"All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy."
Spike Milligan link
The Pseudoepigraph of 2 Acts: The Real Story of Thomas
A Synopsis
Paul was able to give up the tent making business prior to his journey to Rome. He apparently impressed a fair number of well to do followers who decided that Paul needed to show just how "relevant" he was. They didn't want some shabby tent maker hurting their hipster image when he stood before the powers that be. They bought him several tunics from Rock and Roman Republic and awesome Luccheseus sandals. He got a tattoo on his forearm saying "My boys at The Jerusalem Coalition brought it."
Before Paul traveled to Rome in his refurbished Cleopatra barge, (one must make an appearance you know), he noticed the contributions had taken a 3.239% decline. How would he fund the dinner for the big boys in Rome? He discovered that people were sending money to Thomas, who compared to Paul, was just a dude wearing pajamas and witnessing from his mother's insula. Tacky, totally tacky.
He had his boys pick up Thomas. As Thomas appeared before Paul (who had just tip dyed his hair), Paul showed him a letter that he was going to send to all the churches. He told all the "gospel" believing churches to stop giving money to the little guys. The church must be united, with a large, discretionary fund and it all must be under the authority of the local church which was, of course, overseen by Paul.
He told Thomas that God had instituted a non-compete clause for all people in Paul's district. After all, Paul did write most of the New Testament and he had received a vision. (In the words of Marcus, he saw things….) That non-compete included the area surrounding the sunny Mediterranean. He gave Thomas three choices: head up to the Germanic pagan hordes in the far north, go to India or be placed under church discipline for his little "doubting" episode. Thomas knew he was doomed. He hated cold weather and had heard rumors that the Germanic tribes sometimes attacked in the nude which totally freaked him out. So, off he went to India where he developed a life long passion for curry.
TWW was contacted by Reid Shuping who told us a fascinating story about his tenure in a large Presbyterian church in western Tennessee. This church sounds like a typical mega-church with senior leadership receiving large salaries easily entering into the 6-figure range. Reid decided to leave the church to form a not-for-profit mission group which would reach people in underserved areas of the world.
However, the senior leadership was not impressed with his goal. Why? Could it be that money would be diverted from "God's work" (pastors' salaries, benefits and Bose speakers?) It does appear to TWW that, as big money takes over the church, protecting the income becomes very, very important. For example, it is not uncommon for church to build expensive buildings for the "work of God". See this story of FBC Dallas which built a $130 million addition.
Big salaries, big benefits and expensive buildings, along with high tech everything, comes at a cost. Money must keep rolling in the door, and that involves more and more time being devoted to money management. This is not a church. It is big business, never doubt it. So it is no wonder that "protect the bucks" becomes Commandment Numero Uno. This can be clearly seen in the "non-compete covenant". (So gospel sounding…)
I Googled the issue and noticed that church attorneys are getting into the game. Here is an article from Church Executive. Please note that churches seem to like the word "covenant". Do not be fooled. TWW has been warning you about this all along. Always remember that a covenant is treated like a legal contract. From the post Covenants not to compete: Spread the Gospel, just do it somewhere else:
… the modern church organization is also essentially a small business. It usually provides services in the form of religious worship and instruction as well as products such as books or audio/visual materials. It has a full-time staff of employees who spend the typical work week planning for ways to make their church more effective in delivering its message and content.
It may have staff as well as hired contractors who help the church develop new marketing and branding strategies, new musical and worship concepts, new technological advances, new donor development programs, and countless other innovations. Most importantly, the church will learn through trial and error what works in its community and what does not. Based upon the substantial hard work and unique knowledge of the church, is it fair to allow a former employee to leave your church with the benefit of that knowledge and set up a “competing” church across the street?
Many pastors believe it is not fair to allow that kind of competition. They have adopted the secular business practice of asking new employees to enter into a “covenant not to compete” or non-compete agreement.
…Most states will enforce covenants not to compete if they are (a) reasonable as to limitations on location, (b) reasonable as to time, and (c) are shown to be necessary to protect unique business interests.
Reid's Story In His Words
(The bold headers are inserted by editor)
It's been a little more than two years since I decided to walk away from my position as Stewardship Director at X Church in Tennessee. My three year journey through the ins and outs of the church brought me to the innermost relationship circles of the church – an opportunity I believed was one of pure privilege when I took the position. I proudly defended the leadership, assured the donors that their dollars were going to a great organization and worked countless hours all aimed at increasing the volume of dollars to increase the revenue river.
Aggressive fund raising within X Church leads to dissatisfaction
Halfway through my three years at the church, however, I began to feel differently about my position and the tasks I was beginning to be asked to complete by senior leadership. As best as I could tell from many conversations with the "money guys" from other mega churches in our country, we were by comparison extremely more aggressive in our methods for raising money from our audience.
There is much to be said for what I believe to be extremely ungodly methods for raising money that churches are now racing to embrace behind the scenes. As for my personal experience, it is sufficient to say that my conscience could simply not bear to continue on with these soulless methods for raising dollars – much less the purposes for which the funds are being raised. I myself even tasted these financial perks after receiving a bonus that was nearly 15% of my salary with less than a year of work under my belt. I was guilty of the things I did not approve of and found that I was in a situation that I desperately wanted to escape. I still deeply loved the people I worked with, and I worked hard to do my job with as clear of a conscience as possible. However, with each passing month, I felt more and more like I was aiding and abetting the explosive financial gains of individuals and not the needs of those the Bible clearly puts the Church in charge of meeting (i.e. the poor & needy).
A decision to start a non-profit mission group
With no experience to speak of in starting an organization, I began to privately, out of lack of desire to continue working at X Church, stumble my way into founding a non-profit. I had no idea what that decision would mean for me and my family when it came time to say goodbye to X Church.
Fast forward to December 2011. (ed. 2/27/14) I don't recall the exact date, but I received an email with a list of 10-15 year-end fundraising initiatives from a senior leader at the church. As I read through the list, I came across one that dropped my heart to the pit of my stomach and left me with an overwhelming realization that I was done. I could not and WOULD NOT do this anymore. The dishonesty of calculating fundraising initiatives to prey upon individuals that had reduced their giving to the church (many giving less for valid reasons) was the last straw. In less than a few hours I arrived at home and, walking into the kitchen, I met my wife and spilled the beans. "I can't do this any more." "What do you mean?", she asked. "I'm done." She replied, "So what are you going to do?" I responded, "I'm going in on Sunday and resigning."
Church discipline and a retroactive non-compete
Two days later, after consulting with many friends and family over the weekend, I arrived at the office sharply at 7:30 am and requested to meet with one of the senior leaders. I offered my resignation. What happened next was beyond any of my wildest expectations and exploded me onto the scene of "church discipline".
Upon disclosing my desire and intent to move in the direction of launching a non-profit, I instantly entered into two days of accusation, interrogation and intimidation by senior leaders. Before I knew it, I was drowning in accusations from senior leaders of moral failure and being pressured into signing a non-compete.
In these conversations I wept, gave 100% disclosure of everyone I had spoken with (less than 10 in number, 2 of whom I explicitly asked for prayer support alone) and agreed to send an email to the "top donors" of the church telling them I was leaving X Church.
Leaders insist on an email to top donors, saying Reid would refuse donations from them.
That afternoon I sat down at my computer and crafted an email. I don't remember the exact content of the email as much as I remember sending a copy of it to a senior leader who printed my letter off and hand wrote additional verbiage that I was asked to add into the letter. This extra verbiage transformed the letter from a goodbye letter into a public record stating that I would not take any donations from any of the top donors on the email distribution list I would be emailing. I took the letter, folded it in half, packed it into my brief case and headed off to a dentist appointment with the agreement to the senior leaders involved that I would send the email out first thing the following morning.
