.

    “Tell them they are no good sinners long enough, and they will believe it, making them putty in your hands”  -501c religious non-profit rule # 3.

    “Condition them to dance to the music. Even when the music stops, they will still be dancing to your toon…”  -501c religious non-profit rule # 4.

    (sadface)

    “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock…” -Paul of Tarsus.

    “If they don’t enjoy the Word of God, today’s christian will  likely end up in the belly of the tiger, Er,  da big bad wolf! ” – Sopy

    (tear)

    If these 501c religious non-profit pastors can’t patiently hand out, n’ live out the milk, honey, bread, and meat of the Word of God daily,

    hmmm…

    What big eyes you have pastor…

    (grin)

    hahahahahaha

    Sopy

  82. Based on this article alone, I’m not too concerned about this church.

    Bi-Vocational is a good thing, unless we are talking about taking a full salary for both (especially from the church).

    Limiting an individual’s role to study and teaching and away from other “pastoral” duties has Biblical precedence. If the stated goal is the real goal (give room for others to step up) then I think it’s a commendable approach. The thing to be careful of is minimizing these needs in the congregation or making them appear they are “beneath” a pastor. That being said, I’ve mentioned before that my own pastor has taken a Sunday off from preaching (and hopefully will do more) to work in the Sunday School classroom for young children. IMO, this says louder than anything that such work is important to the church and beneath no one.

    Regarding trends in following individuals as labels: individual congregations that do this won’t last. When a church is built up around a personality, the church will die when the individual does. There are exceptions, especially when there is a handoff to a song of the famous pastor, but when people come to church for a person, that person is the key component to the churches success. This is one thing about the PCA here in atlanta- there is a mega church here named “Perimeter” and I love that for years I heard great things about that church without ever knowing the name of the pastor. A church should be known for is love, not for its pastor.

  83. dee wrote:

    Arrogance is often considered a family value in some of these churches.

    So true. I was SBC before they were using the word evangelical for themselves. I think they got the arrogance from some of the IFB people. Then they got the business model from “the world” and ran with it when the really saw how much money there can be in religion. Now that they have a product to sell (calvinism) and mission to accomplish (converting everybody to their way of thinking) they have what looks to them like a winning combo.

    There is a large multi-site operation in Dee’s end of the state that seems to be a classic example of this.

    You hang in there Dee and Deb. Airing the linen is good sometimes.

  84. dee wrote:

    I would love to see what kind of incentives are included. I knew one pastor who totally blew a church plant. He got several IPads, an IPhone, a computer, and money towards a car along with being able to deduct housing costs. The church went under but he did just fine. He had another job as well.Oh, almost forgot the paid conferences.

    Sounds just like high level executives in corporate America. It may not be immoral but definitely amoral.

  85. @ Daisy:

    Like Josh, I haven’t found weirdness of the disruptive and unhealthy kind to be confined to women, nor indeed to single people.

    There is a difference between eccentricity and toxicity, though. I’ve known believers who were somewhat eccentric in their habits, behaviour or appearance, but who, when the pressure was on, proved to have hearts of gold. A healthy gathering of believers will be able to take eccentricities in their stride, because they’ll be more interested in a person’s spirit than their mannerisms. Or, indeed, their marital status. But I’ve also known “believers” who were dangerously divisive – not merely holding weird doctrinal positions but aggressively pushing them wherever they went and constantly trying to recruit followers for themselves.

    Coincidentally, we came into fairly close contact with two completely contrasting elderly single women in the last two or three years. Both were 80+ but still quite physically fit and active. But there the resemblance ends.

    One was (and undoubtedly still is) adept at using spiritual vocabulary, but never involved herself with any community of believers for long. She left a trail of devastation behind her – friendships split by her incessant slander and gossip, regular prayer gatherings broken up and destroyed by her monopolising the meetings with her needs and “insights” (particularly around one particular heresy that she is more in love with than any part of the historic gospel). The more time one spent on her, the more insecure, needy and demanding she became; in the end, she openly and in so many words insisted that others were fully responsible for her attitudes and behaviour. She serves nothing and no-one but herself, and the only person to whom I ever heard her attribute authority over her was satan. (You may well ask. In summary, when she makes any day-to-day mistakes, it’s because the power of satan is working against her.)

    But the other was wholeheartedly involved with other believers, and served both church and community selflessly and with genuine love. She had tapped into a deep well of joy and contentment through a dependence on (and resemblance to) Jesus that was anything but superficial. You couldn’t spend even five minutes with Margaret without somehow being greatly encouraged and built up, because she has a spiritual authority that far outweighs the mere corporate authority of an arrogant “gigachurch pastor”. Love, joy, peace, faithfulness, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness and self-control (in no particular order) were not just richly evident in her, but flourished around her. She’s moved away from the area to be nearer her family now, but I believe she is still fit and active. It was an honour and a pleasure to learn from such an outstanding Christian.

    It’s all in the fruit, I suppose.

  86. “You hang in there Dee and Deb. Airing the linen is good sometimes.”

    hmmm…

    gonna need a longer clothsline…

    (grin)

    S㋡py

  87. I attended a Calvary Chapel for about ten years. The atmosphere gradually changed over time. It seemed less and less like a church where I was considered a member of the family, and became more and more like corporation where I was considered a means of production.

    The Bible tells us that the greatest commandment is to love God and love your neighbor.
    I would call this a “Relationship Theology”.

    There now seems to be an “Organizational Goal Theology” where is is OK to abuse or exploit the congregation members to reach the goal – the end justifies the means.
    This is in direct opposition to what Jesus taught.

    I get very frustrated when people say “If it is growing, God must be blessing it.”
    There are many clearly evil things growing (for example pornography), does that mean that God is blessing these things also????

  88. Michelle:

    In my experience so many evil deeds are done to people behind closed doors in churches and even when the church finds out about them–the focus is well we best just move on.

    So many damaged and hurt people and yet those that damage or hurt them seem totally unaffected by what they have done.

    I do not understand this at all.

  89. This article is part of Ed Setzer’s 4 Fence Posts
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2013/july/guard-your-flock-even-from-other-christians.html

    I agree with this part: He’s talking about holding boundaries against people who aggressively promote fringe doctrines and opinions, and as a ministry leader, I agree that you have to be discerning. But to ask them to leave? If they really are problems, they usually leave on their own.

    Setzer classifies them: “There are “issue Calvinists,” “issue Charismatics,” “issue homeschoolers,” “issue political Christians,” and the list goes on and on.”

    I think I would add: “issue creationists,” “issue authoritarians,” “issues nutrition/health fanatics,” and “issue marriage roles.”

    But his solution is not based on principles, it’s based on whatever the shepherd thinks is okay:

    “Boundaries are set up by shepherds. That’s the term that the Bible uses several places in Scripture. You must be a shepherd. Your church is not a voluntary society of opinion givers and special interest groups. It’s a body that needs to be in community with one another—served and led by shepherds, pastors, and leaders, focused on a common mission.”

    Where do you draw the line? Does the pastor get to pick and choose his flock based on their submissive compliance? Corporations get to choose those associated with their organization. But do churches have that privilege, or do they take all comers as Jesus did? (Jesus had many followers, not all were part of the 70, or part of the 12. In fact Jesus did have a political extremist in his inner circle.)

    The New Testament church was clearly filled with opinion givers and special interest groups. And the Apostle Paul spent hours of time (and about 20% of our books of the Bible) lovingly persuading them, convincing them, and addressing them. He didn’t just dismiss people and send them to another church. He gave the reasons behind his arguments.

    Sending away everyone who’s got a strong opinion just seems to indicate that the pastor doesn’t have the gifts for this job. Time for him to go into corporate America. (Which is actually where Setzer is.)

  90. Michelle wrote:

    I attended a Calvary Chapel for about ten years. The atmosphere gradually changed over time. It seemed less and less like a church where I was considered a member of the family, and became more and more like corporation where I was considered a means of production.

    Michelle — I’ve seen this as a large vs. small church problem. In a large church you’re just a faceless commodity unless you manage to move up the ranks. Based on my experience, large churches can afford to have more authoritarian attitudes.

  91. @ Janey:

    Amen to that. A super good way to say that. I notice there was no mention in Mr. Setzer’s article about “issue tithers.” Obnoxious people can be difficult to deal with and can run off some folks. I would never defend the righteously obnoxious. But what is there to be gained by being “in community” with only the terminally bland and vacuous. I do hope that is not what he meant.

  92. @ Nancy:
    Oh, good point, I forgot “issue tithers.” And “bland” is apropos. It’s sad to think that everyone in the church must have all of the same opinions as the pastor. But if he is really asking people to leave over something other than Nicene Creed-level heresy or sinful behavior, it sounds a bit Orwellian. (Cue my friend Headless Unicorn Guy!)

    What do you do when your church members are far better educated than the pastor? My devoutly Christian and highly educated father used to shake his head and say our church was anti-intellectual. My parents followed me when I left to a new church that didn’t trumpet the culture wars.

  93. @ Janey:
    Glad you could find a good Evangelical church. They’re certainly out there, but the subculture is just stacked against it. I know of some too, they just don’t happen to be anywhere near where I live.

    But liturgy is not a style of worship. There’s no such thing as “non-liturgical worship,” unless your Quaker (or is it Shaker?), and everybody just sits around in silence waiting for the Holy Spirit to inspire the content and structure of their assembly. The question is not whether to use liturgy. The question is, which liturgy do you use? There’s the liturgy of the church, handed down through the centuries, or there’s the one taken from the big tent revivals of the second great awakening in America. Evangelicalism jettisons the former for the latter. In fact, a hallmark of Evangelicalism seems to be intentionally forgetting how the faith was passed down for centuries, dogmatically insisting on new methodologies, and then wondering why the kids don’t continue in the faith. 😛

  94. @ Miguel: Quaker.

    the Shakers have literally died out because celibacy was a requirement. They also believed that Mother Ann Lee, the founder of the sect, was “the female Christ.”

  95. A. Amos Love wrote:

    But alas – Ed still banned me… Go figure…

    Dude, you need to work on your posting habits if you want comments to stick around. Making a long, rambling and and largely irrelevant post isn’t going to get you banned here thanks to the grand magnanimity of our illustrious and mighty blog queens, but other blogowners have less patience. If it looks like your post is taking up a lot of space and not saying much of relevance people aren’t interested in reading it, and blogowners often aren’t interested in having it clogging up the comments section. The phrase “TL;DR” comes to mind. So I’d generally suggest that you slow down, take a deep breath, and trim your comments down.
    In response to not being able to find the great commission in your bible, that’s mere silliness. Of course it’s in your KJV where it is in any other bible (Matthew 28), because “The Great Commission” isn’t a phrase from the bible, it’s the name applied to a group of verses. If you want to disagree with someone’s interpretation thereof, ie the substance of the matter, you’ll have to do it with something other than empty rhetoric.

