"Elevation still framed the event as spontaneous, and attached it to the marketing for Furtick’s Sun Stand Still book as an example of a miracle. We know now, contrary to how the document presents itself, that not even Elevation’s leadership thought it was a miracle or spontaneous."
Today we are featuring a post by Dr. James Duncan, whom we have grown to admire for his courage and tenacity. He is a communications professor at Anderson University and blogger at Pajama Pages. Perhaps you have heard the insulting jokes about guys in their underwear (or housecoats or robes or whatever) blogging in their mothers' basements. Well, we believe those sarcastic remarks were initially directed at Dr. Duncan and his website.
About five years ago Dr. Duncan, a South Carolina resident, was blogging about Perry Noble and New Spring Church. He was taking this megapastor to task for his antics. The Noble sycophants began a heinous campaign against Dr. Duncan which included criminal activity.
In the end, James Duncan sued and received an undisclosed settlement. In case you are unfamiliar with Dr. Duncan's story, he was interviewed by Chris Rosebrough who has made the audio available on YouTube. It is an hour long but well worth your time. What Dr. Duncan and his family endured is gut wrenching!
To read about Dr. James Duncan's background, check out the About Me section on his website. It will explain why he is so passionate about taking Christian leaders to task, as he is currently doing with Steven Furtick. Dr. Duncan has been challenging Furtick in recent months, and last fall we featured one of his posts here at TWW. It was titled How Steven Furtick Turns Mediocre Books Into Mansions.
We want to thank Dr. Duncan for granting us permission to publish his post here for our readers. You may want to consider reading his blog on a regular basis as we are doing.
Steven Furtick goes on offense over spontaneous baptisms: A response to the Shake the Snake sermon (link)
Dr. James Duncan
Steven Furtick responded to the spontaneous baptisms report in his sermon yesterday, going on offense against WCNC and me for exposing his church’s mass-baptism plans. Furtick paused during the sermon to go on the record with the following statement:
When they started talking this week on the news about our baptisms, I got hot. Yes, sir. I got hot. They were saying that we manipulate our baptisms, that we have people planted in the audience who pretend to go get baptized. For the record, we have never planted anybody in our church to pretend to be baptized. I am too scared of God to do something like that. Please. Please. If you want to pick on my house, OK. But it’s different territory when you start picking on people who made a decision to be baptized for Jesus Christ. And to take the fact that we have volunteers who get up and lead the way so that people know where to go and to act as if they were pretending to be baptized and to negate the sincere faith decision of precious people who had one of the most meaningful experiences of their life, that’s just sick.
I understand that he’s angry, but this response is attacking a straw man, and it really doesn’t contradict anything that I wrote last November. Let’s go through it sentence by sentence:
They were saying that we manipulate our baptisms
Exactly right. The whole point of the document was to teach other churches to achieve similar results. When Steven Furtick told his audience that what they were feeling was not manipulation, he was misleading them. He and his team had taken deliberate steps to manipulate members of his congregation to respond the way that he wanted them to. Whether the motives or the action taken were honorable is beside the point. The leadership of Elevation Church engineered a response that they thought could be replicated in other churches, which is why they offered the guide.
They were saying … that we have people planted in the audience
Actually, Elevation Church said that in their guide. More recently, Furtick’s right-hand man, Chunks Corbett, has acknowledged as much, saying that the baptisms were “not so spontaneous.”
who pretend to go get baptized.
Right. They were pretending to “go” get baptized. If you saw someone stand up when the pastor finished his countdown, what else would they be doing but going outside to get baptized? These volunteers weren’t wearing special shirts or clothing or holding signs telling people to follow them. They blended in with everybody else who was going to get baptized.
For the record, we have never planted anybody in our church to pretend to be baptized. I am too scared of God to do something like that.
This is commendable, and I don’t doubt him. If you read the original post, I actually commended Pastor Furtick for this. To save you a click, here’s what I said back then:
Before the criticism, some words of praise. Furtick rightly tells his congregation that they should not seek to be baptized if they have been baptized before as adults, even if it was in another church and even if they’d prefer a more meaningful experience now.
I assume that by “pretend to be baptized” Furtick means that they actually went through with the baptism and went under the water. Because of Furtick’s correct prohibition on rebaptism, I never assumed nor accused the “Groups of 15″ of pretending to baptized by going through the water. I assumed that they were pretending to “go” to get baptized, but withdrew before getting to the tanks. Again, here’s what I wrote:
Elevation has seeded its four auditoriums with 60 shills who pretend to be responding to the call. Their high-visibility movement is designed to manipulate others to follow. If Furtick was confident in his message and in the efficacy of the Holy Spirit’s call, he shouldn’t need fake converts.
This is even more interesting for Furtick’s restriction on re-baptisms. We know these 60 are official volunteers, so it’s almost certain all had already been baptized. That means that if they melted away out of the lines later on, their response in the auditorium was a lie. For good doctrinal reasons that even Steven Furtick understands, they never ought to have responded in the first place. Not only are they lying, they are pretending to sinfully partake in the most important sacrament of their church. That’s serious stuff for a pastor and church to be encouraging.
I admire Furtick’s fear of God on the matter of adult rebaptism, which is why I assumed that the Groups of 15 were only pretending to respond to the invitation, not to actually get baptized.
It’s different territory when you start picking on people who made a decision to be baptized for Jesus Christ.
None of the people who were actually baptized were criticized or picked on. My criticism was of the way that Furtick was cheating his own flock out of a meaningful experience. Instead of making sure that they were acting out of a reasonable confidence in the doctrine of baptism, he engineered an emotional experience designed to elicit his desired response.
And to take the fact that we have volunteers who get up and lead the way so that people know where to go and to act as if they were pretending to be baptized
This is curious phrasing, and it seems to confirm everything that I’ve been saying. The defense that I expected him to make was that all of these people were genuine candidates for baptism. Some are indeed saying this on Twitter, but Pastor Furtick has not said so here.
Note the use of the term volunteer, which is not the same as people, who, in the context of this sentence, are the candidates for baptism. It’s the same term that’s used in the guide, and the 15 walk-down-the-aisle volunteers are listed along with other volunteers who are doing things like lining the hallways and staffing the changing rooms. If Elevation wanted to make clear that these were people who were actually being baptized, they ought to have used a term like candidates to distinguish them from the scores of other volunteers who were there to help but not actually get baptized themselves.
This document was intended as an instruction manual for other churches; it wasn’t just a historical narrative of what happened at Elevation Church. There’s nothing in it to indicate that the 15 walk-down-the-aisle volunteers are different from every other volunteer. If they were, we ought to see a section describing how to recruit and place the baptism candidates ready for their high-profile walks. Chunks Corbett also used the volunteer description to explain that they were needed to show people the way to the pools. Furtick and Corbett agree with me; these were not people going outside to be baptized.
and to negate the sincere faith decision of precious people who had one of the most meaningful experiences of their life
But I didn’t negate that decision; I affirmed it. I criticized Furtick for stripping the baptism of some of its meaning by resorting to emotional manipulation. Furtick and I agree that baptism happens only once, and by participating in Elevation’s mass event, these people are indeed truly baptized. That’s is a good thing. (I probably affirm the meaningfulness of their baptism even more than Pastor Furtick does, though we’re mostly on the same page on this issue.) As a Baptist, Furtick believes that the meaningfulness of the event resides in the hearts of the baptized, and I objected that he was not serving his flock well by replacing meaning with emotion. Here’s what I wrote:
Baptists also emphasize the volitional aspect of the sacrament, so that the participants’ attitude is one of informed obedience in an exercise of a free will. Although Noble allows do-overs, Furtick does not, so his flock only get one chance at a moment that will change their lives. Why not teach the people well and let them think about it and own their decision? How many people will look back at that special moment and regret that they were merely a pit-stop project for a pastor who needed to boost his baptism balance sheet?
Furtick and I agree that baptism is special, which is why he deserves criticism for depriving many in his church of the satisfaction that comes from a decision well made.
Chunks Corbett’s response to the controversy is similar to Furtick’s pulpit statement, though it warrants some attention of its own here, too. In response to my “shills” characterization, the article describes Corbett’s response in the following paragraphs:
Duncan, says Corbett, couldn’t be more wrong.