By the next morning I had decided I would not agree to sending the email. I was told by the self-acclaimed-corporate-guru-senior church-leader how foolish I was for my decision, and the animosity I heard in that voice revealed to me the true nature of the situation and how I was being viewed by senior leadership.
He refuses and data is wiped from his IPad
Moments later another senior leader arrived to work. The two leaders began to meet in private about my refusal to send out the email. My presence was requested in an office, and I was left alone to wait for whatever was going to happen next. I do not know everything that happened in the 10-20 minutes as I waited for the meeting to begin, but the two things that did happen were the removal of the printed email with the handwritten notes of the senior leader from my personal briefcase and the remote wiping of all data from my personal iPad.
Threats about bad recommendations unless he did what he was told
The door finally opened, and two senior leaders entered. I was instructed that a non-compete would be drafted that would bind me legally to never being able to receive a donation to the non-profit I was forming from any persons who had ever gone to X Church. I explained that I would not sign the agreement. When asked why, I replied that there was a specific person who had begun coming to X Church at my personal invitation that would not be able to give to my organization if I signed the agreement. I received the response "that's fair". At this point I was told that the agreement could "just be for 7 years" because by that time "no one would remember who I was". I was then, in every sense of the word, threatened that if I would not sign the documents I would be treated in the same capacity as a former employee who was regularly given bad reviews by one of the senior leaders whenever that senior leader was called as a job reference. If I signed the agreement, I was told, "everything will be good" and there would not be any bad blood.
For me personally, I was overwhelmed. Here I was, an almost 9-year member of the church and caught in a surreal interaction with senior leaders that I kept thinking would turn out to be a bad dream that I would abruptly awake from.
However, it was at the point of being threatened that I realized there was no reconciliation or respect that was going to be had from these senior leaders. From this moment forward, I would come to realize they were going for the jugular vein of my obedience to Jesus.
I paused. It was time to say goodbye. I told the senior leaders of my gratefulness for the opportunity to work at the church, that our family would continue to attend and financially support the work of the church, and I then closed by telling one of the senior leaders in tears that I loved him. The response was brief. "I love you, too, Reid", followed by an instruction to the other senior leader to walk me out. To this date I couldn't tell you if I was fired or if I resigned.
Clears out desk under the watchful eye of leaders
On December 23, 2011, under the watchful eye of that senior leader, I packed my office up in boxes while being followed around step by step and move by move to ensure I was not taking anything that belonged to the church. I handed over my keys to the senior leader and was then escorted to Human Resources where I completed whatever standard forms they needed to formalize my departure. I packed my car and drove away sobbing and yet strangely free from the weight that had been over my heart for that last 1 and 1/2 years.
In closing, I'd like to point out and remind anyone who reads this that in my final meeting with the senior leaders how I expressed my intention to continue participating in the life of the church. Before God I believe this is the purest proof of my innocence and naïveté. These were not the words of a person that was aiming to siphon donor dollars from X Church. Also, FYI, my family never went back to X Church for worship.
More on the non-compete covenant
This is the story of how I believe the non-compete entered into the life of X Church on account of me. Before I left I was told that my replacement would be required to sign a non-compete. Sadly, since leaving X Church, I have learned more about the aggressive use of non-competes by churches to limit the church's exposure to financial losses when key staff or volunteers decide to make a break from the church.
His mission goes on
Although I have spent the last two years fighting the frustration of being thrown under the bus by senior leaders of a megachurch, I would never change a thing (except perhaps to be a little more bold in calling out the obvious need for accountability for those who were at the top of X Church). My life has gone on. I have an awesome family by my side. I have new work that I love. I have a non-profit that is fully supporting 10 national missionaries in developing countries. Most especially, I have the freedom to share my story because I did not sign a non-compete or any other documents that would have enslaved me to the secrets that haunt church staff who serve under false teachers and ego-driven visionaries. Sacrifice is the calling of those who follow Christ, and I am grateful I experienced this first-hand through my experience at X Church.
Lydia's Corner: Jeremiah 28:1-29:32 1 Timothy 1:1-20 Psalm 86:1-17 Proverbs 25:17
Disgusting is the best thing I can say now without resorting to pettiness or profanity.
The writer deserved much better treatment than he got.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Second!!!! 😯
Ugh, this kind of treatment is ridiculous, but sadly, the more I read here, not too surprising anymore.
This is quite honestly horrendous if it’s true. It smacks more of running a cut-throat business than of the life of faith, asking God to supply needs and looking after the flock. And it also makes the ordinary person very cynical about religion.
I instantly began a two-day interrogation and disciplining by senior leaders.
Reid…my friend. You’re leadership is in the wrong business. Instead of “leading” the flock, if they can do those kind of interrogations to the point of breaking you, well then the Central Intelligence Agency could use a polygragher or two. They are in the wrong business.
This is another example of how money corrupts and why pastors needs to take a vow of poverty. I wonder if this Presybeterian Church has some of the same “reformed” theology as Sovereign Grace.
Well I guess that is the next step in this theolgical game of musical chairs….the “Gospel Centered Polygraph”
“the anger I heard in their voice revealed to me the nature of the conversations about me that had been taking place behind my back as the senior leaders had been working to figure out how to handle my situation.”
Ooooooo. How many readers who have experienced spiritual abuse can relate to that statement? Reid, I am so, so sorry you were treated so shamefully. Thank you for sharing your story.
Eagle wrote:
But that’s ROMISH(TM)….
Eagle wrote:
Scientology already has one, the “Gang Bang Sec Check” where the Suspected Suppressive is given the third degree with high-pressure screaming from multiple interrogators while holding the cans of a Hubbard E-Meter.
P.S.
“Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If you want to make a million dollars, start your own religion.”
— L Ron Hubbard at a WorldCon a couple years before he founded Scientology
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
That’s IT HUG. The reason most of us fall for them today is that they appear more “orthodox” than Scientology.
My first thought; “Well, I’ve heard Reid’s side.”
In my eyes, the leaders at X Church are anathema to me. Lord, have mercy.
I was under the impression that the Catholic Church started the rules for celibacy (and maybe vows of poverty?) to stop the priests/monks from becoming too wealthy. However, I am not Catholic and don’t know much of church history, so this may be incorrect.
In any case, it makes me respect men like George Muller more. He housed thousands of children in his orphanage without asking or even hinting for money from people. I don’t think God requires this of everyone, but it’s better than these outrageous “fundraising” schemes.
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
Well, go find out the other side’s story then Seneca. Be sure to interview Reid’s neighbors, family, and fellow workmates at his new job to learn of his character because the mega church will have many character references (on the payroll) to support their perspective/image. The church surely wasn’t thinking the best of Reid in light of the agreements tbey wanted him to sign as he was taking his leave.
@ Bridget:
BTW, where is the MEGA faith of these mega pastors if they have to get so worked up over one employee leaving? Not seeing much faith in their sovereign god.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
Well how about Jesus’s side.
Matthew 11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence (is forcibly entered), and violent men take it by force(seize it for themselves).
footnotes cutesy of Biblegateway found here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+11&version=NASB
Reid’s story is a perfect example of those violent men that Jesus spoke of who have taken by force the things that belong to God.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
I also see the senior pastors displaying this (another thing Jesus said):
Matthew 23:25 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
I guess I’m more concerned with the view of Jesus in situations like this than the view of greedy men who threaten, intimidate, and spiritually abuse in order to fill their own coffers in the name of Jesus.
I would hope that these covenants not to compete would be found unconstitutional as a violation of the right to free exercise of religion. And any ‘church’ that attempts to implement one of these is a greedy, money-grubbing, non-Christian idol worshipers that might as well construct a statue of Baal out front.
Seneca "j" Griggs wrote:
🙄
Reid,
Thanks for your courage in sharing your painful experience. Your boldness is inspirational to me.