  96. Miguel wrote:

    There’s the liturgy of the church, handed down through the centuries, or there’s the one taken from the big tent revivals of the second great awakening in America. Evangelicalism jettisons the former for the latter.

    You’ve erected a false dichotomy and then used it to blame evangelicals for kids leaving the faith. And having known plenty of nominally Catholic kids raised with the “traditional” liturgy, I can’t say I was terribly impressed with its ability to instill genuine faith in people. I doubt it is any more effective than what evangelicals do.

  97. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Stetzer

    Here is Ed’s bio on wiki. It seems to be uncontested. (those guys watch such things)

    One of the “pastors” on the website is the son of Thom Ranier, President of Lifeway. So with all this in mind, I am sure the plant will be a great success no matter what.

    The bio lauds Setzer as “Dr. Ed Stetzer is known around the world for his expertise in church planting and missiology. He has planted multiple churches and helped revitalize declining churches.”

    Yet, it gives us no supporting information as to what/where churches– he has done these great things.

    Setzer was able to build his personal brand using Lifeway resources including building his brand online. He is the go to guy in the SBC for the YRR/NC pastors who want to be in the “in group”.

    But his words/actions often do not match. For example, a pastor should not be a celebrity, yet he is a celebrity pastor. Or else, why is he there? There are plenty of well qualified seminary trained men to plant churches. Mohler says so. (Even though his Dean went to “lead pastor” a church when Ezell left and all he did was “preach”, too. Russ Moore)

    Setzer makes a nice 6 figure salary at Lifeway as the expert on all things missional/church planting. yet, he has several failures under his belt and it is hard to find the info on them. I think Lumpkins did a blog post on them a while back and there was concern that he was hardly with his plants as he was always out doing conferences, etc. So I can see why he says he will spend 70% time preaching a small group. But since he is full time at Lifeway which requires quite a bit of travel, speaking, etc, I am wondering, 70% of what? 5 hours per week? And only preaching means he is the celebrity in the pulpit. He gets to do what he does best and perhaps this one will take off? I don’t call this bi vocational at all. Ed’s Lifeway 6 figure job is considered “ministry”, right?

    And who gets chosen for the “small group” the celebrity Ed will lead?

    And I would certainly love to know what the SBC NAMB is pouring into this church plant concerning dollars. I know Thom Raniers son is not working for peanuts. And can this church sustain itself NOW after several years without SBC money?

    The more you are around this stuff, the more you see right through it. Ed needs a success because he is touted as the church planting guru for more than the SBC. Acts 29, etc, etc. Yet, he has no success to date. And more folks are asking questions about this SBC celebrity who had made his brand on their dime. But if he can design a church plant situation suited to him to be a success, maybe it will shut people up?

  98. Garland

    Sorry for offending you – Was wondering…
    Is it just the length of my comments that bother you?

  99. Garland

    How did you like the terms Ed Stetzer used in his guest post?

    “clergification?” and “de-clergification?”

    “This is an opportunity for the church to abandon the
    “clergification” virus that plagues us.”

  100. Garland

    Maybe you can answer these questions…

    Hmmm? Today’s “Pastor/leader,”
    is this a “Title” or “position” in the scriptures?

    In the Bible, How many people… have the title pastor?
    In the Bible, How many people are… referred to as pastor?
    In the Bible, How many people are… ordained as a pastor?
    In the Bible, How many congregations are… led by a pastor?

    Ever try pointing that out to a “Senior Pastor?” Ouch!!!

  101. Garland

    Maybe you can explain your undertanding of – “The Great Commission?” In Mat 28…

    In the KJV it says
    Mat 28:19 KJV – Go ye therefore, and **teach** all nations…

    Other versions, modern vesions often say
    Mat 28:19 NASB – Go therefore and **make disciples** of all the nations…

    In my experience – **Teaching** is easy compared to – Making Disciples” – That’s kinda tough. Yes?

    I hate to admit it – BUT – I’ve never “Made a Disciple of Jesus – And I tried – Have you?

    I never figured out how to get someone to “Deny SELF.”
    I never figured out how to get someone to “Forsake ALL.”

    Matthew 16:24
    Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me,
    let him **deny himself,** and take up his cross, and follow me.

    Luke 14:33
    So likewise, whosoever he be of you *that forsaketh NOT ALL that he hath,**
    he can NOT be my disciple.

    These few verses alone convicts me that I can NOT make a “Disciple of Jesus.” 🙂

    And we do agree – Because you say – “The Great Commission” isn’t a phrase from the bible,
    it’s the name applied to a group of verses. “

    That’s why I said…
    And Ed talks about “the Great Commission”
    I still can NOT find “the Great Commission,” in the Bible.

    Thanks

  102. Josh wrote:

    Notably, we’re being punished for [mumbles] pride, greed, etc., and [loud and clear] 5EXUAL IMMORALITY

    Don’t look at HUG or me. 😆 HUG has said in plenty of older posts, and me too, that we’ve not done the deed yet.

    I was waiting until I got married for [T]ex, and I think that was HUG’s reason too(?), but we just never got married.

    I wonder about views like that. Why should all of America supposedly be punished by God for 5EXUAL IMMORALITY when some of us have been pretty obedient on that issue?

    I’m not sleeping around. Doesn’t God take into consideration that there are some people in the USA that are living by his standards?

    Why should HUG and me be punished for the 5exual sins of the rest of the USA? Or, wouldn’t HUG and me not fooling around cause God to consider sparing the nation (this is assuming these Harbinger / judgements views are true to start with). God said in the OT that he would spare the city of S-dom if he could five only like five or ten righteous guys.

    Yes, I had heard of the Harbinger book. It’s by a Rabbi who believes in Jesus. He’s been interviewed a million times on different TV shows about his book. His book was a NY Times best seller.

    I wonder why some Christians think Old Testament prophecy about Israel applies to Americans today, while I see other Christians arguing the opposite, saying that OT stuff was for OT people only, not for Christians today and nor for America.

    People are not in agreement on when or if the OT applies to believers today (and/or to the United States and/or other nations).

    I don’t know why exactly, but that kind of reminds me of this funny Superman photo I saw a few weeks ago:
    Superman (World Vs. America)

  103. @ Nickname:

    I can see both sides of this topic.

    It is rather off putting a preacher would refuse to attend funerals and stuff, but I read a book about why people are leaving church, and there were one or two chapters that talked about preachers and why there are so many preachers leaving too.

    This book said a lot of preachers burn out after only five years, they quit, and move on to other employment. One reason is that a lot of churches want one person in charge and refuse to accept any other model.

    They expect a preacher to be the head phooba and do absolutely every thing. They demand stellar weekly Sunday sermons, and that the same guy giving the sermons also hold weddings, funerals, visit the sick. Most preachers are exhausted by all that.

    One preacher interviewed said that to write a decent sermon, not the fluff you get in seeker friendly churches, takes a lot of time each week.

    But, he said, if you expect the preacher to spend all week visiting every sick person at the hospital and such, he will not have time to do the research necessary to write a really great sermon.

    IIRC, one preacher said (as he was getting more burnt out) he suggested to his church they have a board of preachers or whatever, where they take shifts, that way all pressure would not fall on one person. But the church refused, they wanted one and only one guy in charge.

  104. I agree it is very damaging when fringe people hold onto their favorite doctrines and push them above the gospel or unity. I spoke with a friend yesterday whose small group leaders have promoted some kind of health gospel for years (I forgot the name of the particular program, but it almost strikes me as Christian Science-like). Anyway, my friend developed health problems over the last year and was basically shamed by her friends, and now she wants nothing to do with church. Surprise, surprise!

  105. @ Former CLC’er:

    I apologize for being a broken record (I have discussed this at least three times previously on this blog), but that is one thing I keep noticing about other Christians, and it drives me up the wall.

    You’ll have a preacher who says, for instance, that all divorce is a great big fat sin, but the minute his wife divorces him, he changes his tune to his congregation and on his blogs, magazine articles and sermons:
    “Divorce ain’t all bad! Divorced people deserve compassion!”

    How convenient people like this develop these insights only after it happens to them (or a family member they care about) personally. 😆

  106. Daisy wrote:

    @ Former CLC’er:
    I apologize for being a broken record (I have discussed this at least three times previously on this blog), but that is one thing I keep noticing about other Christians, and it drives me up the wall.
    You’ll have a preacher who says, for instance, that all divorce is a great big fat sin, but the minute his wife divorces him, he changes his tune to his congregation and on his blogs, magazine articles and sermons:
    “Divorce ain’t all bad! Divorced people deserve compassion!”
    How convenient people like this develop these insights only after it happens to them (or a family member they care about) personally.

    Daisy: I will call these preachers what they are–hypocrites.

  107. Daisy wrote:

    You’ll have a preacher who says, for instance, that all divorce is a great big fat sin,

    I wanted to clarify that I agree that the Bible appears to say divorce was not part of God’s plan (I do not have a problem with abused people divorcing their spouse, though).

    I know that some behaviors in the Bible are frowned upon or called sin straight out.

    So it’s not that I oppose a preacher calling ‘behavior thus- and- so’ a sin, what bothers me is their very harsh attitude about that topic; some will pick one (or two) particular type of sin and bloviate on that one sin (or topic not necessarily sinful) alone, constantly, or else that they treat people who do “behavior Z” like lepers or trash.

    With some preachers, that one topic may be divorce, with others, gender roles, with still others, homo5exuality, or tithing.

  108. Nancy wrote:

    But what is there to be gained by being “in community” with only the terminally bland and vacuous.

    Great thought!

  109. Members of a church should be involved in the life of a church – whether they have an official “role” or not. While I am willing to give Stetzer the benefit of the doubt, his three things are basically opportunities to instruct others. They do not involve him in the ins and outs of daily life. Perhaps he will be involved in other things in a non-leadership role. Time will tell, I suppose. But on the surface he seems more of a contractor than congregant.

  110. @ Anon 1: Good comment. I want to know why Stetzer has not done an in-depth analysis why his previous church plants failed. That would be helpful to so many people. Instead, here is another new church plant with Stetzer protecting himself from bad health and tedious funerals. How is this different from his last plant (which as actually 3 churches)? Did he do too many funerals and get burned out?