Baptisms at Elevation Church are a special and important part of the church. So special, he says, the Southern Baptist church’s thriving baptism culture inspired a song ‘Raised to Life‘ on their most recent album released in January 2014 called “Only King Forever.”
This is an assertion in search of an argument. As I’ve detailed above, I agree wholeheartedly that baptism is special and important, so pointing out that it’s special hardly refutes my criticism of Elevation’s techniques to engineer thousands such baptisms. On the contrary, shouldn’t baptisms be so special that they’re off limits for emotional manipulation?
Here, with interjections, is more of the Corbett response:
“In week two we baptized about half of those 3,000 people and if you think we manipulated them in week one then what do you call week two?” asked Corbett.
You call it week two, which presents a little bit of a problem for them. I’ve noticed a lot of discussions over the last few days about figuring out the identity and purpose of the 15, but it’s not 15 people who were involved. It’s 360. At the time, Elevation had three services at four campuses each Sunday. If you assume the best case-scenario — that each person in the groups of 15 is actually getting baptized for the first time — you need 360 people to cover those two weeks. I contemplated that possibility in the original post, but dismissed it as highly unlikely. Tellingly, neither Furtick nor Corbett defend the aisle walkers as part of a group of 360 first-time baptism candidates.
“We told them what we were doing before they even got there. Even in ’13 it wasn’t like some ‘thing’ [that came out of nowhere]. We told people we were doing baptisms. We had set it up leading up to it. We didn’t like make a huge announcement but it’s not so spontaneous,” Corbett explained.
Exactly. Just like I said. Yet Elevation still framed the event as spontaneous, and attached it to the marketing for Furtick’s Sun Stand Still book as an example of a miracle. We know now, contrary to how the document presents itself, that not even Elevation’s leadership thought it was a miracle or spontaneous. On that, we agree.
The use of the volunteers is just good management of a baptism model Elevation church got from a church in Georgia and improved on over time, says Corbett.
Not a model from Acts, in other words. And not Elevation’s fault, either. Blame the Georgians.
(This raises an interesting point of baptism doctrine. Although Corbett hasn’t pointed to Scripture to defend his church, others have, specifically pointing to the 3,000 who were baptized on the Day of Pentecost. That was a truly massive and spontaneous baptism. Here’s the question, though. How did that happen? If Elevation has to spend weeks of planning to baptize approximately that many over two weeks, how did Peter immerse that many people in one afternoon in a city largely devoid of pools of water? I’m not familiar with all elements of Baptist doctrine of course, but I have not heard a good explanation of how that happened. The comments are open for you to teach us, if you wish.)
The volunteers are necessary because baptisms are done outside. They are needed to help people who already acknowledged beforehand that they would be making the life-changing step during the service.
This repeats a point made earlier. These are volunteers, not candidates.
“At elevation when you’ve got 10 campuses and you are making a call [for baptism] via video, some campuses go forward, some campuses go backwards some campuses go sideways … it’s not like there’s a tank in the front. None of our buildings are big enough,” said Corbett.
I understand the logistical problem, but why not have big signs or people in bright orange vests that you tell people to follow? No matter what was in Furtick’s or the aisle walkers’ minds, the effect was that the rest of the people in the congregation would have thought that they were actual candidates for baptism.
The manual, he says, is not an internal document currently used by the church. It was created to share with other churches that wanted to replicate the success of Elevation Church in getting people to the water.
“That document was originally designed for churches so we can pass along to them how we did our baptisms. Hundreds of churches have used it. It’s not some secret internal document,” Corbett explained…
“It was missed that this document was intended to be a blessing for other churches. And it was something that we put out for free and we continue to have it. We are not embarrassed of it. It’s not wrong, it’s just a how-to,” he added.
In other words, we’ve moved on, but we still want to share it with churches that don’t mind being a couple of years behind the curve. What does their current internal document look like, if it’s significantly different from what is available? Why not share that?
I know it’s not a secret document; that’s how I discovered it several years ago. Why, then, the anger at its public distribution? Why work so hard to prevent WCNC from telling people what Elevation boasts about?
The Corbett interview finished with this:
Corbett said Elevation is refusing to engage their critics any more than they have to.
“Everybody’s got critics and especially when you’re being successful. Nobody knows Pastor Steven better than me,” he said.
“I started the church with him. Me and him and our wives. We’ve been together for 12 years and the church is now eight years old. I’ve been here since the beginning. I’ve seen it all. I think you judge somebody by the people closest to them not by some guy in a basement that has a blog (critics),” he noted.
The final argument is ad hominem. Of course it is. Thing is, though, people haven’t been judging Furtick based on a blog, but on the information that a blog brought to light. This blog very slowly (the baptisms post was published last November) brought awareness to the baptism guide, and another blog brought attention to the atrocious pastor-centered indoctrination that Elevation’s children are receiving. In neither case were we spreading rumors or making unfounded accusations. We simply published and critiqued documents that nobody inside Steven Furtick’s world thought was objectionable. As far as I can tell, people’s reactions to the baptism document and the coloring book have little to do with what Matthew Turner or I actually said, and everything to do with the immediate revulsion to what most people find in the documents. People read the documents and immediately know what the basic problem is.
While we’re on the topic, let me say a word or two in defense of bloggers and give you a little background on how the relatively old baptism post became a big deal last week.
It really began, as most scandals do, with a lie.
Back in late October, Stuart Watson, the investigative reporter for WCNC in Charlotte, learned that Steven Furtick was building a lavish new home and hiding it behind a no-name trust managed by Chunks Corbett. Furtick refused to talk to Watson about the house, though pre-empted the story by telling his church that a news story was about to come out about the house.
I’m thinking to myself, first of all, it’s not that great of a house. I’m sure there’s better houses, if you’ve got to fly a chopper over somebody’s house.
“It started to mess with me a little bit because I thought this ain’t right. I didn’t even build that house with money from the church. I built it with money from my books and I gave money to the church from the books and you start getting real defensive and being like this ain’t right. This ain’t right,” Furtick said.
One obvious lie: It’s not that great of a house. It is very grand, and Watson is reporting now that it will be taxed at a valuation of $3,000,000.
The second, less obvious lie, is that he built the house with money from his books. That claim got me thinking. I remembered seeing Furtick’s and Noble’s books on the NY Times best seller lists with a notation that indicated that some of the sales had probably been manipulated. In my day job, I teach about communication and media, and I know a little about how the publishing world works. It seemed to me that there was no way that he could afford his house based on what were relatively unimpressive sales. So I did some digging and wrote about what I found.
In the meantime, Furtick and Corbett gradually clarified their statement, first saying that the downpayment for the house came from book sales, while still asserting to the Charlotte Observer that “It’s not a parsonage or a gift from Elevation, and it’s not tied to the church in any way.” They eventually told Stuart Watson that the church makes a profit on Furtick’s book sales and gives him an allowance for his house. So church money does go to Furtick’s house, which is not an impression that most people would have drawn from Furtick’s original statement.
After writing about the manipulation of the book sales, it seemed relevant to dust off the baptism document that I had found several years before (the blog was in hibernation at the time). The book sales and the baptism manipulation both revealed a pastor for whom appearances were more important than authenticity. That’s how the spontaneous baptism post became relevant, even though it was years after its appearance online.
As far as I know, someone tipped Watson off to my book sales post, and it was from there that he found the baptism post. We talked informally back in November, then more formally on camera a few weeks ago. Watson’s book story appeared on Feb 8, and the baptism one ten days later.
Watson has taken a lot a criticism from Elevation members for his reporting. While my focus was primarily a matter of ethics and church propriety, Watson — as far as I can tell — seems to be motivated by the old-fashioned journalistic desire to keep digging when it’s apparent that powerful people are being deceptive, as well as by the financial ethics and tax implications in the house and book story. Watson sees that Furtick draws a large salary from a non-profit church, then uses that non-profit platform to promote and sell a book for a for-profit corporation. Much of the money that flows to Furtick is tax free, especially the massive housing allowance that he will qualify for with his $3m home. That’s an issue that a local news organization has every right to be interested in.
To Watson’s credit, he knew that the spontaneous baptism document was a good story, and the reaction to it over the last week has proved his news judgment to be sound. It has been a little surreal over the last few days to see how this story has taken wing based on a short report on an NBC affiliate. The Christian blogosphere is appropriately astonished by what they see in that document, and many people are writing and commenting on it now.