I just can’t believe it….” The love of money IS the root of all evil.”
The operative word: “Your”
“Your church”?
Jesus fashioned a whip of cords and used it… — John 2:15
.
@ Anon:
Darn straight!
First of all, much love to you Reid. May the God of peace hold you close in His safe place. Your courage to share may just help someone else obey the convictions from Holy Spirit.
Secondly, this is exactly why I have to force myself to attend “church” today:
“On the other hand, the modern church organization is also essentially a small business. It usually provides services in the form of religious worship and instruction as well as products such as books or audio/visual materials. It has a full-time staff of employees who spend the typical work week planning for ways to make their church more effective in delivering its message and content.”(from Church Executive article)
I want to experience what it means to be in the family of God. But, WHERE IS IT? Like Reid told his wife, “I’m done.”
Thanks for sharing your story so clearly and without all the bitterness that is often associated with situations like this. I hope God can continue to use this part of your story to bring clarity, accountability, restoration, and redemption to all those involved in this aspect of church leadership… On a personal note and in interest of full disclosure ;), I love you and count you as one of my closest friends. Thanks for putting yourself out there.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
Cynical “j” Griggs is a much better name for you.
Erik wrote:
We like you here. So, do you want to be another son of mine? Eagle calls me “mom.”
@ dee:
Mom did you check your email? 😉
Praise God, you are free, Reid. That was no church. That was a business. Thank God you donated no more of your family, time, $$ there.
Deb, love the rolling eyes. I was rolling mine along with you.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
Seneca…when are you going to become a marriage counselor? I can see you saying multiple things to a wife wife a broken jaw and bashed in face!!
1. SUBMIT WOMAN!!!
2. You’re doing better than you deserve!
@ dee:
That’d be a great honor!
In the old days churches were comprised of those from that community. I never have understood anything about modern church plant strategies.
Reid, I’m grateful you shared your story. Thank you!
I continue to be amazed at how an organization seems great, followed by a growing sense that something isn’t right, followed by one innocent event that threatens the organization beyond anything reasonable, resulting in damage beyond imagination. What a stench then rises up from the dead man’s bones, white-washed sepulchers … all the while they look like the Man-O-Gawd!
I also continue to be amazed at how God uses it, not that He likes it, or won’t punish it, but that He makes good out of what was meant for evil.
@Erik,
I too struggle to attend church for this reason among a few others. You are not alone in this struggle. I myself am just trying to keep my eyes and heart on Jesus and trust that He will lead the way. Hang in there! I know this can be a lonely, frustrating place to be.
“except perhaps to be a little more bold in calling out the obvious need for accountability for those who were at the top of X Church”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
is there a statute of limitations on boldly calling out the obvious need for accountability for those who were at the top of X Church?
Reid, I am so sorry for how horribly you were treated. It is unconscionable. You seem like an excellent human being. You have integrity. You made hard choices and took the consequences.
I notice you have kept the church and individuals anonymous. It strikes me that those at the top of X Church who are in obvious need of accountability will never get it if they remain shadowy nameless figures.
I do believe that church culture is saturated with messages of humility (or else!), unity (at most if not all costs), and total distrust of any & all of one’s own motivations — it all brings about a good deal of paranoia in people.
The response is to hunker down and not rock the boat (or only rock it a teeny bit) for fear of entering into sin and compromising oneself, fear of compromising a cause one still believes in, fear of making Jesus look bad. One is observed as taking the high road this way, and indeed they feel that they have.
These are my thoughts: First of all, Jesus can take it.
Then, anything wracked with fear is unhealthy, counterproductive, and cannot be the high road.
X Church and all organizations who do things similar to what you’ve described are already compromised and are falling apart.
Lastly, whistle blowing is not a sin. Wrong and error will continue to degrade something unless the one(s) who recognize call it out directly.
I believe it will require turning off one’s own personal motivations analyzer.
Some things are more important than the threat of possible mixed motives.
(I’m quite sure even Mother Theresa had mixed motives)
Eagle wrote:
Eagle, I have no idea what’s Reid’s case has to do with marriage counseling? I DO think that if I was doing marriage counseling I might actually want to hear both sides?
When discussing, just recently as a matter-of-fact, the Arizona law regarding Cake Bakers having to serve gay couples, DEE talked about knowing EXACTLY where she stood on the matter before she had read other opinions. Then she talked about seeing or understanding the other side of the situation.
*
I kinda like to hear other opinions before I judge the case. It just might change my viewpoint.
*
By the way, I have functioned under a “Non Compete” clause for the last 17 years or so. It is not a religious institution, however, that I contract with.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
You are a heartless b u t .
@ Julie Anne: This eyeroll is even better. 🙂
Thumbs up on that eye roll. I had the sound muted. I suspect the man was saying the same garbage that I hear from a certain someone who shall remain unidentified.
speaking of eye rolling Nadia Bolz-Weber had a sermon on Jesus eye rolling.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nadiabolzweber/
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
I am going to request something from you. I would like you to see you respond kindly to the person who tells a story before you get into your rather ho hum knee, jerk baloney.
Here is how it goes. “Reid, I am so sorry for the struggle you had a your former church. I will pray for you.” Then, post the comment. Wait about 12 hours and then say “Gee, did the church have a point of view on the matter?”
elastigirl wrote:
We talked a lot about this. Reid has no compunction about saying the name of the church but he also has some friends who are still there.
So, we did a “one degree of separation” post. You can find out the name of the church pretty easily if you would like. Reid used his real name. Last night I got an email from someone who said he figured out the church pretty quickly.
dee wrote:
Many men ( me included ) analysis first, compassion second. Many women, compassion first, analysis second.
So, churches aren’t above secular business practices, like this one of legally staking out their “fiscal territory”. And yet how many of them would tell their congregants that relying on psychotherapy or the law enforcement is “worldly” and “failing to trust in God”?
Secular practices are fine for the shepherds, verboten for the flock. “Some animals are more equal than others.” (Sorry, HUG, I beat you to it. 😉 )
I haven’t yet looked up the name of the “church” that Reid escaped. Does anyone know what its policies are regarding counseling (whether psychologists or other professionals are off-limits)? Or whether their parishioners are “encouraged” to keep criminal complaints in-house, instead of involving the police? From what Reid has said, it wouldn’t surprise me if these “leaders” had gone all SGM on their flock. Which would make me even more grateful that he and his family are outta there.
__
“By Their ‘bogus’ Fruit, You Shall Know Them?
hmmm…
Intro music: “Don’t Look Back?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xz9u13jPuU
—> For religious dogs have compassed me: the 501(c)3 assembly of the proverbial wicked church leadership have inclosed me: they pilfered my briefcase and pierced my iPad, and my hands they attempted to bind with a ‘Non-Compete Agreement’… yet a bruised Reid they shall not break…
huh?
…we are talking about the house of God, right?
No?
Kirrrrrrrrrrrrrk!
“…this is a numbers racket, once again let me succinctly and emphatically emphasize, – pain is great gain…” ~ Professor Hipwader’s glorious plan b.
(grin)
hahahahaha
Skreeeeeeeeeeeetch!
(bump)
Crash!
“Yea, [they are] greedy dogs [which] can never have enough, and they [are] shepherds [that] cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.” ~ Isaiah 56:11
(sadface)
Sopy
__
exit music: “…your church check out time requires an leadership escort?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlvTGXyRRuQ
;~)
—
Deebs…
I’m not trying to be difficult but I caught a mistake in the post. Reid writes that he received an email in December 2012 about new fundraising goals. Then later on in the post he talks about how in December 23, 2011 he packs up his boxes under the eye of his senior leader.
One of those dates is wrong and needs correction.