  111. @ Garland:
    How is it a false dichotomy? Churches either use the order of service passed down to them in their tradition, or they invent a new one. That’s just an observation. And you’ve missed my point entirely: I’m not saying that the traditional liturgy is some sort of silver bullet for guaranteeing the magical transfer of faith from one generation to the next. You have nominal adherents in all traditions, there’s really no way around that. But the traditions of the church have been the vehicle which has successfully transmitted the faith for 2 millennium. Consumer industry driven trends have a demonstrably difficult time passing anything down even one generation. Case in point: ever heard the term “boomer-angs?” People built entire empires around swooping them in, but their children appear to be checking out for good. Oh, and on average, they can’t articulate the substance of the Christian faith to save their lives (see Christian Smith). It’s not that one way completely and always works and the other is guaranteed to fail. But one has proven itself and stood the test of time, while the other is just getting started and batting fairly low. 500 years from now, the Catholic church will still be worshiping to the same mass. God only knows what Evangelicalism will look like, if it is still a formidable force amongst the world’s religions. It’s really hard for me to doubt the efficacy of traditional church when it has lasted this long. Did you realize that the traditional liturgy evolved from the first century synagogue worship? The format we call “the Service of the Word” is strikingly similar to how the Christ and the Apostles worshiped. I believe they would find today’s production oriented worship presentations to be quite a foreign experience.

  112. @ numo:
    Thx, Numo. I heard about the celibacy thing, but somehow I thought there was actually one surviving adherent in her old age. Either way, I HAVE to join them for worship sometime. It’s on my bucket list.

  113. A. Amos Love wrote:

    Garland
    Sorry for offending you – Was wondering…
    Is it just the length of my comments that bother you?

    You haven’t offended me. But I usually just don’t read your comments at all–not because of their content, but because of the way it’s presented. I rarely see a post from you that isn’t asking essentially the same sequence of questions, which you have repeated once again in the comments above. I have no problem at all with someone questioning current models of church organization, but this sort of repetition makes it look like you think nobody else has ever thought about these topics on their own. But it just isn’t so. We’ve read the Bible, and we know that the exact organization of churches isn’t spelled out in scripture. This is not news. That does not, however, necessarily make one model or another wrong. Lots of things just aren’t spelled out explicitly in the Bible.
    Take your example church planting. We are never really shown exactly how new churches were started beyond the initial stage of evangelism–but there’s no question *that* it happened. Does that mean that “church planting” isn’t in the Bible? No, it doesn’t. Now, you may be thinking “but modern ‘church planting’ is different from that because xyz!” Great. Skip to saying xyz. We already know a, b and c.

  114. Miguel wrote:

    How is it a false dichotomy?

    You gave two options: A) Liturgical tradition. B) Tent revival style from the Second Great Awakening. I doubt that the church I attend functions much like either of those, and it seems to ignore a large swath of earlier protestant and general church history to focus on one of the more recent and less reputable points.

    Miguel wrote:

    But the traditions of the church have been the vehicle which has successfully transmitted the faith for 2 millennium.

    I would hesitate to credit the endurance of Christ’s church and the salvation of His people to any model of church organization. Especially one where much of the liturgy wasn’t even in a language the common person could understand for long periods of time.
    Frankly, I attended a liturgical church for a while, and I didn’t think it was all that special. I didn’t hate it, but I didn’t love it either. And while I don’t think it’s terribly relevant, unless you can provide some scholarly citations actually indicating that modern liturgy would resemble 1st century synagogue worship I will remain doubtful on that front. I know how little we know about the actual specifics of early church worship.

  115. Anon 1 wrote:

    Setzer makes a nice 6 figure salary at Lifeway as the expert on all things missional/church planting. yet, he has several failures under his belt and it is hard to find the info on them.

    Anon 1 — Yes, this is fascinating because a well-run organization always does a debrief and full analysis of an expensive failure.

    Either SBC hasn’t done it, or they aren’t sharing their analysis.

    What is he doing differently this time that proves that he understands what went wrong? Or does the SBC just “spiritualize” away their failures? How can they guarantee success this time unless they simply move a group of church members from an existing church to his?

    Look at the church plant successes of other denominations. Apparently other churches do a far better job than the SBC. Maybe Setzer ought to apprentice with them for a while.

  116. @ Miguel: There are – as best I can find via Google – a couple of very elderly women at Sabbathday Lake in in Maine.

    You need to hurry…

  117. @ Janey:
    Anon 1 — I just realized one more possibility:

    Maybe if *this* plant fails they will blame it on the fact that Ed has a full-time job elsewhere and couldn’t spend enough time at the new church. Automatic excuse.

    If you’re going to take on a big new venture, you need to be all in…or all out, but none of this one-foot-in-each-world approach.

    I think it will also prove that a church is more a talking head behind a podium but a living caring congregation of people who love and nurture and support each other. If Ed’s rarely there, or if he just speaks and runs, I don’t see how he can be successful.

  118. Janey:

    I believe if the higher ups of the SBC would admit it; they are clueless as to how to turn the denomination around. And I am being snarky, they really do not want to listen to the real problems.

  119. numo wrote:

    @ Garland: The Protestant liturgical churches have been using peoples’ native languages from the get-go.

    This is of course true, but I think we both were talking about the broader scope of church history. That said, I really don’t mean to give the impression that I think liturgical worship (in a comprehensible language) is wrong–I just don’t think it’s more right than other modes of organization. And I think the suggestion that non-liturgical worship is responsible for people leaving the church is flat-out wrong.

  120. Hester wrote:

    I’m curious how seminary/pastoral training would work if the attitude developed that only those 200 or so elite guys are teachers. What happens when they die? Do we only get to choose from their handpicked replacements? I smell nepotism.

    This is a good question. In the church we’ve been attending, the latest appointee as associate pastor is the son of the senior pastor. The elder board now stands at senior pastor/father, two associate pastor sons, and two non related but long time friend associate pastors. It has started to raise the hairs on the back of my neck.

    Dee & Deb, I would love to see some investigation about nepotism in the church. We have started to look around at the other evangelical churches in our area, only to learn that there’s a boatload of sons- and brothers-in-law on staff at many of these independent churches.

    We have witnessed college trained sons of pastors and elders turn down positions in other churches as they wait in minimum wage jobs for a position to open in their home church. We have seen churches refuse to consider candidates from anywhere other than their own body. It seems so…. inbred.

    Sorry to derail the topic at hand, but I would love to hear some thoughts to help me process these observations.

    As for Mr Stetzer, he seems to have a purpose, but I can’t see it properly called pastoral ministry. I love what was noted by another above, that the daily life of the church members is where real pastoring takes place.

  121. @ Garland: Well, liturgy in peoples’ native languages happened in the early centuries of the church, and continued (for most) in the Eastern Orthodox churches.

    For Western churches, say… over 500 years now, and (obviously) for some in the West (native speakers of Latin) for a few centuries as well. Latin didn’t die off overnight! (Though i do take your points.)

  122. @ numo: Oops – meant to say that Western liturgies in peoples’ native languages (during and after the Reformation) have been going on for approximately 500 years… that’s not a small span of time.

  123. mot wrote:

    I believe if the higher ups of the SBC would admit it; they are clueless as to how to turn the denomination around. And I am being snarky, they really do not want to listen to the real problems.

    They can’t afford to or the gravy train like what we are seeing with Setzer will end. The guys who are young now and counting on Guidestone ought to take another look.

  124. Garland wrote:

    And I think the suggestion that non-liturgical worship is responsible for people leaving the church is flat-out wrong.

    The old liturgies have the virtue of being finely crafted and carefully developed. They also echo down through centuries’ of shifting cultures/emphases.

    I think it is important for liturgy to emerge from culture. But when that culture has been degraded by it’s own ignorance of history, by obsessive separation from its broader culture, by over-emphasis on purity and authority at the expense of love and mercy, and by a shallowness regarding place/practice of art, its liturgy will be trite.

    In that kind of situation, which we unfortunately we have here, it is understandable that some would prefer the old liturgies, not because they are most pertinent, not because they ring with clarity to us here/now. but because they are faithful and beautifully made. Most of my artist friends who are Christians have become “high church”; many are now Orthodox.

  125. Garland wrote:

    I rarely see a post from you that isn’t asking essentially the same sequence of questions, which you have repeated once again in the comments above. I have no problem at all with someone questioning current models of church organization, but….

    I appreciate A Amos Love’s comments. He reassures me that theology means little next to the incomparable “I am who I am”, the God/man Jesus ensconced in our human past, and the astonishing Holy Ghost who roams to/fro across the earth, in/out of each of us, out to the nebulae and back, upholding all of us in love.

    His words remind me that my joy is to love this God above all and my neighbor as myself. Thus all the doctrines, all the denominations and liturgies and models, all the quibbles and scribbles (all that ever was, is, and shall be!) are only true and of genuine value when immersed in love and grace.

    A Amos Love reminds me of this. It is of great value!

  126. @ Anon 1:
    Miguel wrote:

    I want to know why Stetzer has not done an in-depth analysis why his previous church plants failed.

    It seems to me that if Stetzer understood the purpose of his job, he’d be transparent about what succeeded and failed in it. After all, that work is not about him, nor is it for himself, but for all of us and on behalf of all of us. His attitude reminds me of our gov’t’s attitude, also established/financed by “membership” and called to work on our behalf. Stetzer, like our gov’t, instead holds his product opaquely in the way that a corporation does, as if his work is proprietary and for his own profit.

    For all the church’s insistence on purity and separation, it constantly surprises me how just like broader culture it is. The community believes it is in a fierce war to salvage itself and culture by narrow incessant skirmishes along the edges of the kingdom but the battle at the center of the kingdom has long been lost.

    Re Stetzer holding onto the teaching/preaching portion of a trad pastor’s job. Perhaps he sees himself as an academic, an intellectual? If so, it’s up to the congregation to decide whether they need an academic among them, and whether they want to support him in-house rather than through a seminary or college.

    But he, like any college prof, ought to be held accountable by contract, and the value of his job to both congregation and larger church community should be clearly spelled out, particularly because of this rather ungodly proprietary tendency in him.

    W00t

  127. dee wrote:

    I want to know why Stetzer has not done an in-depth analysis why his previous church plants failed

    I have no idea how Miguel’s name, instead of Dee’s, was attached to this quote in earlier comment.

  128. @ Patrice: From my perspective, once you get into the day-to-day readings and prayers, liturgy and prayerbooks are remarkably “relevant.” I do think, though, that for those who are not accustomed to them, it takes time for this kind of prayer and order of worship to start feeling natural.

    The truth is that on any given Sunday in a liturgical church, people hear more of the actual Bible than is present in any given non-liturgical church’s proverbial month of Sundays. Every Sunday, in my neck of the woods, there are long readings from inter-related portions of the OT, the Epistles and Gospels, along with responsorial (congregational) reading and prayer from the Psalms. (They have complete texts of each week’s lessons in every church bulletin, so no need to go scrambling for bibles.)

    There’s something really profound in joining in the same liturgy/liturgical forms of prayer that have been used since fairly ancient times – somehow, it makes the phrase “communions of saints” (from the Apostles Creed) real to me in a way that nothing else ever has. And the thing is, it’s the inheritance of the entire church, not just a few old-line denominations.

  129. (off topic for this thread)
    This is from an IFB site (link).