But here’s where bloggers shouldn’t be dismissed as pajama-clad basement dwellers (not that there’s anything wrong with that). While traditional media still have the means to amplify information in ways that most blogs can’t, some of the best investigative reporting – in politics, in religion and in almost all spheres of life — is being done on blogs, especially as legacy media cuts reporting staff. The miracle of the blogosphere is that lots of little people who have specialized interests, expertise and motivation write for free about things that interest them. Sometimes, and with increasing frequency, they break good stories.
A couple of other miscellaneous concluding points:
I’ve seen a few commentators wonder why the Southern Baptists aren’t doing or saying anything about what’s happening at Elevation. I’ll explain further in a future post, but this isn’t an SBC issue, and it’s not fair to blame Baptists for Furtick’s antics or to assume that he reflects poorly on the denomination.
In his sermon yesterday, Furtick characterized Stuart Wilson and me as snakes who were fleeing the fire of God’s work at Elevation, and the solution is that we should be thrown back into the fire to make it flame even higher. Elevation even offered #shakethesnake as a Twitter handle for the church’s collective venting. For someone who hates haters, Steven Furtick has a high tolerance for hateful, violent rhetoric against people who disagree with him, though that’s not a characteristic that makes him unique among his ministry friends.
The day after the WCNC video was aired, Steven Furtick was angry, and says he shared his anger with a more senior pastor who called and asked him what he was going to do about it. Furtick told his friend,
I’m not going to go up there [to the pulpit] and defend myself. I’m not going to turn this pulpit into a press conference. That’s not what this pulpit is for. I said, “I don’t know, I can’t be defensive.” And when I hung up the phone with him, I felt like God said, “Then don’t play defense. Play offense.” And I thought about it for a minute. And Holly [my wife] was waiting for me; we were going out to eat for my birthday. Oh, it was a real happy birthday. [Laughter] I’m glad you think it’s funny. And God said, “Shake it back off into the same fire. Feed the fire.” So tonight we’re going to have a special baptism service at Elevation Church. [Cheering and a standing ovation]
Pastor Furtick is angry and mad, yet he’s sure that the idea to hold a truly spontaneous baptism was God’s revealed will.
This is the godly response to criticism that he manipulated his congregation into being baptized? To invite hundreds of unbaptized people to engage in a defiant, offensive [his word] baptism?
That, more than the original spontaneous baptisms, is just awful. He says that baptism is special, yet it’s something that he feels free to manipulate and then use in an angry publicity stunt.
This is not how a good pastor serves his flock.
Which is exactly what I was trying to say four months ago.
Deebs' Closing Remarks
Steven Furtick's recent message on spontaneous baptisms, which is the focus of Dr. Duncan's post, can be viewed here. At the 45 minute mark, Furtick focuses on the beginning of Acts 28. Here are the pertinent verses:
Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta. The islanders showed us unusual kindness. They built a fire and welcomed us all because it was raining and cold. Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, the goddess Justice has not allowed him to live.” But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead; but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god. Acts 28:1-6 (NIV)
Furtick then uses a phrase over and over toward the end of his message – 'shake the snake'.
The 'Deebs' have never claimed to be 'hip' like these cool dude pastors, but we couldn't help but wonder what Steven Furtick mean by the phrase 'shake the snake'. Was there some sort of hidden meaning?
******* TRIGGER ALERT! *******
We decided to consult the Urban Dictionary to see whether 'Shake the Snake' has a hipster connotation. Sure enough it does!
Warning: You may find this 'hip' definition offensive. Read at your own risk: definition
Could 'shake the snake' be a double entendre? Inquiring minds want to know…
Lydia's Corner: Jeremiah 31:27-32:44 1 Timothy 3:1-16 Psalm 88:1-18 Proverbs 25:20-22
I thought “shake the snake” was what men do in the bathroom prior to zipping up their pants.
Quote from Dr. Duncan’s blog post:
“They eventually told Stuart Watson that the church makes a profit on Furtick’s book sales and gives him an allowance for his house. So church money does go to Furtick’s house, which is not an impression that most people would have drawn from Furtick’s original statement.”
Oh yeah, and under current tax law, that housing allowance (aka “parsonage exemption”) is TAX FREE MONEY. This is a perk given only to ministers of religion. Also, if Furtick has a mortgage on the house, and uses his TAX FREE parsonage exemption to pay it, he can also deduct his interest payments on his taxes. This is known in the parlance as “double-dipping.”
(However, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled back in November 2013 that this tax exemption is unconstitutional as a subsidy of religion. The Obama administration is currently appealing this decision, which is stayed pending resolution of the appeal.)
Seriously, here’s a guy living in a $3MM house that he can pay for using a housing allowance that’s tax free, and he can deduct the interest on his taxes if he has a mortgage. He’s greatly privileged and comes across as ungrateful when what he’s doing is exposed to the light.
As for the baptisms, to me it all looks like trickery to inflate numbers. The use of plants or shills in Furtick’s congregations is underhanded and deceitful. Is this something that a Christian should do? If the message moves people, they’ll go down for baptism. It’s almost like Furtick really doesn’t think the Holy Spirit is able to do anything without his (Furtick’s) help.
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
I believe what you shared about the tax exemption is really the bottom line with these preacher guys who want to live large.
I do hope our readers will take the time to listen to Steven Furtick’s actual words.
Click on the hyper-link toward the end of the post and fast forward to the 45 minute mark. At the 54 minute mark, Furtick explains to the ‘Elevators’ that he has decided to take the high road in response to his critics. Then he announces a surprise baptism service which will take place that very evening after he's gotten everyone worked up about 'shake the snake'. You've gotta see it!
No emotional manipulation there… 😉
In other news, to ‘Nick’ a well-worn phrase, my daughter was bapstised on Sunday. The rest of the family drove across Europe to join her in England – no shortage of water there at present. A nice fellowship of ordinary people who meet in a school, a quick drive to the swimming pool, and dad (a tad nervous) was allowed to assist, which was nice.
She gave a quite moving testimony having drifted into less savoury things for a while, and it was nice to concentrate on what is good about church for a change – its good news, the changed lives of those being baptised (four in all), some quite remarkably so, the very relaxed atmosphere largely devoid of ‘religion’, and a church that obviously cares for its members. The oldest was 82, and a right character!
In all that goes on amongst ‘evangelicals’ these days, it is so easy to lose sight of what it is really all about, the ‘knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ’.
@ Ken:
How beautiful! Congrats on your daughter’s baptism. What you describe is what I always felt it should be.
@ Deb: Speaking of emotional manipulation, here is Steven Furtick in action a few years ago (before the media scrutiny he is facing of late.
Steven Furtick practicing and explaining mass Emotional Manipulation from Falsified Ministries on Vimeo.
You can read about this technique here. No wonder they go after young people with their rocked out worship services.
Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. I don't even want to know how Furtick will "play offense" with this double entendre.
@ Ken:
Thanks for sharing this. We are thrilled about your daughter!
I would like to correct an incorrect assumption made by Dr. Duncan. He stated that “how did Peter immerse that many people in one afternoon in a city largely devoid of pools of water?” It is my understanding that every road leading to the temple had mikvahs (ritual baths). There would be separate ones for men and women. These public baths were necessary as many things could make you unclean under Jewish law, especially if you were a woman. I am also suspecting that all those disciples who were in the upper room were baptisers. The men baptised men and women baptised women, as men could not go into the women’s mikvahs.
By the way I live near Tampa and the Women’s Mikvan there is like a fancy spa. It is beautiful. Many Jewish women are once again adopting the traditional rituals related to mikvah so younger women are going to this mikvah once a month.
@ Ken:
YAY!!!!!
@ Wisdomchaser:
Do you know how large the mikvahs were?
Sometimes when I read the latest escapades on these younger, hip, leaders of the flock, it feels as if I have stumbled upon some bizarre lost episode of the, ‘Twilight Zone ‘.
The love of money (and power) has found a home in these type of big bold, gospelly aggressive churches.
As for the faked baptisms…..goes hand in hand with the fake gospel being preached there.