(1) I personally have insider information about two large denominational churches, one in my city and one in a city just down the road. In one case the information was given to me by a volunteer fund raiser at that church, and in the other case the information was given to me by a staff member at the other church. In both instances the information demonstrates a church atmosphere and church practices that are consistent with what Reid has said.
(2) In neither case were the churches calvinist of any sort. OF ANY SORT
(3) In both cases the churches were “old” and “established” in the community, albeit large. Neither church can be considered a “church plant” in at least not in the last hundred years or more.
Reid –
I’m quite sorry that you and your family have had to go through this experience. It really isn’t what we are expecting as we walk through our life in Christ. It sounds like you have discovered much on the journey. Praying that you continue on comforted in Him.
@ Nancy:
I’m not sure what the point of your points are here, but I certainly can see people in old or young churches being covetous of their market share in any city. They disguise it under the banner of “glorifying Jesus” when they really have Jesus confused with the name of their beloved church, pastor, leaders, self, or money.
@ Bridget:
My point is that this cannot be blamed on the calvinists or the newer church plants. It is probably accepted practice that is widespread.
“IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS, BABY!”
We tend to say “the church” does this or that–like the current topic. And then people tend to say that they are done with “the church.” OK. Me too. But are we really sure that this is “the church” or is it just the business on the corner? At what point do we change our thinking about what “the church” is and how we know it when we see it, or not?
@ dee:
hi, dee & reid. I apologize if I erred on the side of bluntness.
Nancy wrote:
“The White House says this, the White House says that — it’s the F’in Amityville Horror, an evil house that runs the country!”
— D.C.Cab
Eagle wrote:
Thanks for your sharp eye!
Just verified the dates with Reid and made the following correction in the post:
dee wrote:
Another problem with Patriarchy and compism is it’s denial of the mothers of faith. If any woman with the giftings to become a mother in the church begins to be revealed, the first thing they (patriarchs) want to do is squash it. They will share their (perceived) power with no one. And they HATE, HATE, HATE this blog because of the spiritual ‘mothering’ going on.
But they (Patriarchs) don’t get that it has nothing to do with power. It has to do with nurturing and uplifting and doing the work of Jesus.
Matthew 12:50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
Couple that with this:
Matthew 23: 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called [b]leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
And you see that Jesus doesn’t support ‘patriarchy’ while trying to diminish matriarchy.
But rather, He uses motherly terms even in referencing Himself (Oh the scandal!)
Matthew 23:37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
Yup. Them thar patriarchs really hate this place. How dare young men look to women as spiritual mothers. Did I say, “Oh, the scandal!”?
@ Mara:
Great points! This would be a wonderful topic for a (guest) post. 😉
Nancy wrote:
Thanks. That helps clarify what you were getting at.
I think what we are seeing IS “c”hurch as many of us know it today. Some of Jesus Church is resident in church, but much of Jesus Church is not in these churches. Shwew (wiping forehead) – I’m churched out.
Lest anyone misunderstand what I am saying, I think Reid is right, did the right thing, and the Lord has blessed his ministry for all to see. Reid’s behavior is more consistent with what the church ought to be and do than is the behavior of his former employer.
Not too long ago I commented about some missiology books I have been reading. These are not the first or the last that I have read or will read in that area of thought and research. The one thing that I see, at this point, that is pretty common among missiologists of varying opinions, is that the religious institution in America is way, way off base in lots of ways. One thing I hear repeated again and again is that we have stolen God’s money and built buildings with it as though the Bible said “go into the building and you will be saved.” All the while neglecting the very teachings of Jesus about how we ought to live in relation to suffering humanity and lost humanity. And that would be suffering humanity next door and across the street.
Forgive me if I sound too passionate about this. I do not mean to offend, but this hits right at the heart of my worst issues with the business on the corner.
@ Bridget:
I also forgot the possessive symbol with “Jesus” – twice 🙄
@ Mara:
That’s a good observation, Mara.
While patriarchs and comps claim they want to be good examples of fathers and leaders, what many of them are doing to get there is to “put down” women (all that femenist ranting). Jesus was concerned with exactly what some men are advocating today. It’s quite twisted.
Nancy wrote:
Excellent assessment in my opinion. It will take a societal collapse or massive renewal to make a change. Maybe both.
Deb wrote:
Ok, that guuurrrl needs to teach me some eye-rollin’ lessons. Wow – she’s good!!! Thanks for that, Deb!
Eagle wrote:
LOL, Eagle.
For those interested, http://cryingoutforjustice.wordpress.com has some excellent articles critiquing Piper’s theology and writing.
hey, guys. thank you so much for the feedback you have given!! i hope that by sharing my experience at x church that many will realize the reality that most staff are living under in vision-driven churches – and pray vigorously for their faith and strength in the faith.
@erik – I owe you guys a huge thanks, my friend. thanks for your selfless response that just let me be me. before I left the church I was told “well, at least you have learned here how not to do things.” I want to affirm God’s calling on your life and encourage you to continue thinking outside the box. it doesn’t cost a penny to share the Gospel so I am glad you are “done” with over-organized churches and are pursuing participation in the Church that Christ is building. Please request my phone # from Dee if you ever want to chat! I’d be honored if we could ever work together to advance the Gospel.
@Seneca. man I sincerely love guys like you and believe we would get along really well. I’m not sure if you respond more for the purpose of providing other possible angles (i.e. devil’s advocate) or if you have personal experiences that drive your feedback, or if it is something entirely different. please also feel free to get my # from Dee if you’d ever like to chat. there are many things I could respond with to your comments including specific examples of activities in the church that would counter your feedback, but that wasn’t my goal of this post. I am open to all criticism and part of what I did when I left the church was to seek out independent spiritual “audits” from other Godly men to check whether I had done something wrong so I could repent as necessary. I hope that sharing this info with you will encourage you in your concern that I was or may have been hiding a divisive spirit. having said that, leaving these types of churches is more like being beat out of a gang than anything else. I have seen people lose homes, marriages, sobriety from drugs & alcohol and much, much more. I tell people to this day of my gratefulness that I have not had to share in my other comrade’s losses.
@Eagle – you are awesome. I’m always working toward being a detailed person, but it doesn’t come natural to me. thanks for catching the typo!! 🙂
@elastgirl no apology needed! 🙂 you are right, there is no statute of limitations for speaking out against sin in the church. I love the determination and availability in your voice to speak out against something if you believe it is wrong. to clarify, the comment about “changing anything” was in the context of my last hours and days at the church, not my life going forward. thank you for sharing your feedback!!
@bridget. thanks for the richness of compassion and understanding in your posts. I really appreciate your words of support.
@TWW thank you for all you do to help us pursue purity in our methods and motivations for surrendering our lives to Jesus.
@everyoneElse 🙂 thank you for your support!!
please let me know if you guys have any other questions about my experience that I can help answer.
-reid
@ Reid:
Thank you for your willingness to share this testimony.
It is further evidence that there are some serious problems with the 21st century 'church'.
@ elastigirl:
Do not apologize. I love your comments, always. You are a blessing to TWW and do not forget it!
Bridget wrote:
Well, the easiest way to climb to the top is to push everyone else down. Like Lord Farquar from Shrek decreeing that all his subjects have their legs amputated so no one can be taller than himself.
Lobsters in a bucket.
Reid-
You really inspire me!! It’s folks like yourself that give me hope about the church. Please keep it up.
I believe that is against the law. All a former employer can say to a potential new one is that yes, you worked for them, and give the dates you were employed there.
@ HoppyTheToad: Celibacy was introduced by the Catholic Church in an attempt to keep dioceses and parishes from being passed down from father to son. What this led to was high ranking church fathers getting bishoprics and cardinal ates for their children. It should be noted that children born to noble families in the High Middle Ages were also part of the horse trading between church and state. There was the occasional noble teenager who might get a cardinal’s hat or be appointed abbess of a monastery.