    Go to the right hand column, under “Categories,” and then “Authority – chain of command.” That is where I got this from:

    In Ephesians 5:22 we find a less popular
    command from God: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.” Now let us quickly say that wives are not children, nor are they to be treated like children by their husbands.
    Wise husbands often ask their wives advice about things, but when decision time comes, his decision is God’s decision.
    A good wife does not have to hear God’s voice since she has God’s command through her husband.

    So…

    (1) the husband plays the role of the Holy Spirit for the wife, and
    (2) unmarried women don’t have access to God’s decisions / hearing from God

    It’s frightening that they equate a mortal man’s decisions to being God’s own decisions.

  130. Suggestion: you yourself go to Catholic mass and experience the Liturgy of the Word. It is a little complicated as to how to find the readings, so just listening will get you by for a time or two. Then go over to mega-evangelical and experience the first half of the service (what my daughter calls Disney worship) and see for yourself the difference. Ask yourself where the content of the faith is best experienced and presented and respected. Ask which experience is more about me and which is more about God. Ask which worship model is going to teach your children whatever it is that you want them to think about Christianity. And if you strongly dislike one or the other, ask yourself why you feel that way–a great way to increase one’s knowledge of oneself.

  131. @ numo:
    Do you remember back in the 70’s, when “relevant” was the word used to draw a big black line between generational concerns? We took the cake on “arrogance of youth”, I think. 😛

    Yah, old liturgies are completely relevant. But for eg, most people are annoyed or bored by classical music, which is full of pieces devoted to that same early liturgical experience. Complaints towards the old liturgy are similar. Many simply find it impossible to translate, so other avenues/methods are necessary. I just wish the other avenues were as sound and rich as the old ones.

    A few years ago, I attended a Catholic baptism on Easter Vigil at a conservative (but not latinate) Catholic church. 3 ½ hrs! I came out nauseous from voluminous incense, but it was also a corrective I will never forget. I wept when the long line of saints was read aloud. Echoes and re-echoes from the deep past grabbed and reshaped me into my proper tiny but well-loved size. The “worship leaders” became mere containers; their particular selves faded for the sake of worship.

    Do you know of any contemporary liturgy that offers this kind of experience? Are there any books of contemporary liturgy? Written liturgy is lovely for the homebound. I dug a Book of Common Prayer from my library shelves, and am gingerly incorporating it. No harm, so far!

  132. Sarah wrote:

    “Guard your flock even from other Christians”
    …really? That’s fairly weird.

    Isn’t that what blogs like TWW are all about? Guarding people from other Christians? Wouldn’t we agree that there are some Christians that people need to be guarded from?

  133. Daisy wrote:

    (2) unmarried women don’t have access to God’s decisions / hearing from God

    Ha, so she has a great excuse for doing anything she wants! Thanks for the tip! (j/k)

  134. @ Wendy Alsup:
    Agree. Bi-vocational elders need to fence their time and responsibilities. For a FT pastor to say that would seem shocking but a bi-vocational pastor may need to facilitate care that he cannot directly provide. Ideally this really releases a lot of lay ministry and the church is equipped to “one-another” better because they aren’t relying on a pastor to do all the work of ministry. I’m in a very small start up church that is just a little over one year old with a bi-vocational pastor (paid), and a part-time administrator (paid) as well as 3 other unpaid leadership team members. The pastor can’t do everything – he’s working 30+ hours a week for a non-church employer plus serving the church and maintaining family relationships.

  135. Brian wrote:

    But on the surface he seems more of a contractor than congregant.

    You nailed it. I have been trying to think of what to call this arrangement. Contractor fits perfectly!

  136. @ Patrice: That’s why I put “relevant” in quotes!

    As for prayerbooks, etc., I don’t know of anything other than the BoCP (which you have), the various Lutheran service books (with all the prayers and collects), RC missals, etc. The readings for any given day are in a lectionary, which can be quite a hefty book and a bit overwhelming!

    I have seen – somewhere or other – a couple of prayerbooks that have been published recently and aren’t associated with any denom or liturgy. You could give one of those a try. (Sorry I don’t have more info.; you can probably get the results you need by doing a few searches on Amazon.com, though.)

  137. Janey wrote:

    Daisy wrote:

    (2) unmarried women don’t have access to God’s decisions / hearing from God

    Ha, so she has a great excuse for doing anything she wants! Thanks for the tip! (j/k)

    Is that another reason for all the pressure to marry by 18?

  138. Lucy Pevensie wrote:

    This is a good question. In the church we’ve been attending, the latest appointee as associate pastor is the son of the senior pastor.

    “Associate pastor” or “Heir Apparent to the Throne.”

    The elder board now stands at senior pastor/father, two associate pastor sons, and two non related but long time friend associate pastors. It has started to raise the hairs on the back of my neck.

    TWO associate pastor sons? What happens when the old man kicks off or retires? Struggle for the Throne with dagger and poison? Who gets invited to whose Red Wedding?

    “You Win — or you Die,
    Game of Thrones…”

    Oh, the “hairs on the back of your neck” don’t matter. You’re Lowborn.

  139. Daisy wrote:

    So it’s not that I oppose a preacher calling ‘behavior thus- and- so’ a sin, what bothers me is their very harsh attitude about that topic; some will pick one (or two) particular type of sin and bloviate on that one sin (or topic not necessarily sinful) alone, constantly, or else that they treat people who do “behavior Z” like lepers or trash.

    With some preachers, that one topic may be divorce, with others, gender roles, with still others, homo5exuality, or tithing.

    But it’s always The Other Guy’s SIN SIN SIN, the one the sin-sniffer has absolutely NO chance of ever committing. “I Thank Thee, LOORD, That I Am Nothing Like That Filthy Publican Over There…”

  140. Daisy wrote:

    This book said a lot of preachers burn out after only five years, they quit, and move on to other employment. One reason is that a lot of churches want one person in charge and refuse to accept any other model.

    They expect a preacher to be the head phooba and do absolutely every thing. They demand stellar weekly Sunday sermons, and that the same guy giving the sermons also hold weddings, funerals, visit the sick. Most preachers are exhausted by all that.

    Except for those who Hunger and Thirst after Being The Head Poobah, the One in Charge. The One in POWER.

  141. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    But it’s always The Other Guy’s SIN SIN SIN, the one the sin-sniffer has absolutely NO chance of ever committing. “I Thank Thee, LOORD, That I Am Nothing Like That Filthy Publican Over There…”

    That is true, but sometimes, preachers preach on sins they themselves are committing in private.

    There have been a handful in the last few years, like the one preacher who was sending shirtless photos of himself to young men (some of them claimed he had made passes at them), whom from the pulpit was vehemently anti-homo5sexual.

    I’ve heard a few long-time preachers say on blogs and TV shows that (at least in their experience) that if a preacher lambasts sin “X” from the pulpit regularly, or with ferocity, there is a good chance it is because “X” is a sin he himself is perpetuating.

    But I can see it working the other way, too.

    Like the preachers who are so strongly anti-divorce, until their spouse divorces them.

    Then all the sudden they develop empathy for divorced people,
    (*in my Gomer Pyle voice*) “suurprise, suuurprise!” 😆

    Gomer Pyle: Surprise, Surprise

  142. SBCLayman wrote:

    elastigirl wrote:

    what kind of salary is Ed giving himself for his limited duties

    That’s between him and his church. If the church wants to pay him, fine. If he serves for free, even better.

    Actually, if they were funded by NAMB at all, it is the business of everyone in the SBC. And people are having a hard time getting the funding church plant specifics out of NAMB. Especially when it comes to funding he Acts 29 church plants. Seems the attitude in the SBC higher ranks these days it is no ones business how they spend the donated money from the pew sitters.

    Lots to answer for someday.

  143. “Guard your flock even from other Christians”

    Yeah, that is code. I would rather not get into it because hard to prove but you know it when you see it when you have been reading their stuff for ages. The thing with Ed is he puts this very irenic face on everything so he seems benign or the “ecumenical” guy who crosses the boundaries. Yet, he is one of them big time or he would not have lasted. He just works behind the scenes telling prominent bloggers what to write and when. He does a lot of wining and dining. Never forget he was pivotal in bringing the Acts 29 partnership to the SBC.

  144. “Guard your flock even from other Christians”

    That reminds me of Matt Chandler and his “scrunch the door to your church” policy.
    You gotta be like us if you want to join and that covers secondary issues too.

  145. numo wrote:

    That’s why I put “relevant” in quotes!

    Against everyone’s wishes, including my own, I tend to the wordy over the witty lol.

    Re liturgy/prayer books, thanks. BOCP is plenty for me right now. But wouldn’t it be fun to translate/renew/reform the essences of ancient worships? After all, as you amply demonstrate, there are many tunes as magnificent as Mozart’s, but wholly absorbable to hear/now ears. It would be a splendor if there were people making that also happen in church liturgy.

  146. @ Garland:
    I’m referring to the present, not earlier Protestantism. You are right to object if I was to credit our methods with the endurance of the church. That would be like crediting a hammer for building a house. (BTW, us Lutherans were the ones who led the push to put the worship in the vernacular. You’re welcome.) The point is that church tradition (not just the liturgy) is a proven, effective means to an end, and those who throw it away usually do so from a lack of understanding them. A carpenter builds a house, but he still uses a hammer. I’ve yet to meet the person who rejects their church tradition but can still articulate it’s substance and purpose. It’s not about the mass vs. the tent. It’s about continuity with the past vs. reinventing the wheel.

    Not everything of beauty and value appears “special” to all. Our worship is mundane and ordinary. HOWEVER, Christ, his words, and his death and resurrection are at the center of EVERY service, no matter what. In order to change that, we’d have to adopt a new liturgy. Evangelical services cannot say this: their structure leaves them wide open for any silly niche emphasis to lead them off on theological rabbit trails. In our churches, no matter how bad the sermon is, you still get the Gospel, permeating the worship service, from start to finish. You can’t just pretend that all traditions are equal as if it just comes down to a matter of preference. They can and do have different emphasis, focus, and substance, usually resulting from the different teaching of the church body/pastoral leadership.

    Patterns of synagogue worship can even be seen in the New Testament. It consisted of readings from scripture with exposition. They typically read from both the law and the prophets, and included the singing of Psalms. High churches read from the Old and New Testament, with singing from the Psalms. The point isn’t “getting the formula right,” but rather, giving God room to speak clearly and contextually as the heart of the service. His Words, not ours. Also, the “Words of Institution” from the mass actually predate the gospel texts, and the “preface” of the consecration also dates to the first century. The “Sanctus” predates the incarnation (see Isaiah 6). See the Didache or anything by Robert Webber for more on early church worship. We don’t need to know specifics, because we don’t claim to have perfect rites. We only insist that our rites are good, right, and salutary.

  147. “Nothin’ Comm’in But A Proverbial Big Red Brick, Perhaps?”

    What?

    @ Janey:

    “What do you do when your church members are far better educated than the pastor?”

    hmmm…

    If your church members don’t read, study and live out their bibles, what does it really matter?