Deb
I am convinced that Furtick was sending a double message. It is a way for him to say ****off. I wonder if he and Chunks are having a good ol laugh thinking they pulled this one off? It takes a couple of decidedly non-hipster women to catch it
@ Wisdomchaser:
This is really interesting. Do you happen to know whether the water that Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch came across, beside the road as they travelled, was likely to have been similar? It was a desert road, and the general trend from Jerusalem to Gaza is downhill, so I wonder whether a supply of water suitable for baptising a person may have been at least partly artificial.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
sorry – premature carriage return (there should be a name for that, since it happens thousands of times a day around the interweb). The eunuch said “here is water”, rather than “here is a burn” or “here is a wee lochan”.
*groan*
“Never defend. Always attack.” No wonder Furtick makes me uncomfortable, and reminds me more and more of the “ecclesiastical leader” of That Other Abusive “Church”.
Hearing Furtick say “don’t defend, go on the offense” gives me a bad feeling, much like Gandalf got listening to Bilbo:
Thank you, Dr. Duncan, for your hard work, keen observation and excellent analysis.
dee
Basically the ancient mikvah were caves over streams. The water for mikvah must be running water. Here is some archaeological pictures. In the one you can see a divided entrance so men and women would go to separate pools.
http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101/39-mikvah-ritual-baths.html
Nick, I always assumed that Philip baptised the eunuch in a stream or river. I’m definitely going to have put my archaeological hat on again and do some research. I do know that in the hill country that cisterns were very common. They needed to be large enough to provide water for everyone and their animals during the dry season. They may have had a pool downhill from the cistern to get water for their use and water the animals. That way the cistern would not be contaminated. Sometimes it’s hard to get a mental picture of how it really was back then. I can’t imagine using one of the pools as they would be used to water the animals. But they may not have thought that was icky like I would.
@ Deb:
Yeah, when I hear some pastor is not taking his salary, I think to myself, “And how much are you getting in a tax free housing allowance this year?” Sorry to be so cynical but at least some of these people are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Now let me stir the pot a tad, just for fun and also to keep the conversation going.
At some point the question is : what actually makes a baptism real, genuine, honest, efficacious (for those who think that), valid and such? What results in a “certificate of baptism” which might be recognized by the church on the next street corner. Is is OK to get baptized again? How much water does it take for a baptism.? Who can do the baptizing? And, for some liturgical churches, under what circumstances can laity baptize people? And for other church, can laity ever baptize anybody for any reason? What is the correct age for baptism? Does baptism have to be proceeded by anything–like adequate catechesis (knowing what one is doing) or a profession of faith or attendance at some class session(s)? How much time should elapse between a profession of faith (if such is required) and the actual baptism? Must one baptize in the name of the father and the son and the holy spirit, or is in the name of Jesus sufficient? Is baptism itself salvific?
Or how about this: should it be required for the person who is being baptized to make a statement to the witnesses at the actual time of the baptism affirming faith or such. The church where my daughter is a member required that for a while, then switched to the option of a prior recorded video so that the shy folks would go ahead and get baptized and now they have dropped the whole idea.
And there are bound to be lots more issues of which I am not aware. Oh, I almost forgot the really biggest issue: is baptism a sacrament or an ordinance? And, some people have gone to this extreme, what did the person doing the baptism believe, as to sacrament vs ordinance, and did the person being baptized understand the theological position of the person doing the baptizing?
How much and for how long can we make such an issue of all the details concerning baptism?
Furtick seems to have tried to turn it into a circus. Shame on him. But what have we all done with the “circus” that I have tried to describe above? I do not think that the circus atmosphere of the Furtick side show should necessarily make us question the motives of the people who actually got baptized, unless and until there is more evidence that just Furtick’s chicanery and dishonesty.
As for the shills, they got had. I am sorry, but also it may have resulted in a good learning experience for them when they now hear the criticism about such naiveté. And for all former shills: time to grow up now folks. Church is not a child’s game.
And BTW, did you know that converts from Islam who live in Muslim cultures usually wait about 3 to 5 years after conversion to be baptized, typically are baptized multiple times if they are baptized by westerners, and that the husbands usually baptize their own wives privately and at home after simply informing her that he has now declared her to be a Christian? Just thought that was something interesting form those books on missiology research that I previous cited.
@ Nancy:
preceded not proceded
than not that
from not form
Furtick is unbelievably disingenuous to say that the shills are there simply to show people which door to go through. I think (might be wrong about this) he used the phrase “prime the pump” – that pretty much indicates that he knows exactly what he is doing. It is scary how blind his followers are to these psych experiments he is doing on them.
@ Ken:
I couldn’t get this song out of my head. For you and your daughter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1lhKc810vs&feature=kp
I was baptized at Elevation last Sunday night. What an honor it was for Pastor Steven to baptize me, I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.
What you are doing is so wrong on so many levels.
Pastor Steven has already told us that we were not manipulated but we were encouraged to be baptized….what is wrong with encouraging someone to follow Jesus?
Pastor Steven shared in his amazing new book “Crash the Chatterbox”…”the voice you believe will determine the future you will experience”.
I CHOOSE to believe my Pastor’s voice over YOUR voice.
The Word says, “the sheep know the voice of the shepherd”.
My Shepherd is helping me “Crash your chatterbox”….thank you Pastor Steven for setting me free from the “idiots in my head”…you are one of those idiots and I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.
Play offense
I found Furtick to be offensive for quite some time.
Ken –
Rejoicing with your daughter!
My 🙁 After watching Furtick strut around in his fancy britches making comparisons of criticism of him by the media to what Paul endured, and listening to Nate Morales wax on about Esther’s hidden sin ???? and then begin to watch a video of Morales where he starts to sing a worship song (I had to turn it off) . . . I’m undone.
This guy writes incredibly well. You have made me a fan already.
I am going to his website immediately and will probably read it every day going forward.
I feel about Steven Furtick the same as a feel about Mark Driscoll. Apparently very engaging and good spokesmen. I appreciate that they have not abandoned some very central Christian truths and that they proclaim these effectively to a new generation.
But then, they go off the rails. And all the good things they possess are tainted by ego and manipulation that is really not necessary at all.
I am glad that Duncan and others write about them. That should continue.
But I am also praying for repentance and maturity in their lives, even if it leads them to take a break from the pastorate.
Bridget wrote:
…………………..
My sentiments as well. His demeanor, including his glassy eyes, sets off my, danger,danger, buttons. Hip clothing and jewelery reminds of a slick, snake oil salesman.
I can’t cut him any slack …..the three million dollar house (at his age/stage in life) tells the whole story.
Susan Lanskey wrote:
You are unwittingly demonstrating the poor teaching that you are receiving at you church. Bless your heart…
@ Bridget:
With you on this!
Susa Lanskey wrote:
So, if Furtick baptized you, it was an honor. If Average Joe Christian baptized you, would you be so honored and “feel” (it is very important to feel) the Spirit?
Recommendation: Please carefully think through your theology and your presentation. If you wish to convince us, you need to thoughtfully engage. Not everyone can pull off a “Furtick, Hey Haters.”Come to think of it, he didn’t pull it off either but I digress. I would suggest that you spend some time meditating on the words of Paul at Mars Hill.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17:22-31&version=NASB
Make sure you cc him on this comment. He will be very proud of you.
@ Susan Lanskey:
In all likelihood, you are young enough to be my daughter, and if my daughter were attending Elevation, I would be extremely concerned.
Susan Lanskey wrote:
Therein lies the problem. Is Jesus your shepherd or is Furtick?
Bridget wrote:
These are bizarre times indeed! I keep wondering how much worse it can get…
Ken wrote:
I got to assist with my daughter’s baptism about 3 years ago, which was a blessing. It was in the river, with my former Acts 29 church. Oddly, in the 3 years we were at that growing church, she was the ONLY adult baptized. If not for me, she’d probably have become an unbaptized church member. 3 preachers kids of around age 10 and a handful of newborns (out of dozens) were also baptized in that time. Sort of an Escalator type church, I guess, at the other end of the spectrum.
“Shake the Snake”?
Is he into Kundalini yoga?
Deb wrote:
It’s going to get worse….trust me….much worse….
Anonymous wrote:
How many innocents will be “thrown under the bus” while we are all waiting for that to happen?
Susa Lanskey wrote:
FURTICK FANGIRL.