This is just one more example of hypocrisy among many fundies. They rant on and on about the evils of modern culture (the role of women, ‘effeminate’ men, homosexuality, etc.) and how they, as ‘Christians’ are holding on to (made-up) ‘ideals’ against the culture, yet they’ve turned their backs on God and turned their churches into mirrors of the worst excesses of modern business, ‘Christianity’ is something to be sold like any other product or service for the purpose of building an empire and making obscene amounts of money. We really need a new Reformation.
Reid-
How have your friends responded to this? What are their thoughts? Are they still as this Presbyterian Church?
Reid, thank you. It is a joy to see another story of God’s deliverance from difficult church situations. Many have exited difficult groups after painful experiences, but found that God’s blessing was still with them in new ventures — smaller, larger, completely different, maybe, but still serving God. Good stuff!
@ JeffT:
I think something good is going to happen. Maybe soon.
Here is why I think that. You brought up about the fundies. That seems to be correct. I brought up about financial “issues” in non-fundie non-calvinist old established churches. That also seems correct. The pollsters record the growing number of “nones.” The missiologists remind us that at best we are adding to the church mostly only those born into the faith (however defined) and not new believers. And on the internet and in politics and everywhere I seem to look there is huge discontent including among some (many?) of the people diligently sitting on the pews Sunday after Sunday. That’s a bunch of folks. And that’s a lot of corruption in the churches. Somewhere there is going to be a tipping point. Seneca said “either societal collapse or massive renewal.” I agree with that, and I am adding to that the idea that it could be both, societal callapse and also renewal, but either way, I think renewal is coming.
Either that, or one has to think that God is sitting around wringing His hands and only wishing that there was something He could do about it. Do we not have historical evidence that His first choice is renewal?
Whoever said they were done with church (was it Erik?), I feel the same way! I do go, and I like it o.k., and most sunday’s get a good amount of it. But it’s not a passion and I dont’ know where I stand on a lot of matters of faith, or where my relationship with God stands, rather. I am also very skeptical of things and have to investigate any outside groups that come to the church, or any points in a sermon I don’t agree with. To the point where I’ve almost had panic attacks during a church service. I try to be very careful to avoid situations that will be emotionally difficult for me and keep myself on a trajectory of getting closer to God and not closing up emotionally.
@ JeffT:
In its highly organized forms, American Protestantism has become every bit as byzantine as the Roman Catholic Church. And readers please note that this is NOT an indictment against the countless rank and file Catholics and Protestants who love Jesus and exemplify him in their everyday lives and in quiet and unassuming ways, but rather a statement of solidarity with them.
JeffT wrote:
Jeff, I agree wholeheartedly with your post. And I am truly sorry that Reid went through such a stressful workplace situation. It’s simply the worst.
That said, many of the processes that Reid brought up have been part and parcel of corporate culture for years – confidentiality agreements, no-compete clauses, draconian and insensitive “exit processing” with a full security detail present (even for employees who left for a new job of their own accord).
What’s truly sad is that church management didn’t ask Reid sign the non-compete clause up front – LIKE A PROPER BUSINESS! 🙂 Then he could have made an informed decision about working there.
But hey, it’s all about cloaking the biz side of church with the mantle of gospelly-iciousness. As “Anonymous” on TWW wrote often (where have they been of late?), it IS a business.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs: you exclude compassion. And please don’t blame it on gender – Christ never did!
@eagle – I’ve gotten mixed reviews from family and friends. as a husband and father, many were obviously concerned about me completely walking away from a job that paid for my home, cell phone, food, etc. one thing I observed was that many were willing to side with me on the ethical side of my decision but had a difficult time siding with the absoluteness with which I walked way from a salary and insurance. it was a very tough season for me as I was personally dealing with everything while also having to muster up the strength to reassure everyone around me that everything was going to be fine. when I left the church I felt that it was going to be a 3-5 year recovery for me and our family to re-establish and find some sense of normalcy. I’d say that estimated time frame has turned out to be fairly accurate.
@ Nancy
Here is a good illustrative case study. This is absolutely true and recent. It is about the quiet pew sitters who are giving up on the church and flying under the radar while doing it. It is one story of many. I just chose this one.
Middle aged middle class white male with history of a good education and a good job and, like everybody else his share of the problems of life. Preacher’s kid, f-a-i-t-h-f-u-l-at church. Wrote the book on showing up and participating and living by the rules. Facilitator of this and volunteer at that–all his life. Sometimes he acts more like the typical preacher than like the typical congregant. Learned it from his dad and can’t help it. Acts and talks like an actual believer. Good guy.
Middle aged middle class white female with history of a good education and a good job and, like everybody else her share of the problems of life. Raised in family that has been Christian for generations and raised on “the Bible says.” Acts and talks like an actual believer, but not nearly as compliant as the preacher’s kid, more apt to have a dissenting opinion on some theological or doctrinal issue, but an expert at dealing with people (does it professionally) and therefore gets away stuff sometimes because everybody likes her. Good gal.
Conversation:
Him: “Why aren’t you going to church as much as you used to?”
Her: “There is just nothing there any more. I have to force myself to do it. Why are you still going so much?”
Him: “There is nothing there for me either, but it is a time when I can sit quietly and nobody is pulling at me all the time to do something for them.”
These people are ripe for renewal, just like those of us who are more angry and more verbal. But you could not tell by looking. This is one reason that I think there are so many folks who are ready for something good to happen.
@ Nancy: I agree completely. And there’s no need to apologize for being passionate!
Back in the 70s, I spent time with both lay and religious Catholics who worked in social services. The RCC goes to SO many people who are ignored by most white evangelicals and helps them with super-practical stuff – migrant farmworkers who live in appalling conditions, for example.
I wish the mass of American Protestants would wake up and smell the coffee, as Ann Landers used to say.
@ Nancy: for many, that “something good” has been either joining or reverting to liturgical churches. (Am a revert myself.) It’s not a solution for everyone, and goodness knows, liturgical churches are full of problems as well, but for me, there is something about communion (and lots of interrelated Bible passages being read and sung) that seems to be innately peaceful and very centered on the love God has shown for us in Christ.
Now, I’m someone who enjoys black gospel music and lively services, but I’m an introvert by nature and find the quiet and place for listening as well as silent prayer (in liturgical churches) is a godsend (literally!) I think it can open a person’s mind and heart to God in a way that just isn’t there when the focus is on preaching. I can’t really explain *why* this is; only that communion being the focus and culmination of a service is, for me, profoundly freeing and life-giving. How it all works is something I can’t claim to understand, because it’s beyond human comprehension. It simply *is.* and that’s enough for me. I like the mystery of God meeting with us in communion.
@ numo: oh, and: I’d take the music in most liturgical churches over what is used in most evangelical churches any day! It isn’t so much that I love hymns ( though I do), but that the music is literally more interesting and the content of the lyrics goes way beyond what is said in 99% of the “contemporary worship” stuff that’s being churned out.
I’m all for new music, but please, let it be *good* music!
numo wrote:
Yep. When I can (not often) I go to Anglican services for this exact reason.
numo wrote:
I love communion for this exact reason, too.
@ Rafiki:
I hear you! I was raised Lutheran, and that’s where I am now (per beliefs plus the days that I do go to church). Have attended many Catholic masses, which deepened my appreciation for communion immensely. That helped me see Lutheran liturgy with new eyes.
(off topic)
David Yonggi Cho, Founder Of World’s Largest Megachurch, Convicted Of Embezzling $12 Million
@ Daisy:
from Huffington Post, re: David Yonggi Cho–
One former church elder, Ha Sang-ok, was present at the press conference and urged Cho to come forward.
“A sect leader might violate the commandments and do as he wishes, but a pastor cannot do that. Over the past 14 years, I have met with Rev. Cho many times to try to persuade him to repent and return to being a great pastor, but the corruption has continued. That’s why I had no choice but to disclose it to the outside world.”