    The blind leading the blind, both possibly heading for that big fat ditch, perhaps?

    …but not before they perhaps clip a few innocent victims…

    Screeeeeeeeetch!

    God’s “word” is a lamp unto  our feet, and a light unto our path?

    huh?

    Could have fooled me.

    (sadface)

    S㋡py

  148. dee wrote:

    Deb
    2.I wonder if Ed is donating his time as lead pastor? If he is giving his time for free, then I would feel better about this. After all, isn’t that what people like elders do? They work another job and donate their time to the church? Once again, I can’t fund anything about this.
    However, if he is considered a full time lead pastor and collecting a full time salary, then I find his description of his devotion to the church disheartening.

    I heard a guy once say, without shame, “I just want people to listen to me. I don’t want to have to listen to them.” This set-up sounds eerily similar.

    If Ed is being paid, this is wrong.

    If Ed is donating his time, then he should simply be an elder, as opposed to a non-shepherding ” voice to be heard.

  149. Anon 1 wrote:

    Actually, if they were funded by NAMB at all, it is the business of everyone in the SBC. And people are having a hard time getting the funding church plant specifics out of NAMB. Especially when it comes to funding he Acts 29 church plants. Seems the attitude in the SBC higher ranks these days it is no ones business how they spend the donated money from the pew sitters.

    Lots to answer for someday.

    I think if people in the SBC knew what was really being done with their donated money their would be a major decrease in giving.

    Do these leaders have no shame?

  150. I’m sorry to say, Setzer’s self-written job description is not that of a pastor, but a hireling. When the wolf comes (sickness, death, messy family problems, etc.), the hireling flees – I mean retreats to his study to write another Christian How To book.

  151. @ Patrice: Well, sometimes I know what I mean, but what I write can be less than obvious to anyone else. (something I need to work on!)

    As to prayerbooks, maybe Phyllis Tickle’s “Divine Hours” books might help? (A slight reworking of the books of hours used by Catholics, for praying at fixed times during the day and night – though of course, nobody has to stick to the format per se.) I just looked them up on amazon.com and am seriously contemplating a purchase…

  152. Miguel wrote:

    We need healthier churches, not more unhealthy, trend focused, methodologically dogmatic ones.

    YES! I happen to currently be in a wealthy area. You would not believe how many people think God is leading them to start a new church here. They arrive with 50 people, tons of money … one church started with a million dollars! and loads of activities for young people. They start, seem promising, then fizzle. I wish church planters would plop themselves down in a community and just live there with their mouths shut and their church plant/growth strategies out of mind for 4 years. It works very well on foreign mission fields. You have to listen to what people are saying. Listen for the overall consensus and the moments of great insight BEFORE you think you know what the people need.

    Though this area is wealthy, an innovative Christian school has moved into the area and quietly won over many non-Christian kids and their families. There is a depth and they are desiring real fellowship, not flash, not glitz, not programs to occupy their time … and certainly NOT smoke in the sanctuary with the disco ball lights! Yes, we do have that here. ugh!

  153. Daisy wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    But it’s always The Other Guy’s SIN SIN SIN, the one the sin-sniffer has absolutely NO chance of ever committing. “I Thank Thee, LOORD, That I Am Nothing Like That Filthy Publican Over There…”

    That is true, but sometimes, preachers preach on sins they themselves are committing in private.

    In that case, you have a different dynamic in play: Self-treatment in Secret.

    Remember the one about how a lot of psychiatrists/psychologists are closet crazies who go into the field so they can self-treat without anyone ever finding out? Remember Billy Sunday, WW1-era Celebrity Preacher and recovering alcoholic preaching “another Gospel” Against Demon Rum? Remember Rush Limbaugh, Number-One Fanboy of the War on Drugs while fighting/hiding a secret Oxycontin addiction? Remember Ted Haggard, who could have understudied for Fred Phelps until he got caught with a male prostie?

    All these are guys who KNOW they have a Secret Sin and can’t ever go public with it. So they preach against it as a form of self-treatment. It’s especially bad if you’re a CELEBRITY Megachurch Man-o-Gawd, because A Perfect Spiritual Giant cannot be seen to have ANY flaw whatsoever. (Double Especially if your CELEBRITY Preacher status comes with statements like bragging how many bodies you’ve thrown under your Gigachurch bus.) And it just keeps building and building until one day everything blows sky-high.

  154. Patrice

    Thank you so very much for your kind words. Much appreciated… 🙂

    I had been thinking about asking Garland today, Why he thinks I post the way I do?
    Why the comments? – Why? Repeating the similar questions over and over again?
    And ending the comments – Always trying to point folks to {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    And Maybe even trying to explain myself – Or is that defend myself? 🙁

    BUT – Your explanation, your having my back, blessed me so.

    And your explanation is much better then my best Madison Ave impression.

    “His words remind me that my joy is to love this God above all and my neighbor as myself.”

    I feel satisfied today – At peace…

    Yesterday I was concerned – Doubting, questioning myself, my motives…

    Your words are a breath of fresh air – And I’ll see you as an Angel – a messenger from God…

    John 15:11
    These things have I spoken unto you, (Thru Patrice)
    that my joy might remain in you,
    and that your joy might be full.

    Thank you for helping me experience His JOY…

    Much Joy today… 🙂

  155. @ Daisy:

    P.S. Daisy? Gomer Pyle is an actual dialect/accent. I once ran into someone with that exact accent and delivery. He was from rural Oklahoma. Apparently Gomer Pyle’s delivery was a stage version of an actual rural Oklahoma accent and dialect.

  156. @ Katie:

    They have enough money to travel the world and amuse themselves to death in great style. They don’t want more of that, especially because the fanciest churches can’t even keep up with what’s inside their own homes. They want genuine relationships. They want to be able to ask questions to learn, not enter a new church building and pretend they already know.

    The Christian high school doesn’t require the kids be Christians and helps them to discover what their world view is. The process is enlightening. Between realizing what one actually believes/acts on and their service trips to 3rd world countries, many kids end up with real heart changes that spread to their families. The school is unapologetically Christian, but patient and winsome in their sharing the gospel.

  157. Just want to note that several people who seem to know Stetzer speak well of his character. In light of that, I hope that maybe he just didn’t explain what he’s thinking well, or that he’s just got a bad idea this time and hadn’t fully thought it through. Since this is his 3rd time at attempting to plant a church with the SBC money, and the others failed, I’m concerned at his current choice.

  158. Anon 1 wrote:

    SBCLayman wrote:
    elastigirl wrote:
    what kind of salary is Ed giving himself for his limited duties
    That’s between him and his church. If the church wants to pay him, fine. If he serves for free, even better.
    Actually, if they were funded by NAMB at all, it is the business of everyone in the SBC. And people are having a hard time getting the funding church plant specifics out of NAMB. Especially when it comes to funding he Acts 29 church plants. Seems the attitude in the SBC higher ranks these days it is no ones business how they spend the donated money from the pew sitters.
    Lots to answer for someday.

    NOOOOOoooooooooo! This is so Calvary Chapelesque! You give money, we spend how we want. No questions asked, no answers given. We ALL know better! Give you money to the needs of people you come in contact with, not a mega church or org that won’t answer for how they spend the money and be held accountable.

  159. About giving money and asking no further questions. Used to be that every January was stewardship month in SBC churches, and every January we again focused on the prophet Malachi regarding tithing. More than once I have heard it emphasized from the pulpit that there was corruption in the religious system to which the people were nevertheless required to bring tithes. And that, therefore, tithing did not have anything to do with how non-corrupt the situation was, one was required to tithe to the local church regardless. With slight emphasis on how fortunate one was that the current situation was not corrupt. Actually, the sermon took lots longer to make the point, and was more circuitous in reasoning in the way it was said, but that was part of the message none the less.

    I never thought about it before, but I wonder why they thought it was necessary to say that?

  160. Josh wrote:

    Have you heard about this “Harbinger” video that came out … uh, in internet time, ages … ago? Unlike our timely blog hosts, I find out about things like this a year or two too late. But anyway, the video makes the case that 9/11 was the first in a series of ever increasing judgements that God will punish the US with because we broke our covenant with him (or something like that).

    Had my fill of the same old, same old during the late Cold War:

    “GOD’S JUDGMENT FOR AMERICA’S SINS SITS READY AND WAITING IN THE NUCLEAR MISSILE SILOS OF THE SOVIET UNION!!!!!”
    — radio preacher from the Seventies

    Just now it’s 9/11 instead of Global Thermonuclear War. Other than that, same old same old. Does God do anything besides Punish Punish Punish?

  161. Katie wrote:

    Just want to note that several people who seem to know Stetzer speak well of his character. In light of that, I hope that maybe he just didn’t explain what he’s thinking well, or that he’s just got a bad idea this time and hadn’t fully thought it through. Since this is his 3rd time at attempting to plant a church with the SBC money, and the others failed, I’m concerned at his current choice.

    Katie, It does not go unnoticed that he makes his 6 figure living as a public communicator so I would think ‘not explaining what he is thinking very well’ is not an option? He is touted by the SBC as the expert on church planting and missions so I would have thought he would have ‘thought it through’ when he decided to do it again with other people’s money. It’s the “other people’s money” that concerns me. Don’t forget his salary comes from Lifeway which would not exist except for the SBC propping it up.

    At some point, there needs to be accountability no matter how nice one comes off. But until the nice pew sitters in the SBC decide to withhold their donations, it will continue as always.

  162. Patrice wrote:

    In that kind of situation, which we unfortunately we have here, it is understandable that some would prefer the old liturgies, not because they are most pertinent, not because they ring with clarity to us here/now. but because they are faithful and beautifully made. Most of my artist friends who are Christians have become “high church”; many are now Orthodox.

    And most of the Christian SF & Fantasy authors well-regarded in the mainstream came from Western-Rite Liturgical Churches. “High Church” authors gave us Middle-Earth, Narnia, the Instrumentality of Man; Born-Again Bible-Believing(TM) “Low Church” authors gave us the likes of Left Behind.

  163. Katie wrote:

    Just want to note that several people who seem to know Stetzer speak well of his character. In light of that, I hope that maybe he just didn’t explain what he’s thinking well, or that he’s just got a bad idea this time and hadn’t fully thought it through

    The problem with that argument is that church planting using the SBC method is very expensive: A 6-figure investment, the way these gentlemen do it. And Ed has failed numerous times.

    This is such an embarrassment for LifeWay.

    When a guy like Ed Setzer has an executive position, his own research blog, and a 6-figure salary, and is commissioned to create a “model church plant,” he’s better not fail. The mystery is that he keeps his job, which means that either he has very powerful friends or he’s very good at talking his way out of it.

    These are expensive experiments at a time when church attendance is down and young Baptists are walking away from the flock. Setzer hasn’t been able to find a working formula for church planting. Other denominations do so much better than the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Ed, if your church plants are all failures, you’re doing it wrong. (Hint: You may actually have to have relationships with people. Gasp.)