Sure your real name isn’t “Bella Swann” or “Harley Quinn”?
Anon wrote:
That’s irrelevant. They’re getting doublepluswarmfeelies from all that praying and THAT’s What’s Important. See How Spiritual *I* Am? See How Bibilical *I* Am?
Susa Lanskey wrote:
Dear child of God, the shepherd referred to in that text is JESUS, not furtick.
JeffT wrote:
Exactly, JeffT! A perfect example of scripture twisting…Jesus is the Shepherd whose voice should be listened to and He is the one to be followed.
John 10:27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
Anon wrote:
My old Dungeonmaster used to say “The reason most cults get started is so the Cult Leader can (1) get rich, (2) get laid, or (3) both. The Furtick Mansion already fulfills (1), why shouldn’t he “shake his snake” going for (2) and (3)?
“Avoid as you would the plague anyone who has gotten rich being a clergyman.”
— I think this is attributed to one of the early saints
@ Nancy:
“what actually makes a baptism real, genuine, honest, efficacious (for those who think that), valid and such?”
++++++++
is there any legitimate reason why a person cannot simply baptize himself/herself? once a person understands the concept (awareness of sin, forgiveness for those sins, buried with him in death, raised into newness of life)?
I really don’t see any rules in the NT.
@ Susa Lanskey:
That refers to Jesus not Steven Furtick. And the difference is one tells the truth and the other is a con man.
@ Deb:
Er – I’m working on the assumption that Susan Lanskey is from the Elevation parodying community.
…continued
Susa Lanskey wrote:
…which is a big clue!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Could be – didn’t think of Poe’s Law when I responded.
Prayers appreciated…Dee knows.
elastigirl wrote:
With a little practice you can get the New Testament to say just about anything you want it to say.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
You're probably right, but I believe her comment represents the sentiments of true believers at Elevation Church.
Request to computer experts. The following article has been taken down by Christianity Today
http://www.christianitytoday.com/parse/2014/february/strange-yet-familiar-tale-of-brian-rob-and-don.html?paging=off
I can’ find it on Wayback. Can any of you?
totally off-topic (so feel free to delete), but here is your friendly neighborhood click/cringe bait: http://www.worldmag.com/2014/03/unreal_sales_for_driscoll_s_real_marriage
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Hey, Nick! I just got a text from my brother stating that he and his wife are on their way to Scotland to celebrate their 20th anniversary. They’re flying over Illinois right now. At least I’ll get to see it again through their photos.
@ elastigirl:
That’s an idea. I don’t see anything about that either. But then I don’t think the NT is a procedure manual, not as we understand procedure manuals today at least.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Och, aye? D’ye ken furryboots?
@ Ken:
And speaking of Ken – great to hear your daughter’s news!
I think Susan may be the ex-sister-in-law of my no-good ex-elevator nephew Bill Rogers.
But Pastor Steven doesn’t think you’re all idiots– he thinks you’re snakes.
If I had told MY audience some of the stuff Pastor Steven tells HIS, I’d have been cancelled faster than you could say “Uncle Don”.
http://able2know.org/topic/8619-1
But then, Steven’s a pastor. Come to think of it, so was I!
I still regret naming a character on a kid’s show McFeely, even though that’s my middle name!
Susan Lanskey wrote:
Nancy wrote:
I would argue that the idea that it is (a procedural manual) is not much more than 40-45 yrs. old and almost exclusively the product of American evangelicalism.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Unfortunately, I don’t have their itinerary. My SIL has been pinning photos of Scotland to her Pinterest account for months now.
That was good. Did you know “furryboots” is on Urban Dictionary? (Yes, I had to look it up. 🙂 )
@ dee: it does say that the post has been removed at the author’s request, along with some explanatory material from same.
Unfortunately, not everything shows up via Way back, and site owners can request that their sites not be archived. So unless someone’s got a screenshot, it might be gone permanently.
@ Nancy:
re: baptizing oneself
“But then I don’t think the NT is a procedure manual, not as we understand procedure manuals today at least.”
+++++++++++++
I don’t give a flying fick what any church, minister, lay person, any joe or flo schmoe thinks. if the symbolic action of water and me puts me in touch with a spiritual reality that is often difficult to sense… if it reminds me of putting on Jesus like clothing, or holy spirit invigorating from within… i’ll do it often. Me and a lemonade pitcher (of [warm] water).
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
I never knew that. I had to check myself! It even pins it down to the north-east (I came across it in Inverness).
In other news, I think we can all wish Mr Nickolay Lamm well in his attempt to displace Barbie with a doll shaped like an actual human (brief info on the BBC news magazine website here.
I much prefer “Lammily” (as she is called); not least because she looks a bit like Lesley.
@ elastigirl:
In Rober Duvall’s movie “The Apostle” the main character baptizes himself.
Amy Smith wrote:
Just wanted to let you know your request wasn’t missed.
@ elastigirl: I don’t really see any rules, either, but it does seem that the normal procedure was for another person to do the baptizing.
Of course, I am a high-church type and believe it is a sacrament, so we part company there (to an extent; by no means entirely).
@ numo:
@ numo:
Thank you so much!!! I am hoping someone out there has a copy. From what I can tell, the author made some statements surrounding the authority of the church. One of which was that Scripture can only be interpreted within the confines of an established church. I am trying to document some of these statements and tie them to denominations. Kevin Miller, who wrote this, is an Anglican priest in Illinois and part of the Anglican movement in the US.
Unfortunately, he apparently misrepresented some of the positions of the three men of whom he wrote. And they responded. He removed the post but claims he still stands by what he said. I am trying to find out exactly what he said.
@ Fred Rogers:
Uncle Don was the progenitor of today’s mega pastor who says the same thing behind our backs.
@ Susa Lanskey:
Are the Susa Lanskey posts for real or Poes / parodies? I seriously cannot tell.
@ dee:
The closest I could find was a site or two with a long excerpt, such as,
The Strange Yet Familiar Tale of Brian, Rob, and Don by Kevin Miller,from Aquila Report
It looks as though Christianity Today does not allow Google to cache its pages, so I guess it can’t be found that way.
This contains a long excerpt from the page, but of a different part than Aquila Report contains:
The Strange Yet Familiar Tale of Brian, Rob, and Don, Treading Grain
If other sites contain excerpts from different part of it, you might be able to piece the whole thing together using the different parts.
If this Miller guy had a full copy on his own site or blog you might be able to find a cache of it via his site or a copy on Wayback Machine by using the Miller site URL, rather than Christianity Today’s.
I did a quick Google, but the only Miller blogs I saw listed on the first page or two are now 404 pages. (But he may still have a blog out there somewhere.)
This blog page contains a few direct quotes by Miller, but the author summarizes Miller’s views from the Christianity Today page:
Kevin Miller Critiques Donald Miller, Brian McLaren And Rob Bell #1, from In A Spacious Place blog
Someone on that blog said one of the guys Miller wrote about (McClaren) replied to the piece on his (McClaren’s) blog, and this page contains the reply (I think it also contains some direct quotes of Miller from the now-scrubbed CT page):
Q & R: You, Rob Bell, Don Miller, and Christianity Today
An excerpt:
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
None of the early saints would have had the temerity to refer to themselves as “clergy.” That is an unbiblical construct that came along much later. Your quote is likely attributable to to an early American speaker.
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”
― James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, on the Religious Rights of Man: Written in 1784-85
@ Anon:
Ooooo K. So we do not have an established church (a state church.) But we still have problems. There has to be more to it than the church/state relationship.
@ dee: hmm. I don’t suppose you’ve written to him directly? That might be your best bet.
@ Daisy:
You are awesome!!! Thank you so much for getting this stuff. So, you want a job-bad pay but really fun co-workers?
@ numo:
He probably does not want to be reminded since it caused a bit of a dust up.
@ Anon:
This is one of my favorite quotes by Jerome (347-420AD)
“Shun, as you would the plague, a cleric who from being poor has become wealthy, or who, from being nobody has become a celebrity.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Though this and other variants are obviously English translations, it is generally attributed to Jerome.
(Not only would no early saint have had the temerity to call himself “clergy”, as @ Anon rightly said; neither would he have dreamed that the past participle of either “to get” or “to become” could be “gotten”.)
I find it so odd that Furtick often referred to merely as “Pastor”, for example:
“Pastor gave a message today.”