Daisy wrote:
Whoa
Regarding the discussion above about needing to hear the other side of the story:
That made me smile. Reid is an individual. He has nothing to gain by leaving his job. He has much to lose. The MACHINE is, well, a machine. It IS NOT and individual. It has everything to lose and nothing to gain (except integrity, which is not valued) by intimidating Reid and lying. Both of these are very common practices by the MACHINE. Reid’s story is not only believable, it is common. The MACHINE rolls on.
The contemporary church is a business. It really is that simple. Sadly, it isn’t even a business that is characterized by integrity, compassion, transparency, or fairness.
But, we don’t give up. I’ve just recently found a great pastor and church. If only the MACHINE
A covenant not to compete? I never in a million years thought of that.
Assuming it’s true, what an awful story and place to work.
If I went to a church to work where I was asked to sign a covenant not to compete or some agreement where I promised I could not talk about what went on etc., I would not work at that church.
In this instance involving Reid, it seems the covenant was only thrust in his face when he was leaving. Non-compete’s in those situations are not upheld because the guy is leaving. Now, if they are paying him a severance above his salary and giving him some CURRENT consideration, that would be enforced. Otherwise, it is often held that there is no consideration for the covenant.
I can see some useful basis for a covenant, however.
There have been many historic churches that have been torn asunder by a charismatic, well-liked, smart and young staff person who comes on board and develops a big following. He is a draw. He is a great teacher.
Then, he wants to make changes in the church. Change the music. Change the worship style. Get rid of the organ. Use new literature. Get rid of the choir. Have a hip appearance etc.
He proposes these changes, and is vocal about them, but the older leadership won’t go his way.
So, he packs up his stuff, moves to the local high school a mile down the street and starts “The Fellowship of (whatever)”.
It is an instant success. All of the people for whom he was the draw at the old church leave immediately. Others follow because they would rather be in the church that appears to be growing. Newcomers to town would rather go to the young, vibrant and hip church.
The old church basically “planted” this new church.
The old church starts to age. There is a lack of enthusiasm which is contagious.
You get the picture.
I have never thought about this before, and I certainly do not believe it fits Reid’s story, but this story brought up the idea of a non-compete to me.
Do any of you think that it would be wise for churches who hire pastoral staff to sign some sort of non-compete that would keep them from opening up a new church, say within 25 miles of the existing church for 3 years?
I am not saying that what this church tried to do to Reid was right.
But I had never thought about the use of a non-compete.
Any thoughts?
@ Anonymous:
I think that it is radically wrong for a church to act like a business. If it comes to the point that it has to act like a business, then it needs to go out of business and re-think what church is supposed to be.
@ numo:
My gripe is the choruses that have about ten total unique words, then repeats those, and then they are sung 6, 8, 10 times. Once is enough, perhaps twice. But vain repetition seems the mode.
An Attorney wrote:
Those are called “7/11 choruses” — seven words repeated eleven times.
@ An Attorney:
Ever wonder why those few words have to be put up on the screen?
@ numo:
For a truly awesome and life-changing take on the reasons so many people are so enamoured of contemporary worship music, see this article on my world-changingly stupendous blog.
What they said about my blog:
I am convinced it’s the contribution to human thought in the 21st century – Barak Obama
It changed my life – Mother Theresa
Amazing – I wish I’d thought of putting that in the Bible – God
(Each set sold separately. The above claims may be hypothetical. Can aid slimming only as part of a calorie-controlled diet.)
Nancy wrote:
My favorite is when ‘WHOAHHHHHH’ ends up on the screen.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Oh, that is awesome, Nick. That thing on your blog. Wow.
Anonymous wrote:
On a less frivolous note, you’re onto some important and thought-provoking stuff. The scenario you describe is, I agree, very different from Reid’s. A big part of me, nevertheless, is against the idea of a non-competition agreement – there’s a precedent. If I may quote two relatively well-known scrippies:
Firstly:
And secondly:
I think it comes down to this: none of us owns the Gospel, and therefore none of us can patent it.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Just to avoid confusion – I meant, of course, that my previous comment was frivolous, not yours, Anonymous!
@ Nancy:
That’s a very kind comment to make to a blogger, Nancy!
Reid wrote:
Would you please post the changes to the letter/email they asked you to write?
(Black out names, of course.)
Would you please post the “non-compete” agreement you were asked to sign?
Thanks.
✝
@Anon
I am content at this point with what I have shared and believe it is a sufficient representation of my experience.
Thanks,
Reid
@ An Attorney: you forgot to mention how repetitive the music is…
@ Nick Bulbeck: hee hee! Good post, too.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
KayJay wrote:
Well… it’s world-famous at TWW anyway. (Getting there – I’m working on it.)
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
So you do root for Lex Luthor in Superman movies.
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
I’ll keep that in mind should you ever comment here that you were mugged and your wallet stolen.
I’ll be sure to save compassion for later and ask up front exactly what you were thinking for walking down the street all alone in a shady part of town at 2:00 in the morning.
Kristin wrote:
😆 Not that I’ve gone to lots and lots of churches the past ten years or more, but when I have gone to different churches and they show the song lyrics on a screen, yes, they put those filler words on the screen, and the “ooohhhhhs”, sometimes with something like, “Ohhhh (4x)”. 😆
Off topic: Check out this Christian Post article written by our good friend Wade Burleson.
http://blogs.christianpost.com/guest-views/the-ugly-side-of-the-son-of-god-20255/
@ An Attorney:
Permit me to be your ditto-head on this one. The last church I attended was ELCA Lutheran. They got a new ‘music minister’ in who tried to do away with the old style hymns and bring in the ‘new’ stuff. Most of it could not be sung by a rank and file congregation and it turned out to be a fiasco.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
Point me and the others to even once where you have written words of sincere compassion. You are a HEARTLESS person IMO.
Reid wrote:
Thanks for sharing.
We all grieve with you.
Perhaps you will be willing to share that information with Dee who could pass it along to a reporter. Until that happens, this will remain only a deniable hearsay story on a “Discernment Diva’s” blog because there is no hard evidence to back it up, which a reporter would require. And until this sort of evil gets some press, the abusers will continue to go along their self-righteous merry way with impunity.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Wow. I didn’t know that ASMR was really a *thing*. It’s just something I know I’ve experienced but I didn’t really know the trigger. Interestingly, I’ve not experienced it in church services and I’ve been in some pretty Pentecostal situations. I’ve had other experiences in church services, but what is described as ASMR is not it. But I think you’re on to something in that emotions are being whipped up and channeled in very specific ways.
(You should try being the only person in a congregation of 300 people who didn’t fall out when the preacher prayed for you. That guy gave me the *weirdest* look.)
Awful treatment and spiritual abuse. Best of luck to Reid in his new venture. My brother, a preacher, almost died after he was ousted from his church, and when he was inintensive care, the people who caused him the most grief came and visited him. They couldn’t and wouldn’t leave him alone, even though their actions almost put him in the grave. Christians can be awful people. I hope these elders who put Reid through grief feel a smidgen of guilt.
@ Former CLC’er:
Yes, I can relate to that. Reid wrote that it was a 3-5 year transition process for him. I’m only about 6 months into my most recent upheaval. We did visit a gathering that almost caused us to walk out in the middle of service, and some others that made us run out very fast! It really is so counterintuitive to trust church leaders right now for me. Even if I meet a sincere, honest pastor, I’m just not able to assume the best. My default mode is being on guard. I don’t like feeling like this at all, like you describe with the near-panic attacks. But, I can’t force healing. And, I refuse to play fake just to blend in with some illusion of community.