  164. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Had my fill of the same old, same old during the late Cold War:
    “GOD’S JUDGMENT FOR AMERICA’S SINS SITS READY AND WAITING IN THE NUCLEAR MISSILE SILOS OF THE SOVIET UNION!!!!!”
    – radio preacher from the Seventies
    Just now it’s 9/11 instead of Global Thermonuclear War. Other than that, same old same old. Does God do anything besides Punish Punish Punish?

    Some things never change, do they? I have to run, it’s time for rapture practice in the back yard.

  165. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    “High Church” authors gave us Middle-Earth, Narnia, the Instrumentality of Man; Born-Again Bible-Believing(TM) “Low Church” authors gave us the likes of Left Behind.

    Odd, really, isn’t it? A kind of cultural barbarism also in the church. Art went “avant garde” a long time ago, settling happily into obscurity. Most of the rest of the creatives went into the design and sale of products. Writing and music are the two arts that maintained cultural relevance but not even they kept life in the general church community.

    Anyway, we USians passively receive all our art while sitting (except on those rare occasions we dance). Perhaps that passivity interspersed with incessant commercialization does something to the psyche after a while. “Leave it to the experts” but the expert-artists have lost their complex context so they too suffer from imaginative poverty?

    I don’t know.

  166. “Smitten By Sultans of Religious Swave?”

    hmmm…

     For after kind folk have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, they are succumb by the prodigious wrangling of the sultans of religious “swave?”

    What?

    …preach the word of God; be ready in and out of season; to reprove, rebuke, exhort, but with great sense of patience and gentle instruction?

    huh?

    For the time will come when folks will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their itchy ears tickled, – they will accumulate for themselves religious Brahmin in accordance with their own natural bent, and will turn away their ears from the truth (their feet will soon follow) and they will turn aside to religo-mirth-psychobabble?

    (tears)

    hum, hum, hum…

    …♪♫♪ There are unsmiling pew faces, in bright neon religious chains,
    Succumbing to a mega-church wheel in perpetual motion,
    And they follow the rat-race that pays out no gains,
    from a pulpit with no show of an outwardly kind emotion,
    And they think it will make their lives easier,
    For God knows, up till now it’s been hard,
    But the religious game never ends when your whole world depends…

    On the word of a friendly pastor?

    hmmm…

    (sadface)

    S“㋡”py
    ___
    “The Alan Parsons Project – The Turn Of A Friendly Card ” lyrics writen by Alan Parsons and Norman Eric Woolfson. ; Lyrics © Arista Records (parody adaptation, US Title 17 infringement unintended.) 

    ;~)

  167. Here scripture and song to think about:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUYvjiR5Qco

    Matthew 20:25-28
    New American Standard Bible (NASB
    25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His [a]life a ransom for many.”

  168. not trying to prooftext or anything but here are a couple of other verses that stand out
    James 1:27
    Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
    James 1:26-27

    Micah 6:8
    He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

    Mark 9:33-37 ESV
    And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.”

    Matthew 11:29 ESV
    Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

  169. Garland – Patrice – Daisy – Anyone

    Was wondering….
    Have you checked out these two EX-pastors? – One 33 yrs – One 3 yrs.
    Who say – “There aren’t any *church pastors* in the New Testament”
    Do you have any thoughts on “NO *church pastors* in the New Testament”?

    —————-

    The Glass Pastor – “Casting Off The Task-Masters”
    http://theglasspastor.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/casting-off-the-task-masters/

    “Don’t get me wrong, for my part I did my best to play the role of ‘pastor’, but I always knew that I would not be able to really pull it off. First of all, I didn’t really buy it. **There aren’t any church pastors in the New Testament,** and I could never get past that.”

    —————–

    “I’ve Resigned from Professional Pastoring”
    http://eric-carpenter.blogspot.com/2010/09/ive-resigned-from-professional.html

    “I’m not sure how else to say this, so here it is:
    I’ve resigned from professional pastoring.

    After much study of scripture, prayer, discussions with some of my friends, and reading good books, I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer in good conscience remain a salaried pastor. I cannot find it anywhere in the bible, so I’m not going to do it.”

    —————–

    Seems the only one in the NT with the “Title/Position” Shepherd/Leader
    Is…

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

  170. “God So Loved?”

    @ asachild

    HowDee,

    I try so hard sometimes to find the right words to say,
    To let kind folks know how great is this God to whom I pray,
    I don ‘t think anything will ever compare to calling upon Him and having Him answer.

    Wow!

    I once ask the Lord for copy of a little book that I found in a gift shop in the mall one day, I was a year old, in the Lord. I didn’t have the money, you see – so I just prayed…Lord please. 

    (latter that day…)

    On my way home from the mall several feet in front of me on the sidewalk about a mile from the mall was a little small book that was face down in the center of the sidewalk directly in my path. 

    As I reached the location, I reach down an picked it up, and as I did so, my lit’l heart skipped a beat. There lying on the sidewalk was the very book title, missing its cover,  that I had prayed for not an hour before.

    I kid you not!

    This lit’l sparrow prayed, an the Lord heard my cry…

    Sweeeeeeeet  Jesus!   🙂

    “As a man thinketh in his heart so is he…”  ~ An Old Testament Proverb.

    Blessings!

    S“㋡”py

  171. Sopwith wrote:

    As I reached the location, I reach down an picked it up, and as I did so, my lit’l heart skipped a beat. There lying on the sidewalk was the very book title, missing its cover, that I had prayed for not an hour before.

    I kid you not!

    Amazing story!

  172. @ A. Amos Love:
    I would say there are overseers/elders in scripture, as well as an authority structure. Paul says things like “I do not permit”.

    So while there may not be a title of “pastor”, the idea of having leadership is there.

  173. Jeff S

    You write…
    “I would say there are overseers/elders in scripture, as well as an authority structure.

    Do these elder/overseers have to meet the tough qualifications in 1 Tim 3 and Titus?

    Have you ever wondered? Why? – Paul gives such tough qualifications in 1 Tim 3:1-6, and Titus 1:5-9, for Elder/Overseer if NOT important? For something? For some purpose?

    Can we dismiss them all? How many are NOT important? Which ones are NOT important?

    If someone calls themself an elder/overseer – and they do NOT Qualify…

    What would you call them?

    And what do you mean by “an authority structure.”?

    Jesus taught His Disciples – NOT to “Exercise Authority” Like the gentiles – but be serveants.

    Mark 10:42-43 KJV
    But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them,
    Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles
    exercise lordship over them; and their great ones **exercise authority** upon them.
    But so shall it not be among you: but
    whosoever will be great among you, shall be your *minister: (*Servant)

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

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

  174. @ A. Amos Love:
    I think they DO need to meet those qualifications.

    I agree that Christians ought to not exercise authority like the gentiles, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there is no authority within the church.

    By example, we do see Paul and other NT writers assuming authority. But the key is, in doing so these leaders were doing so in service to others, not for others to serve them.

    To say it differently, what you DO see is Paul writing in a way that he expects others to do what he tells them to do. What you do NOT see is Paul saying for others to do things for his benefit. Everything he says is for their good, even when he speaks harshly (such as in Galatians).

  175. Sopwith,

    I had much the same experience early in my walk with the Lord. A book I wanted and no money. Next day unexpected money arrived in the mail and the book was mine! God is sooo good!

    It’s a reminder for me during times I might think He’s not listening….

  176. @ Jeff S:
    Jeff S

    If elder/overseers do NOT meet the tough qualifications?
    Can they still be a part of “an authority structure?”

    And I still do NOT understand what you mean by “an authority structure.”

    Authority to do what?
    And who has this “Authority?”
    How do I recognise who has this Authority?

  177. I think people debate exactly what authority structure looks like in the church. So the answers to your other questions largely are answered by individual churches trying to implement what they view as the right way to run a church.

    But as to how you recognize who has authority, it should be spelled out by the church itself. You should be clear when you join a church what the structure is and how it is applied.

    I’m not sure what is unclear about the words “authority structure”. It’s how we structure authority within the church. I’m trying to think of another way to say it and am not coming up with anything. I’m sorry 🙁

    Do you deny that Paul said things he expected other people to follow? Why did he expect them to do what he said, especially when he uses words like “I do not permit”?

    I think the idea of authority is clearly there, though how it might look exactly, or should look in today’s churches, might not be explicitly spelled out. But it should all be in the context of servant leadership.

  178. @ Jeff S:
    Jeff S

    See – Even you can NOT explain what is “an authority structure.”

    You write…
    “You should be clear when you *join a church* what the structure is and how it is applied.”

    In the Bible – Did anyone – *join a church*?
    Go to church? – Lead a church? – Pastor a church? – Give money to a church?

    In the Bible – Did anyone – establish “an authority structure” – in a church?

  179. Jeff S

    You speak about “Authority.”

    Authority to do what?
    And who has this “Authority?”
    How do I recognise who has this Authority?

  180. Pingback: Ed Stetzer and the Four Fence Posts that Define His Ministry | The … |

  181. A. Amos Love wrote:

    See – Even you can NOT explain what is “an authority structure.”

    I can. It’s how authority is structured within the church. It’s a self-explanatory term.

  182. A. Amos Love wrote:

    You write…
    “You should be clear when you *join a church* what the structure is and how it is applied.”
    In the Bible – Did anyone – *join a church*?
    Go to church? – Lead a church? – Pastor a church? – Give money to a church?

    Yes- to all of the above. And by “join a church” I did not mean “sign a paper and get on the roll”, but certainly people started meeting together as local bodies. I’ve joined many a group just by showing up.

  183. A. Amos Love wrote:

    In the Bible – Did anyone – establish “an authority structure” – in a church?

    Well Paul established his authority, as did other Apostles. And then there were the Overseers and guidelines (yes I’ve read them). And yes, there appeared to be leaders of churches.

  184. A. Amos Love wrote:

    Authority to do what?
    And who has this “Authority?”
    How do I recognise who has this Authority?

    You already asked these questions, and I already provided an answer: ” . . . the answers to your other questions largely are answered by individual churches trying to implement what they view as the right way to run a church.”

  185. Janey wrote:

    Katie wrote:

    “…. I hope that maybe he just didn’t explain what he’s thinking well, or that he’s just got a bad idea this time and hadn’t fully thought it through”

    The problem with that argument is that church planting using the SBC method is very expensive: A 6-figure investment, the way these gentlemen do it. And Ed has failed numerous times.

    These are expensive experiments … Setzer hasn’t been able to find a working formula for church planting.

    Ed, if your church plants are all failures, you’re doing it wrong. (Hint: You may actually have to have relationships with people. Gasp.)

    I think you are right. He might have to be less efficient and get dirty muck’in it up with the people. Or recognize this is not the job/ministry for him?