“I spoke to Pastor on the phone.”
“Some of the members and Pastor were seen meeting together.”
Pastor means shepherd, and shepherding in a church is supposed to be a plurality like elders. Especially in a church as large as Elevation, there has to be others involved in pastoring, right? So, it sticks out to me when I hear people use the word “Pastor” like it’s Furtick’s only name, instead of like a courtesy title preceding his name.
It’s unusual to me and I’m wondering what’s behind that.
Btw, Susan Lansky didn’t drop using “Steven” after Pastor, but I got the sense she would have normally just said “Pastor” each time she referenced Furtick in her comments, like other Elevators do.
@ dee:
You’re welcome. That was only after a brief search. There might be even more out there, but I had to get off the computer for awhile to go jogging. I also need to get off shortly to take a shower and make some dinner. I could maybe look a little bit more, afterwards.
Sometimes, after an article gets published, on a site such as Christianity Today (or Leadership Journal) and then removed, you can still find copies on other people’s blogs or in forums, if nothing shows up on Wayback Machine.
People like to paste entire articles from one site (such as Christianity Today) to a forum, for example, to share with other readers and pick it apart and debate about it.
@ Nancy:
Here are how Catholics answer some of your questions. We believe that baptism is a sacrament, ideally to be done only once. But, it can be done multiple times. (When I reconciled myself to the Catholic Church, I presented them with two,equally valid baptismal certificates, once as an infant and once as a Baptist believer)
We accept other’s baptisms as long as it is in the Name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. Any other way, the person must be rebaptized. If there is memory of a baptism, but no paperwork, then the priest says, “Just in case you haven’t been, then I baptize you.”
Any person can baptize, especially in emergencies, or health issues, such as a very early or very sick newborn.
I think that a lot of the elevators have elevators that do not go to the top floor, or they would see through the manipulation.
@ dee:
This person (I think it’s a lady) has a small number of paragraphs from Miller’s article that she copied to her blog post, at her blog called “Vibrancy Lives”:
In Defense of Donald Miller
You can visit her page to find more of the quotes from the original Christianity Today / Leadership Journal page, these are just a few:
[According to Vibrancy Lives blog, Miller wrote that Christians need]
when we attended harvest bible chapel, there was/is a “spontaneous” baptism service held twice a year, each year… almost the same weekends each year. there were not fake baptisms, but there were pre-planned baptisms that were used to stir (manipulate) the church body. we stopped counseling the pre-baptisms, because it was very generic and no discipleship. we observed that the experiences aligned more with the parable of the soils in matthew 13 instead of the command in matthew 28 to “make disciples”…”baptizing”. we know of a few people who were baptized by pastor james but are now not concerned about anything that pleases God. 5 years later… we wonder if those were real baptisms and conversions? inevitably, it is all about numbers at harvest and elevation. but, did macdonald disciple furtick or vice versa?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Lammily is TERRIFIC! 🙂
As I’m responding to a patented Nick Bulbeck (TM) “In Other News” post, I thought I’d post this (off-Furtick topic) link to a fantastic BBC mag article on “The Indian Sanitary Pad Revolutionary” I read a couple of days ago that literally blew me away.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26260978
What a wonderful, oddball, selfless revolutionary indeed. 🙂
@ Rafiki:
Good spot, Rafs – I’d noticed the link to Muruganantham’s story but hadn’t got around to reading it. Your comment spurred me to do so, and I’m glad it did; truly inspirational.
I take it you weren’t literally literally blown away… glad to see you’re still with us!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Thanks, Nick! You know that the “literally literally blown away” thing is … shall we say … an environmental hazard I’ve learned to live around. Somewhat. 🙂
Mr. Muruganantham’s story is just inspirational beyond words!
@ Rafiki:
A final note on Mr. Muruganantham: maybe linking to his remarkable story on a thread about Steven Furtick isn’t a thread hijack.
After all, we can see what a true servant looks like – the contrast between the life, values, and perseverance of this humble precious simple and strange man and “Pastor” couldn’t be more stark.
To all and sundry: thanks very much for the best wishes about my daughter’s baptism.
BeenThereDoneThat – I liked the song!
@ Rafiki:
“Mr. Muruganantham’s story is just inspirational beyond words!”
+++++++++++++++
wow — a hundred times yes. (I read the article myself)
it is not irrelevant. the heart of the matter (concerning Elevation, & things similar) is doing for the sake of the institution, and using people (manipulating them) for its own ends (which of course includes high profit margins that pour into high salaries for those who make their living off the institution).
my church is currently championing “spiritual gifts”, and what gifts do you have, how can you use your gifts in a productive way? but I can’t help but suspect that the real point of it all is to buoy the institution. Rather than to go out & make a difference in the world for the greater good simply because it’s the good and right thing to do.
I fear it will be a bait & switch kind of thing. All this talk and encouragement in what are our gifts, talents, skills, passions, and “let’s do something with it for God!”….. and in the end, all it will be is a free workforce doing the sh|t work.
“here, I need these stapled, sorted, and filed away in these folders” [because I didn’t feel like doing it myself even though it’s part of my job].
Or, “bring your strong back and your tool box” [to spend more than half a Saturday moving & installing a large, heavy item with special bells & whistles intended to enhance the cool factor of the place — to impress visitors / the nickels & noses thing].
And, “look how well our church is doing at motivating our members out of consumerism!” [all you have to do is persuade them to be busy for God, and give them any ol’ thing to do — it doesn’t really matter whether it’s done or not, but that’s not really the point, is it.]
But people like this Mr. Muruganantham in the article — what a contrast. What a great story.
Susa Lanskey wrote:
@ Anna A: well, there is also a point in the liturgical year (sometime during Holy Week, iirc, but?) where there’s a point that people can renew their baptismal vows (during the course of the service, from the pew). To me, that seems like the simplest solution in most cases, rather than performing another baptism, but I’d also guess that there might be enough wiggle room to allow for another ceremony. Though I can’t see how that could apply to those who were baptized as infants, within the RCC.
Okay I must weigh in.
As my name indicates, I am Southern Baptist. And while I have to gloss over some of the good natured barbs thrown toward my Calvinist bethren on this site, I know much of the barbs are needed. But, this Elevation debacle is something that I can’t turn away from.
I began my years in ministry around this type of thing. As a youth minister I would feel less than the other ministers when I didn’t see the same results that happened at youth camp that these speakers would see when I preached to our youth. My own youth would attend these camps and make decisions and come home and I would begin discipling them and then find out that they did not understand the gospel and they had no idea about the person and work of Jesus Christ. They had gone foward during the invitation and thought that doing so saved them. Once back home, it was discovered that not only were they not candidates for baptism, they were not even believers. But the excitement of youth camp thrilled them, the music, the moment (hey sounds like EMINEM), the week, the speaker. I remember people saying, “wow what if we could capture that experience all the time.”
Well, it has been captured. Places like Elevation, and I hesistate to label them a church because they omit some crucial elements of what constitues a church, have captured that youth camp experience every week. As a pastor, for 20 years, I know what I struggled with in trying to disciple those youth who had made false confessions of faith. I shutter to think the confusion that is happening in these places because of such poor pastoral care. People are confused about the gospel, God, sin, ecclesiology, and the list goes on and on.
Aside from the jokes about the coloring book and the house, it’s very troubling to watch baptism be treated with such contempt. A rite that could basically sign your death certificate throughout Baptist church history, now has been turned into a ploy and a circus.
@ SBC Chaplain:
” A rite that could basically sign your death certificate throughout Baptist church history”
+++++++++++
hello, sbc chaplain.
could you elaborate? just curious to understand.
SBC Chaplain wrote:
SBC Chaplain, I couldn’t agree more with your entire post. Regarding the so-called ‘worship’ at these ‘churches’, it’s not about the Gospel, it’s all about makin’ ’em feel good with no burden about what it all means and what you owe to God and your fellow human beings.
And BTW, I just listened to the link of Furtick’s sermon on Acts 27. Osteen and TD Jakes would be proud. More eisegesis and theurapeutic self help preaching with some text thrown in. Just because you get loud and get the audience clapping doesn’t mean it’s a good sermon, a good explanation, or good application. But, Steve can defintely work a crowd.