Deb wrote:
My problem with this is that Wade Burleson bases his comments on a quotation out of Isaiah. He treats it as if it is the absolute descriptor of what Jesus is supposed to look like. I’ll be honest in that I believe that’s an abuse of the text. Burleson wants to believe that the writer of the text (commonly ascribed to a writer described as “Second Isaiah” by biblical scholars who aren’t doctrinally wedded to inerrancy of the text) was referring to the physical attributes of the man Jesus. The fact of the matter is *we don’t know*. We can guess, but *we don’t know.* The reason Burleson thinks this is because way back centuries ago, Christians went mining the Jewish scriptures for anything that could be construed as a reference to Jesus and this is one of those references. But it is a serious leap (actually several leaps) to say that the writer of those words intended for them to be applied to a person who lived several centuries later.
For all we know, Jesus may have actually been the Brad Pitt of 1st century Galilee. But we don’t know. Pulling out texts that were written a good six centuries before Paul and assigning them a certain value does violence to the text. But then again, I’m one of those awful people who thinks the writers of Isaiah were writing for the people of their times and not thinking of people who might live six centuries or twenty-six centuries later. I am not denying that their works don’t have value to us now, but we have to consider them in context and not exempt them from serious textual analysis because we believe they have a special origin and destiny.
@ TOM PARKER:
Soulless is more like it. I think the only way Seneca could have a soul is to buy one at the Kia outlet.
@ Erik:
well, I say give it a rest. You and your family (and/or a few friends) can encounter God himself at your kitchen table. On a picnic blanket under an oak tree. Or at a picnic table in a beautiful place you bike to.
sounds time like time well spent to me! trigger-free.
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
haven’t read the article — but not long ago I wondered what color eyes Jesus had/has. I searched a bit for writings from eye witnesses who happened to jot things down. There are some things, none of which are generally given credence.
but some of it struck me as description that no one would have reason to invent. Like, his arms were “beautiful” — perhaps nice skin or sinewy or elegant in some way. I think his eyes were described as either blue or bright (as in perhaps green, hazel, or amber as opposed to dark brown). Also, a little hunched over, perhaps the way someone who was a bit taller than the average person might end up carrying him/herself out of habit (in order to make eye contact or be on a level with one’s peers). It was very interesting. Who knows.
I personally think he looks/looked like Kenny Loggins. Ever seen the paintings by Akiane (child prodigy who had a heavenly vision as a very young child)? Amazing, regardless of how true/accurate.
https://www.akiane.com/store/
An Attorney wrote:
That’s pretty cute actually.
Daisy wrote:
That would actually be the correct question to ask.
Anonymous wrote:
Excellent illustration of how non competes came about in local churches.
Totally OT, but Bill Gothard has been placed on administrative leave. Finally.
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/02/bill_gothard_placed_on_administrative_leave
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
Way to go, RecoveringGrace!!
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Jesus’ appearance. Looking forward to the magnificent day when I see Him face to face.
Elizabeth Ann Seton’s reply is that ROMISH might not be so bad.@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
OK-I am really tired but let me make a quick stab at this. Forgive any incoherence.
There is a literary device which is used in Scripture known as type/anti-type. What this means is that certain portions of Scripture is meaningful for the time in which it was written. However, it is also equally meaningful for something which is to come. It is not either/or but both. Melchizedek is one such example. He was an actual priest; he is also a foreshadowing of Jesus.
I hope Deb is reading this because she was an English major. I do not know if Western literature has such a device but Deb or some of you can tell me that.
I actually agree with Wade on this one. And I think that there is a reason for Jesus not being attractive physically. I have read a bit about this and have actually heard a few church historians speak on the subject. So of course, they could be wrong and so could I so I am not making this a hill do die on by any stretch of the imagination. I do not think anyone will be condemned to hell for thinking Jesus looked like Kenny Loggins.
The first part of Isaiah 53:
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem
This continues on to remarkably describe the suffering servant who appears to dramatically resemble Jesus.
Today, we put much value on the mega church hipster who is the epitome of cool-perfect hair, whitened teeth, plastic surgery, etc. The Roman leaders were rather vain, putting much value in their physique and appearance. They dressed well as did the leaders of the Jews.
Jesus was one who drew people to Himself not based on his looks or what He was wearing but on that something that mesmerized those around him. I rather think that Jesus was just an average Joe in his appearance but was a guy and chick magnet because of a rather irresistible love and spirit.
Finally Bill Gothard is being looked at-something that should have happened a long, long time ago.
@ Anon:
I have seen this and will discuss it with Reid.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I was about to respond to Anonymous’s comment. you said it so much better than I. Well done. Now off to bed!
@ dee:
Yes, I’m still reading but about to go to bed. The first verse that came to mind in this discussion is: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”
It seems clear that Jesus did not want us to make over His appearance since there is nothing in scripture that describes his physical attributes.
Obviously, the Almighty knows that us mortals can become fixated on the way individuals look much to our detriment. Idolatry can be such a big problem, even in Christendom.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I’m truly in shock right now. I never thought this would happen. So many of us grew up under his heretical teachings…I just can’t believe if yet. He was GOD…but he wasn’t.
Bill Clinton says a lot here in his acceptance Democratic National Convention speech in New York in July 1992 (cough, cough, cough) 😛
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EXNrdzwB4M
Just go to the 53 minute mark!! (cough, cough, cough….) 😯 I’m off to bed.
@ Eagle:
Actually…I really have to disagree with Bill Clinton!!! 😯
@ dee:
@ Deb:
Hmmm….my thoughts when reading Wade’s article was mostly sadness and frustration. Since we don’t know for sure what he looked like and, to me, the description in Isaiah most closley matches what Jesus is described to look like after he was beaten and hung on the cross, it seems a shame to pick at a movie that honors Jesus becaue of the physical appearance of the actor portraying him.
The evangelical/fundamentlist Christian culture has railed against Hollywood for years demanding they make Christian movies. Then, a Christian actress and her Christian director husband make this and we can complain and caution people against it because the actor is good looking and, in this pastor’s opinion, that violates one passage of Scripture? Sigh. This article is of the type that will discourage many within the ‘fundagelical’ bubble from seeing what is, from the portions I’ve seen, a very good movie.
I am not speaking to Wade’s intent. I don’t know his intent. But having read the article and spend a lifetime within that bubble, this article could easily be used as a tool to convince people not to see the movie because it is dangerous and carnal….and it feels like straining at gnats……
@ dee: I understand what you’re saying, but typology is an xtian invention – AFAIK, there’s no such thing (at least, not in the way you’re describing it) in Judaism. SW Discomfort is correct in stating that xtians mined every verse of the OT for types of Christ. I have read (as part of art history studies) some of the medieval lists/descriptions of these things and 99% of them are *really* a stretch. (Putting it mildly!) I honestly believe that we do violence to the text by *not* examining it *in context* first and foremost. Am not saying that all typology is bad/wrong, but people do get carried away with it. Passage and single-verse proof-texting is one of the unfortunate results. As xtians, the entire OT is part of our heritage, and I think we owe it to ourselves (and to those who wrote and preserved it – mostly not xtians) to read it attentively and for its own sake. It’s not intended to be a repository of convenient “proofs” that Jesus is the Messiah. (Not that you think that; just saying.) It*is* a record of many, many things… On its own. It doesn’t exist for the sake of xtians/xtianity, though I think all of us tend to treat it that way to a greater or lesser extent. (I was *so* smitten by typology when I 1st learned of it, as a teenager, but I think it is a pretty superficial thing; also – please forgive my mentioning this again – that it has been used throughout church history as an indictment against Jews and Judaism, and as a pretext for their persecution. There’s plenty in the historical record re. this, btw – certainly, there are *way* too many instances, in art and writing, of Jewish people being depicted as evil and willfully closed to the superiority of xtianity. Medieval and Renaissance religious art can be downright scary that way.)