  186. Jeff S wrote:

    Well Paul established his authority, as did other Apostles. And then there were the Overseers and guidelines (yes I’ve read them). And yes, there appeared to be leaders of churches.

    How did Paul establish “his” authority? He did not stay long in one place so not sure how that would work. Are you saying the fact they believed him and listened to him is “authoritative”? How exactly did his authority play out? I am not really understanding this in practical terms. Can you give me an example?

  187. “At Grace Church, there are three things and ONLY three things that I do: 

    1. I worship Jesus.
    2. I pray to Him daily.
    3. I read and study and live out my Bible daily, encouraging others to do the same.”

    ~ Ed Stetzer, Senior Pastor, Grace Church.

    What?

    TheseThings Define His Ministry?

    hmmm…

    In a perfect 501c church world…

    Perhaps?

    (sadface)

    Ed, R U  just another stupid clergy drunk pastor, full of sheepskins and accolades, when the one ‘we’ are trying to serve had no place in which to lay his head.

    Context?

    What context?

    The Cost of Following Jesus?

    What?!?

    Ed Stetzer: “Jesus, I will follow You wherever You go!”

    Jesus: “The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” 

    Ed, maybe you would be better off if you went back to your Den.

    The lit’l sparrows will be ok, I can assure you.

    (please show him, Jesus)

    Sopy

  188. Jeff S wrote:

    Well Paul established his authority, as did other Apostles. And then there were the Overseers and guidelines (yes I’ve read them). And yes, there appeared to be leaders of churches.

    I will disagree, Jeff. I know this is a weird thing to say but I do not believe in human authority inside the church.

    I think about my old gang of friends: we met once a week at a bar, otherwise helped each other out as needed, shared occasional meals and tools, etc. We had various character/intellectual strengths and areas of expertise, and gave what was needed. What use is there for “authority” in a group of friends?

    Of course, we also had misunderstandings and fallings-out; twice we had to go through a kind of formal procedure to settle it and a couple people left. But there was no need for “discipline” or covenants or lawyers and insurance policies to create perpetual distance/wedge. And it would have been deeply disturbing to the balance of the group if one of us regularly preached at the others.

    In the institutional church (as it is), some organizational structures are needed. But they are like the framing of a house and the church itself is a committed gathering of friends. There is no place for power-over or power-under. There is only God above all and our neighbors as ourselves.

    I will never again attend a church that doesn’t take this shape. ISTM that power-hunger is at the root of human evil and hierarchy is a structure that nurtures it.

  189. @ Anon 1:
    Well, for example, in 1 Timothy 2:12 he says “I do not permit . . ” I realize there’s a lot of disagreement about the application of that verse, but it seems to me he was speaking with the expectation that what he “permitted” would be followed. That sounds like an authority to me.

    The beginning of Galations: “Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—” and then later: “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”

    He is establishing his authority, and his authority is based on the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    And to be clear, when I say “his” authority, I mean that he spoke with authority given from God.

    In practical terms, Paul wrote all of these letters instructing the local bodies on doctrine and calling them to repent and change their ways when they were sinful. He rebukes them and they listen. Clearly he carried some kind of weight.

    And he wasn’t the only one. We know James was a leader in the early church, and we even have Paul talking about those “esteemed as pillars” in Galations 2. In Acts 15 there’s the Council at Jerusalem, where clearly elders and men of high regard were chosen to make some critical decisions in the early church.

    I’m not using “authority” in the sense of an “iron fist that must be obeyed”. I’m talking about leadership, the kind that makes critical decisions in service for its people. Jesus, the ultimate authority, washed his disciples feet and called true leaders to serve.

    But there is a structure. There are certain people who were respected and wrote letters that others trusted to tell them what was right and good, and there were certain people who were given the task of making big decisions. I also think there were leaders of home churches (and some of these were women, I think).

    I just can’t read the NT without seeing some kind of structure where there were people given special tasks to lead within the church.

    Now if you ask ME how I think it looks, what I would say is that a church should have elders, elected by the people of the church, to lead. I do not think there should be a single powerful leader who is “more” of an elder than the others, though I think it makes sense to have an elder (or two) whose primary role is teaching.

    But that’s just my opinion from what I read in scripture (and I haven’t studied very thoroughly). I know there’s a lot of debate between leadership structures within the church.

  190. @ Patrice:
    FWIW, I don’t think “authority” is about power. It’s about a role to serve.

    Like when I am a worship leader, I take a form of authority over the worship team. It’s not a God-given authority in this instance, it’s just pragmatic organization. And people can leave if they want, and if I do what is best for ME rather than what is best for the group, then I am not a good leader. But if my skill and motives are good, when I tell the drummer to back off and play quieter, he should do so because we have common goals and he trusts me to make that kind of decision. I believe that is authority, but I only get it if I demonstrate that I am worth listening to.

  191. @ Jeff S:

    As far as authority means Paul was telling the truth and teaching correct beliefs about Jesus, I’m fine.

    I do see a basis for saying Paul (and the 12) had authority along those lines. Paul at one point appealed to the fact that he had met Christ in person to say that he was just as much an Apostle as were the 12 who had met Christ in person previously.

    Even in Paul’s day, some people were claiming to be Christian but teaching all kinds of false things about Jesus or salvation. Paul had to spend the whole letter to the Galatians explaining that salvation is by faith alone. In another letter or two, he had to clear up that Gentiles are not expected to be circumcised, etc etc.

    And Paul had the right to make those corrections because he had known Christ and was told by Christ and the Holy Spirit to start churches and stuff.

  192. “Be A ‘Religious’ 501c Non- SUBSCRIBER?”

    huh?

    People who believe in Jesus don’t need to meet in a fancy expensive building, paying professional religion people they don’t really know money for ‘religious’ product.

    People who really believe in Jesus ARE The church!

    “The church is people!!!!!!!”

    (sorry,” ‘Soylent Green’ “ moment… )

    Gump.

    They can gather “anywhere” Five Guys, Chick-Fil-a, the park, the library, the comunity center, their own upper room, etc…

    *

    @ Jeff S

    Pastors only get authority  if they demonstrate that ‘they’ are worth listening to?

    hmmm…

    That’ll be the day!

    Ha! Ha!

    The [best?!?] 501c ‘church’ pastors control the means of production.

    -gross-

    In today’s 501c religious non-profit churches, pastors are ‘selling’ a product.

    I don’t believe it really about Jesus any more. 

    When you can go a whole 501c church service and not hear Jesus’ name, or something that He said or encouraged others to do, something is very, very wrong.

    Screeeeeeeeeeetch!!!!

    People today are so gullible, they are paying for product. It is not about giving any more. Tithing has become an clergycal entitlement enrichment program, to say the least.

    The religious 501c mega church, is drunk with other-people’s money (OPM). 

    You are suckered into paying some ten percent of you pre-tax dollars to purchase product.  Yet your ‘time’ there in ‘their building’ is ‘leased’: You are ‘there’ at their discretion. 

    Yet, if you believe in Jesus and don’t SCRIBE to their 501c religious non-profit, you are declared biblically in default. They got you coming and going. hahahahahaha …what a racket! 

    *

    Have you become a NONE?

    What it truly means is that you are possibly not a NONE, but “a non-501c religious establishment subscriber”. (NES)

    These proverbial clergyic pulpit pounders are now using the bible as what? a piece of cold blue steel?

    Scary.

    Guilt, Sin, Shame, and Shunning, are their ammunition of choice.

    Ask Mahaney.

    They get a sheepskin, (or not) get a couple of guys ta fix it for them and poof! instant authority:

    “Ya havta listen ta MEEEEEEE, cuz I am in Religious AUTHORITY over you! I have this here piece of paper, I have this here bible. See, See, See!” 

    How sick is that?

    Great! Madison, Jay, and Hamilton,

    Where are the checks and balances? Where are the safeguards?

    Are there any?

    Just maybe you’ll be better off telling ‘them’ you believe in Jesus, and read your bible, and love your neighbor as Jesus’ prescribed, but that you don’t SUSCRIBE to their 501c religious non-profit church organization/non-profit business n-o-n-s-e-n-s-e.

    Whoa!

    breath , Sopy, breath…

    (the zeal for my Father’s house has eaten me up?)

    Surely, these guys must be learning…

    Still my soul gently “weeps…”

    Sopy

  193. Jeff S wrote:

    FWIW, I don’t think “authority” is about power. It’s about a role to serve.

    Because you are not enchanted by visions of power, I’’ll bet you do an excellent job uniting individual musicians/readers for the purpose of worship. It is not people like you that are problems—you would do beautifully in any kind of structure.

    But the scent of power hangs around the words “authority” and “leader”. Cf dictionary. It’s an attractor, flowers to bees. And the hierarchical structures behind them nurture visions of power.

    Maybe the most obvious sign that this structure doesn’t work well for the church is that it demands general membership to be constantly on guard against the power-hungry (who unfortunately don’t come tattooed 🙂 ). We all need to be alert to our human tendency-to-wrong both inside of ourselves and in the group, but the way we have structured church requires guards 24/7 because the system is vulnerable to the very thing that humans are constantly inclined to get wrong.

    Seems problematic to me.

  194. @ Jeff S:

    I’ve heard teaching that Paul was using “I don’t permit . . . ” to make it clear that it was a Pauline decision and not in anyway a “God does not permit . . .” In other words, Paul was not permitting a specific situation to take place. Paul was not implying that it was God ordained for all times in all situations.

  195. @ Bridget:

    Bingo, Bridget.

    He also suggests, “Let her learn” which denotes, let her learn first….It is more like I am not now permitting….and it was A woman. Not all women. I think Timothy was obviously “asking” about situations and Paul was giving advice.

  196. Patrice wrote:

    Jeff S wrote:
    FWIW, I don’t think “authority” is about power. It’s about a role to serve.

    Wouldn’t “responsibility” fit better when we are the priesthood of believer?

  197. Bridget:

    I think that verse in Timothy has been greatly abused particularly by Southern Baptists.

  198. Anon 1 wrote:

    Patrice wrote:
    Jeff S wrote:
    FWIW, I don’t think “authority” is about power. It’s about a role to serve.
    Wouldn’t “responsibility” fit better when we are the priesthood of believer?

    Perhaps. I guess it also matters our experiences with authority. I’ve not run into many of the authoritarian type churches that cause such a consternation around here. Even the church where I did have problems the elders said to me “if you believe we are wrong, then you must follow what you believe God has called you to”, so they were hardly the authoritarians of the likes of SGM. To me, “authority” doesn’t carry the same connotations I think it does to others. That is probably why it doesn’t scare me.

    I do think when you have someone called an “overseer” who has a list of qualifications in scripture, it does speak of a group of individuals with special responsibility (to user your word) in the church. What that responsibility is or how it is carried out is something over which there is much debate.