@ SBC Chaplain:
I really appreciate your remarks here. Although I left the SBC after the infamous San Antonio Convention sermon by the guru of FBC Dallas, I appreciate the many hard working, dedicated, SBC ministers I have known who were humble and giving, rather than grasping. And I especially appreciate those who serve as chaplains. Thank you.
@ elastigirl:
During many decades, anyone who believed in believer’s baptism — baptizing only those who had made a knowing confession of faith — and “rebaptized” those who had been baptized as infants — were considered heretics and were subject to burning at the stake. However, many were “baptized” a third time, weights tied to their ankles and thrown into the river. Men, women, young people. At times through holes made in the ice on the river.
elastigirl wrote:
Yes, sure I can elaborate. In the the battles between the Magisterial reformers and the Anabapitsts there were Anabaptists who were drowned by those who saw their “rebaptism” as heretical and against the church. Later Baptists were persecuted by other groups in England and then in the colonies. They certainly would not have seen taking a stance on something that they trivalized or could possbly lose their life over. To them, Baptism, was a very important thing and something that it was worth splitting from other denominations and other groups over even if it meant their lives. I know that is a very short description. But here are some links. Suffice it to say, it would be interesting to see how spontaneous Baptisms would have played in 17th century England. 🙂
http://exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/baptists.html
http://www.anabaptists.org/writings/excerpts/mennonites-in-europe-persecution.html
Here’s a good selection from the article:”Emperor Charles V of Germany issued a general mandate against the Anabaptists on January 4, 1528, which was read from the pulpits of all cities, towns, and villages, decreeing that not only those who had received baptism but all parents who did not have their children baptized in good time were guilty of a criminal offense deserving death. Within a few years a number of imperial decrees followed. Not only were the Anabaptists to be executed by fire, but their dwellings also should be burned, unless they were located in towns or cities in which case they should be raced to the ground. In certain provinces their houses were not destroyed by confiscated. Speaking of northern Germany Menno Simons relates that in 1546 a small house of four rooms was confiscated because the owner had rented it to Menno and his family. In the Tyrol even the houses ion which an Anabaptist had been given temporary lodging were to be destroyed.”
@ An Attorney:
lovely
@ An Attorney: I think it’s only fair to state that Catholics and Protestants alike were guilty of those drownings. Hard to contemplate that some of my ancestors might have been among the persecutors.
Being from PA (settled by Quakers, German Lutherans *and* German Anabaptists, among others), I can tell you that there is still a divide between Lutherans and Anabaptists (Mennonite, Church of the Brethren etc.), though it’s equally true that the Anabaptists are kind off off by themselves, for the most part. I’ve never encountered any ill will (quite the opposite), but the more conservative Mennonites and CotB folks keep society at a bit of a remove. I think it is a hard road, for wives as well as kids, since they are quite patriarchal as well.
@ An Attorney: all that persecution aside, I honestly don’t see why rebaptism is seen as necessary by many evangelicals. I realize that many feel that “believers’ baptism” is the only valid form, but you know… Many who hold to that do so in an unthinking way. As in “That’s how we do it,” which means that those who baptize infants end up beyond the pale – without those who disagree having any clue as to why infant baptism exists, and/or the various understandings of baptism as a sacrament.
All of that creates a LOT of misunderstanding – and sometimes prejudice and hostility.
I can tell you this: I was more or less dragooned into being rebaptized when I was 17. I wish I’d stood my ground about it, because I refused, but these people just wouldn’t take no for an answer. They were well-meaning, but could definitely have been more respectful of my position. I guess they saw Lutherans as semi-heathen. : (
@ numo: as a postscript: yes, I believe that my baptism (as an infant) was/is the real deal. How or why, I can’t quite explain, nor do I want to try – as with our views on communion, there’s more than elements, and more than water. I’d rather leave the mystery (and means) to God, and just believe that it is.
As for the 2nd time, it was water. Just water. Though the prayers and my public confession were real, I can’t for the life of me see that any of it was necessary. One time was sufficient.
In Baptist doctrine, baptism itself is a confessional act, proclaiming that one has been converted (regenerated) and is a “first step” of obedience to Christ. Baptists do not believe that someone else can believe for you, so an infant being baptized is a sign of the parents’ faith, not a sign of a child’s faith. Many children who have been baptized never make a faith commitment. So to ensure a regenerate church membership, the Baptists and Anabaptists (very close kin doctrinally) believe that baptism should occur after the person can choose to follow Christ and any before that is of no worth. Some Anabaptists require candidates for baptism to be “adults” of, variously, 16, 18, or 20 or 21 years of age, so that they have made a decision of choice knowing its meaning.
@ An Attorney: equally, you do not view baptism as a sacrament which is probably the other major difference. Beyond that, though, I think we can agree that baptism is, well, baptism. 🙂
“Re-baptised” (with or without the hyphen) is a term that should be used with circumspection.
As a baby, I was subjected (I say that for want of a less aggressive and pejorative-sounding term) to an Anglican baptismal service by family who, I don’t doubt, meant well and considered it to be a baptism. I have no hesitation in saying that this was a kind thought and I appreciate it as such. But I cannot in conscience ascribe any authority to it as a baptism. The order of service is actually entitled “The baptism of those who are not old enough to answer for themselves” and to me, this is an idea that simply makes no sense. So I was baptised subsequently when I became a believer at age 18. I have never been re-baptised.
That said, I have no issue with believers who, in conscience, do consider themselves to have been baptised as infants. If they are followers of Jesus and, a little less importantly, if they appreciate the importance of baptism, then there is nothing to challenge them over.
There is unthinking conformity (not merely “we always do it this way”, but “you’ve got to do it this way”) among both paedo- and credo-baptists. It is nobody’s business to tell me I have been re-baptised when I hold my own, deliberately done, baptism before God as an act of obedience to him. In the same way, it is not my business to tell another believer to “be baptised” who likewise holds his/her infant baptism before God as an act of obedience.
@ Nick Bulbeck: good points, nick.
i do believe that God moved in and through the baptism I received when I was an infant. Further explication is not something I can do, though, because I do not believe it’s something that’possible to explain in words.
@ numo:
I think you’re quite right not to explain any further, numo; it might be a public declaration of faith (however the practicalities are handled), but it’s still your baptism.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick, you will note that I put “re-baptized” in quotes. And I, personally, do not care whether someone chooses to count their baptism as an infant as sufficient, and claim to be a baptized servant of Jesus, but I do not advocate the baptism of infants. I think it is too easy to make shibboleths out of things some think are mandated by scripture in a particular fashion, and thereby destroy our ability to work together for the greater success of the Kingdom of God on earth. Such are the evils described here, in addition to the abuses of the church and the sheep by those who claim to speak for God.
@ An Attorney:
Yup, I realise you used quotes; some do, some don’t, and I was commenting more on the word itself than on either you or numo per se. I agree, certainly, about the Shibboleth Thing. Whenever credo/paedo-baptism is under discussion, I can never forget the approach of an Anglican vicar from a growing church in a city in northern England when faced with what – to him – was the challenge of a new, and equally fast-growing, congregation in the same city. The new church practiced believers’ baptism and he couldn’t work with them because of it. He considered them to be re-baptising believers and this, for him, was a show-stopper. OK, if his conscience compels him to uphold infant baptism that strongly, then his conscience compels him. The really frustrating thing, though, was that he tried to disparage the new congregation because baptism was “not worth dividing the church over”. He obviously thought it was important enough to divide the church over. As in, it’s a primary issue until I get what I want; then it becomes a secondary issue that nobody else is allowed to argue about.
Accordingly, his attitude was to withhold baptism from new believers regardless of their own consciences. (We’ve seen the converse described here by numo.) It was all the stranger because the vicar in question was in other respects a thoughtful and progressive leader who built a strong team of people around him (as opposed to beneath him) and his whole congregation was flourishing. Shibboleths have that effect, though.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
My brother and his wife started their tour on the Isle of Sky, spent yesterday looping around the northwest, and are now near Perth. (He says he has remastered the roundabouts.) He just texted a selfie of them in front of Dunnottar Castle. They are having a wonderful time.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
That should be Isle of Skye. My apologies.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
We’re going climbing near Arrochar today – there’s no line of sight to Perth but we’ll wave in their general direction!