  199. @ TedS.:

    I hope the members of the church respond in kind. What a sweet job he has. Reminds me of Fiddler on the roof: If I were I rich man…

  200. Jeff S

    You write..
    “I do think when you have someone called an “overseer”
    who has a list of qualifications in scripture”

    Are you an elder/overseer?
    Do you meet ALL the qualifications?
    Do your elder/overseers meet ALL the qualifications?

    I my experience – Most in “Todays Religious System” – “Ignore” these tough qulificatios.

    You say Paul had a type of “Authority” because you write…
    “Paul says things like “I do not permit”.

    Well, maybe? Did his “authority” to speak come from “Position?”
    Or because the Saints – Knew him – And trusted him?

    Let me ask – For you and with “someone called an “overseer” who has a list of qualifications”
    Does Paul also speak with this “Authority” when he begins the Qualifications with “Must be?”

    Titus 1:6-8 KJV
    6 If any be *blameless,* the husband of one wife,
    having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
    7 For a bishop “must be” *blameless,* as the steward of God; not self willed,
    not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
    8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, *just,* *holy,* temperate;

    1 – For a bishop (overseer) “must be” *blameless.*

    That *must be* is the same Greek word as: …You *must be* born again. John 3:7.
    *Must Be* – Strongs #1163, die. – It is necessary (as binding).
    *Must Be* – Thayer’s – necessity established by the counsel and decree of God.
    Seems to be a small word – but very important. Yes? Is – Blameless – important?

    1 – Blameless – Strongs #410 anegkletos – unaccused, irreproachable, blameless.
    Blameless – Thayers – that cannot be called into account, unreproveable, unaccused.
    Blameless – Dictionary – Without fault, innocent, guiltless, not meriting censure.

    1 Tim 3:2 ASV – The bishop therefore must be without reproach…
    1 Tim 3:2 NIV – Now the overseer must be above reproach…
    1 Tim 3:2 NLT – For an elder must be a man whose life cannot be spoken against.

    How many “pastor/elder/overseers,” who honestly examine themselves,
    seriously considering this one **qualification,** (*Must Be* **Blameless,**)
    can see themselves as **Blameless,** without fault, above reproach,
    and thus qualify to be an “pastor/elder/overseer?”

    And if you can see yourself as **blameless:** Is that pride?
    And no longer without fault? Oy Vey! 😉

    Aren’t ALL the requirements important? Which one’s can we ignore?

  201. Jeff S

    Here’s two more qualifications from Titus for “elder/overseer”
    that most who want to be a “pastor/elder/overseer” – today – tend to *Ignore* and “Twist.”

    Titus 1:6-8 KJV
    6 If any be *blameless,* the husband of one wife,
    having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
    7 For *a bishop must be blameless,* as the steward of God; not selfwilled,
    not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
    8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, *just,* *holy,* temperate;

    2 – Just
    Strongs #1342 – dikaios {dik’-ah-yos} from 1349;
    Thayers – 1) righteous, observing divine laws
    1a) in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
    1a1) of those who seem to themselves to be righteous,
    who pride themselves to be righteous, whether real or imagined
    1a2) innocent, faultless, guiltless
    1a3) used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting
    is wholly conformed to the will of God,
    and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life

    3 – Holy
    Strongs #3741 – hosios {hos’-ee-os}
    Thayers – 1) undefiled by sin, free from wickedness,
    religiously observing every moral obligation, pure holy, pious.

    Now that’s three tough qualifications for “pastor/elder/overseers.”
    1 – Must Be Blameless. 2 – Just. 3 – Holy. — Yes?

    Makes an interesting study – checking out ALL these tough qualifications for “pastor/elder/overseers.” – Then checking out those who say they are “pastor/elder/overseers,” compared to the qualifications. 🙂

    I was ordained. I was in “Leadership.” Folks told me I had this so-called “Gift of Leadership.” 🙁
    And I “Ignored” these qualifications for elder/overseer. 🙁

    Pro 29:5 KJV
    A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet.

    Pro 20:17 KJV
    Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.

    I believed the flattery – I was special – I was needed – To build the body of Christ.
    I deceived myself and wound up eating a lot of gravel. 🙁

    When you believe the lie you start to die…

  202. I am not an elder.
    Our elders DO meet the qualifications.
    I do think Paul’s authority came from people knowing and trusting him rather than position.

    Regarding your discussion of “blameless”- I’m unsure what you are getting at. “Blameless” CANNOT mean “without sin”, because if it did, no one would qualify. You appear to understand the qualifications in a way that no one could measure up to. That does not make sense to me, so I see them as establishing that the person must be someone who lives a generally righteous life and is well regarded by all.

    If your contention is that there are no leaders because the Bible gives qualifications for them that no one could meet, then we will have to agree to disagree.

    And I believe leadership is not positional, but earned by gaining the trust of the congregation. The covenant at my church explicitly states this.

  203. @ Jeff S:
    Jeff S

    You write…
    “so I see them as establishing that the person must be someone
    who lives *a generally righteous life* and is *well regarded by all.*”

    Are you saying – Paul saying – “Must Be” Blameless – Should be “Ignored?”
    Or, Replaced with – *a generally righteous life* and is *well regarded by all.*”???

    Are “your” qualifications for “elder/overeer” *a generally righteous life* – *well regarded by all.*
    Found in the – Qualifications for “elder/overeer” in 1 Tim 3:1-6, and Titus 1:5-9?

    And I did NOT write these qualifications – Paul wrote them…
    1 – For a bishop (overseer) “must be” *blameless.* (unreproveable, unaccused, innocent.)
    2 – Just. – (righteous, observing divine laws, innocent, faultless, guiltless.)
    3 – Holy. – (undefiled by sin, free from wickedness, religiously observing every moral obligation)

    And your reply confirms my suspicions…
    “Most who desire to be an elder/overseer “Ignore” or “Twist” the “Qualifications” in 1 Tim 3:1-6, and Titus 1:5-9, so they could obtain for themselves this “Position” of – Power – Profit – Prestige. 🙁

  204. @ A. Amos Love:
    No. I am not saying that should be ignored. Are you saying that God would establish a position in the church that no one could fill? I think my interpretation of the requirements are correct. You differ in your understanding. Can we just leave it there? Why must every disagreement over interpretation of scripture end with someone claiming someone else is “twisting” scripture? I don’t really think I’ve warranted such a harsh accusation.

    Finally I don’t see how my reply proves anything about those who desire to elder, since I don’t desire that at all.

  205. Jeff S

    You ask a reasonable question…
    “Are you saying that God would establish a position in the church that no one could fill?”

    I too have asked this question. I do have some thoughts about this. When I first realized that I didn’t measure up to the “Qualifications” it was a troubling time. BUT, wanting to hold on to the Power, Profit, Prestige, Honor, Glory, Recognition, and Reputation, that comes with being in “Leadership” I learned to “Ignore” and cover up those character defects. Eventually God got thru to me. I had to humble myself, admit I didn’t meet the “Qualifications” and forsake all.

    And “the harsh accusation” is NOT at you – But for all – Yes ALL – myself included…
    Who have, and will, “Ignore” or “Twist” the “Qualifications” in 1 Tim 3:1-6, and Titus 1:5-9.
    I did.

    Just ask your – elder/overseers – If they Qualify according to just these three – there’s over 15…
    1 – For a bishop (overseer) “must be” *blameless.* (unreproveable, unaccused, innocent.)
    2 – Just. – (righteous, observing divine laws, innocent, faultless, guiltless.)
    3 – Holy. – (undefiled by sin, free from wickedness, religiously observing every moral obligation)

    And see what they say?

    When I ask – I get this – just the other day…
    “**it’s not one’s perfection, but rather the direction they are going that matters.**

    But – that’s NOT found in in 1 Tim 3:1-6, and Titus 1:5-9. It was added…

    ————–

    Most will agree – “Todays Religious System” is a mess – People leaving in droves…
    And – IMO – One of the reasons is…

    Many, many, many, – shepherd/elder/overseers – Do NOT meet these Tough Qualifications.
    But – Will they remove themselves and be a good example to the flock?

    What is popular is NOT always “Truth.”
    What is “Truth” is NOT always popular.

  206. Jeff S

    Could the *Tough* list of Pauls qualifications be *a Test* of someone’s “Integrity?”

    God test’s and proves “His People” – A Lot – in the scriptures. Yes?
    Even Jesus was tested. Oy Vey!!!

    Just click on a few of these verses…
    Mat 4:1 KJV, Heb 2:18 KJV, Gen 22:1 KJV, 1Pet 1:6 KJV, Mk 14:38 KJV, 1Tim 6:9 KJV
    1Thes 5:21KJV, Psalm 66:10-12 KJV, Psalm 7:9 KJV, Psalm 11:5 KJV, Psalm 26:2 KJV

    Why would someone assume the role of “pastor/elder/overseer,”
    And say they are an “ pastor/elder/overseer,”
    If they know they do NOT qualify to be an “pastor/elder/overseer?”

    Could it be a lack of “Integrity?”

    What would you call a medical Doctor, who said they were a medical Doctor,
    and who knew they did NOT qualify to be a medical Doctor?

    What would you call a Lawyer, who said they were a Lawyer
    and who knew they did NOT qualify to be a Lawyer?

    Would you recommend a Doctor or a Lawyer to a friend
    If you knew they did NOT qualify to be a Doctor or a Lawyer?

    Wouldn’t it be dangerous and expensive to trust and depend on
    a Doctor and a Lawyer who does NOT qualify?

    In my experience…
    It is dangerous and expensive to trust and depend on
    “pastor/elder/overseers” who do NOT qualify.

    Maybe that’s why “The Religious System” of today
    is in such a mess – “pastor/elder/overseers” – who do NOT qualify?
    “Spiritually Abusing” God’s ekklesia, God’s sheep.

    The Bible warns us, a lot…
    About False apostles, many False prophets,
    False teachers, False Christ’s’, False anointed one’s, etc..

    To trust No man. To not trust in princes.
    Let no man deceive you. And the list goes on…

    And lot’s of scriptures about trusting Jesus.

    Jer 50:6
    “My people” hath been “lost sheep:”
    **their shepherds** have caused them to *go astray,*

    1 Pet 2:25
    For ye were as *sheep going astray;*
    BUT are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

    I’m Blest… I’ve returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of my soul…

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

  207. @ SBCLayman:

    A bit late to this discussion, but I think there is much to be said for this, as long as the work is shared equally. Although our own minister does spend a lot of time training staff and preaching, he has always been good with funerals. I don’t know about other countries, but I think in the UK people outside the church subconsciously expect ministers, even if retired, to take a funeral.

    Really I think whether or not a minister should be full-time or bivocational depends upon circumstances such as resources available, the needs of the church and so forth. Some men are called to full-time ministerial work later in life, which in some cases I think allows them not to have to worry about accommodation, schooling of children and the like, as well as giving them (hopefully!) a fund of life experience.