I’m glad their visit has coincided with at least a few days of settled weather. This week is looking good; high pressure is set to dominate for a wee while. (My barometric altimeter thought it was 230 metres below sea-level this morning, which means that since I last calibrated it, the weather has improved a lot!). I hope they have a great time here!
__
Serve’d Piping Hot: “Spiritual Fast Food, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
…remember, @Elevation …it’s all about da numbers folks?
What?
Steven Furtick has created the world’s first ‘religious drive thru’…
A spiritual brew-thru?
huh?
…by a modern day religious fast spiritual food king, perhaps?
“Would you like fries wit dat?”
-snicker-
Steven sayz: datz …whatz we do here @Elivation, we get um ‘serviced’ quick! (saved n’ baptized), then DING! they’re done!, on to da next ‘number’ in line…
Skreeeeeeeeeeeetch!
(bump)
…evangelism without da travel bus… ummmm, sweet…no messy wheels ta clean up…
Dunk!
Click! Click!
Sizzle, Sizzle…
beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep…
(grin)
Sopy
__
Comic relief?: Dot and Bouncy talk about Baptism 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q51yi_HxNkY
Intermission?: “Dancin’ till da Son comes?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSuKZRDJz-E
;~)
—
First of all, I break the attack of the Christians, in the name of Jesus Christ!
Secondly, I am exhausted over the fact: Blessed are you when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Great is your reward which is in heaven, for so persecuted the prophets before you.
We as a Collective of organizations very much need to make sure we are not adding to stealing, killing, or destroying… each other. Foremost, I want to add… THE BODY IS THE TEMPLE! Your church is the earth suit you are in right now. You are personally responsible for prayer, reading the Word of God, et cetera.
Here is a clue; Stop persecuting each other is a good start. Stop trying to remove others from organizations; stop trying to disqualify others who are preaching the gospel to every creature.
Stop the mentality of “well I will give the preacher money, and he will preach the gospel on my behalf.” Find an outlet to share the gospel yourself. Find an outlet of assisting in the success of others: I Corinthians 10: 24; Seek not your own, but every man, another’s wealth. The word wealth is from the root word Weal meaning well being. So, seek to “esteem others better than yourself” RAISE THE ESTEEM OF OTHERS! ENCOURAGE THE PROSPERITY OF OTHERS! The deeper prosperity scriptures tell you to do this.
Remember, that those who pray and can have the most influence are hit with the most temptations;
Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. YES THIS APPLIES TO PASTORS TOO, no one is exempt.
Steve Furtick does not deserve a hit piece, however THE DEVIL that dealt the kids the drugs before they got DELIVERED, saved and baptized, deserves a hit piece.
If they are a temple of God; in an organization of fellowship with other Temples of God; do your best to protect that Temple of God; Maybe that particular Temple of God doesnt deserve the stress of moral competition in the organization. Maybe that Temple of God just needs to understand the unconditional love and acceptance of God, so if you can act like the Temple of God, and throw off some of that good good unconditional love, good thoughts on whatsoever things are true, and of good report, then we can move forward with influence in this world.
@ Dean:
You are a Collective? Do you know about the Borg?
This is a most fascinating comment. I am going to assume that it is not a parody. So, I will leave you to others as I go tiptoeing through the TULIPS and spreading my unconditional love.
__
Snake Shaken Not Stirred: “Thou Art Da Man, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
Stephen Furtick built a North Carolina religious not-for-profit 501(c)3 corporation.
ok.
He calls this non-profit corporation, a Christian church, a true house of religious worship.
-snicker-
Kind folks are most welcome to stay as long as they are “in process” **
huh?
** “in process” means they ‘the attendees’, ‘the members’ are in the Elevation organizational pipeline to the making of a religious profession of faith, and to be baptized as well.
…once that “in process” procedure(s) is completed on that particular membership number, that particular membership number is asked by Elevation organizational ‘policy’, to move on…literally.
Bye Bye!
(Krunch)
What kind of Christian church kicks out it’s believing, baptized members?
Simple.
Skreeeeeeeeeeeeetch!
(bump)
A false one.
What?
The scriptures teach us that before the second arrival of Jesus Christ, many will come in His name, and with His (Jesus’) words mis-lead many…
(tears)
Steven Furtick, (who has apparently made proverbial religious merchandise outa kind folk who simply don’t know no better) has become rich by profiting on the aggrandizement, and spoiling of seemly an entire Southern religious community…
Whoa!
Religious profit-making, and self-aggrandizement at the expense of Almighty God, perhaps?
…has Steven Furtick become such a man?
hmmm…
Sopy
__
Comic relief: “Smooth Operator?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI7GWbVV7ps
Inspirational clip: “Kingdom of Heaven” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqM8Gni28og
*
___
Notez:
God has a wonderful method for bringing us to maturity in Christ. His plan includes transformation by the renewing of our minds.
“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” ~ The Apostle Paul
For this progressive process, God has given gifts of the Spirit to the members of the Body of Christ, where none have preeminence; all are necessary, with a method that every member have one or more gifts and that those gifts would be manifest in Christ’s body of believers, active for the service and the building up of all…
“…we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” ~The Apostle Paul
[unpacked a bit…]
The Church is built up into the fullness of Christ by a living, functioning body of Christ believers, that are ministering (serving) one another. Every member has a function, and a place, and a ministry! They are joined together in unity, by God’s Spirit, in the bonds of peace.
Every joint…
Is needed!
(The Holy Spirit is working effectively in each member of Christ’s body, to make this possible.)
(smiley face goes here)
In this way, the body makes increase of itself.
All things considered, it builds itself up into a God pleasing shape, a holy temple unto God, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of His Son, Jesus.
This is a progressive faith experience that is to be shared by ‘all’ who called by His name.
🙂
—
@ Dean:
Furtick demeans the scripture, the role of the pastor, and the concept of church. He is in business to line his personal pockets from the tithes and offerings of the people.
As Christians, we are to be discerning and on the lookout for false teachers. That is the category to which Furtick, and the members of the committee who set his salary, all belong. The Bible teaches that we are to identify and shun such false teachers and put them out of the church. So, what is your excuse for ignoring your responsibility to be a Berean?
@ Dean:
Dean, Go back to Furtick and tell him they didn’t listen.
dee wrote:
Sorry, Dee; I agree it was a fascinating comment, but I’ve no idea what it was about. My guess is that “Dean” is a chatbot, since the sentences didn’t connect with each other. Whenever you see a comment that looks like the result of an explosion in a Tweet factory, the likelihood is that it was written by a computer.
In other words, “Dean’s” comment fails the Turing Test.
That chatbot must have an evil demon lurking inside it, because it sounds like it was justifying the sins of Furtick, his staff and his victims (pardon that typo) congregation.
@ An Attorney:
I doubt it; it was probably just written by someone who has some kind of interest or awareness of Christian controversies who can feed the program some basic instructions, including a person’s name. Or else the program parses Christian blog threads for often-repeated names and churns them back out again. You’ll notice that the sentence including Furtick is more or less content-free and doesn’t relate to anything anyone has said. In fact, just about every sentence in the comment is contradicted, directly or in gist, by another sentence in it. Like Chomsky’s famous contrived “sentence” Colourless green ideas sleep furiously, “Dean’s” comment is syntactically correct (to a degree) but semantically meaningless. Hence my conclusion that “Dean” is not a human, regenerate or otherwise, but a piece of software.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
What if Dean IS “Meat in Meatspace”?
You know you’re a loser when you fail the Turing Test….
numo wrote:
That’s the sort of thing that happens when you have an Ideological Holy War. And the Reformation Wars WERE a series of Ideological Holy Wars finally ending around 1648. (And there are those in 2014 who still haven’t gotten the word and are still fighting.)
At least SBC Chaplain’s examples were all from the Reformation Wars; that adds to his credibility. When I heard his initial comment, I was afraid he was going into Landmark Baptist/Trail of Blood True Remnant country — now that would have wrecked his credibility.
numo wrote:
I wonder how much of “We do Beleiver’s Baptism because ENEMY Christians Baptize Infants” has entered into the mix. Doing A because ENEMY Christians do Not-A is not a good reason.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Nope – there’s no way “Dean” is a human.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Sadly yes, although one of them did recently resign the Papacy at least.