As for Jesus’ physical appearance, my thought is that he was probably quite ordinary-looking, and most definitely Middle Eastern in appearance. But that’s not something i’ve ever spent much time thinking about.
@ dee: you know, Jewish people read the “suffering servant” passages of Isaiah as being about their own people. I know that’s alien to most of us, but backing up a bit and looking at it in that light (with the help of a good commentary and/or annotations) can be very rewarding for us xtians. More than one thing is being said there, and to readers and hearers at that time (and after), it would NOT have meant the same thing as it does to those who look at it solely through the lens of messianic prophecy.
That old saw about not being able to see the forest for the trees comes to mind…
@ Jeannette Altes: yep! Just wait for the Ted Baehr/Movieguide “review.” (Which will likely mention what they quaintly – and weirdly – refer to as “upper male nudity,” among other things.)
I really have to wonder what home videos of Jesus and Palestine would look like – probably mind-bendingly unlike anything we tend to picture, by being at such a remove plus the influence of 1800 years of visual imagery in religious and popular art.)
numo wrote:
I don’t know of this movie guide you reference but I guess they don’t go to the beach or swimming pool much. Weird indeed.
Whoa, where did that Russian flag come from?! 🙂 After seeing the news this week about the security issue with iPhones, iPads, and Macs running Maverick OS, I’m paranoid! :O
@ Rafiki: it’s an influential fundy site that claims to review movies, but mostly counts the number, type and frequency of swear words and such. Am *not* making that up, btw – it is truly abysmal, yet has a lot of clout even today.
@ Rafiki: the site is called Movieguide (no spaces), and is the brainchild of a man named Ted Baehr.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Years ago, I was in a Sunday morning gathering in which the leader talked about the importance of worship. (They were genuine points, too, not just give all your time and money to me – he wasn’t employed by the church anyway.) One of his comments was: We don’t just do it for the goosebumps. I didn’t entirely follow what he meant – only just last year did it occur to me that some people really do get goosebumps in worship.
As for being the only person who doesn’t fall over – 🙂 🙂 🙂 – we should meet up sometime and swap stories!
An Attorney wrote:
This namecalling is bugging me and I think it need to stop.
I don’t comment much, but I’ve been reading blogs like this for a number of years and I’ve seen Seneca pop up many times. His comments do seem to be more of the devils advocate type or asking for more confirmation for some story, and yes they’re not laden with sympathy, but they’ve always seemed to be fairly honest. I’ve seen dozens, perhaps more than a hundred nasty replies to his comments, like the one I’e replied to here, but I’ve *never* seen Seneca respond in kind. He’s always been reasonably gracious to those being rude to him or ignored them.
It’s quite possibly a cultural thing, but what he writes seems to really get under some people’s skin (dee et al) but I’ve never been able to see why. I’m not sure his comments are intended to hurt, but those sent back at him sure are. Perhaps he’s just as broken as the rest of us?
Some of you actual historians help me on this one. I read somewhere (this is where I need help) that one of the people of the soon-after-Jesus day wrote a physical description of Jesus to one of the Roman emperors for his information. In that description Jesus was described as looking very similar to a Roman. This was during the time when the story went around that actually Mary had been raped by a
Roman soldier with Jesus as the result. I can see where a Roman emperor would like that sort of explanation.
Some people have said that the absence of either a specific prophetic description of Jesus’ physical appearance or a concurrent description at his time by his followers could indicate that God did not want us to know too much about that, but rather that the stories were intended to be what carried the impact of the man. Here again, this is conjecture, but it sounds reasonable to me.
We do note that some physical identifiers are recorded in scripture about other people, such as that Saul was very tall and David had ruddy complexion. So it was not unheard of in that tradition to describe how a person looked.
I personally think that Diogo was a bad choice to play Jesus because he is drop dead gorgeous and in some scenes one sees more Diogo being pretty than one hears the impact of the event, like the one where the paralytic is lowered through the roof. That is a momentous occasion in saying that the son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, but Diogo plays it like he can’t wrinkle his pretty face to give it sufficient impact. I think that an actor’s seriously good looks can be a real distraction from the telling of the story. But then, I always could get seriously distracted by gorgeousness. Perhaps some of us have had to be more careful about that than others. Whatever.
Mostly the church forever has said that Jesus looked about like everybody else of the day, and I think that if any verifiable physical identifiers had been available there is a good possibility somebody would have recorded that. But that is just an assumption. Somebody may yet find an old manuscript with some comment from one of the actual disciples about this issue.
One other thing in that the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize him and then they did recognize him later, while the post-resurrection appearances descried elsewhere show Jesus as being recognized. One idea is, of course, that such recognition can be hidden from men by God and then revealed to men in God’s own time. Another possible explanation is that the guys on the road were really not that close followers and if Jesus did look about like everybody else and you know he was recently dead, why would anybody make the leap to identify some stranger as the resurrected Jesus.
All these odds and ends are just that–tiny puzzle bits and mostly conjecture, but I am impressed by the fact that there does not seem to be any real evidence or sound conjecture to indicate any specific form or appearance of the Lord either before or after the resurrection. Whether the prophetic statements in Isaiah were (a) know by the prophet for what they were or (b) referred to either before or after the crucifixion or both, either way the prophecy seems to bold true since nobody knows anything for sure about his appearance.
One last thing, if it is agreed that the Isaiah statements were prophetic concerning the messiah then it is not an injustice to the prophetic function if at a later time some claim to have actually identified the fulfillment of that prophecy. That’s how it works. And to say that one group thinks one thing and another group things something else — of course. That also is how it works. Look for instance about what Jesus said and what Paul said and what the John who reported his vision in the book of Revelation said about the future. Now listen to the myriad of guesses and ideas that we today have about trying to put all that together and make something precise and coherent about all that. Can’t be done. Prophetic statements are understood, if at all, in retrospect.
@ Dave:
You said:”It’s quite possibly a cultural thing, but what he writes seems to really get under some people’s skin (dee et al) but I’ve never been able to see why.”
All I can say is wow–you can not see why he get’s under mine and other’s skin??! It is not a cultural thing, he is a cruel heartless human being–period!!
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
That is truly big news.
TOM PARKER wrote:
We’re all, to some degree, the product of our experiences. This blog, by its nature, attracts people that have been through some tough times. Few of us have ever met or know anything about each other except the few lines of text we read.
For some, like Seneca perhaps (Seneca, I’m making a lot of assumptions about you here. feel free to correct me) these experience have left them extra cynical. Perhaps they’ve been badly burned by people taking advantage of their compassion in the past? Just like some people here have a sensitivity to (triggered by?) certain behaviours, justifiably so due to what they’ve been through or what they’ve seen others go through.
Look, I know nothing about Seneca, and if he’s deliberately trying to cause hurt then I’m most definitely not defending that. I’m just saying give him the benefit of the doubt – we don’t know his story
Dave:
The hard part for me about Seneca is that I have never seen even once any written compassion on this blog for any victim of abuse and it often seems to me he blames the victims. It is tough for me to cut someone like that slack.
@ Dave:
My remark was entirely inverted dimple, tongue in cheek, and intended to be humorous and not intended as an attack. And I think Seneca knew that as shown by his response! I do have an issue with a company selling something called a “Soul”.
__
Tell Us ‘Plainly’: “Are You Really, Really, Really, Da Son Of God?”
hmmm…
@ Deb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TweLJRQ6T7g
“Oh, Son of God, you have made me, …whole.” ~ Francesca Battistelli
*
Kirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk!
Roma’s wonderful film “Son Of God” starts today (Feb 28) in U.S. theaters…
Just sayin’…
“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have ‘eternal life’. This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. ~ The Apostle John; 1 John 5:13-14.
(smiley face goes here)
Sopy
__
Notes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyI-k-l_LK8
http://www.sonofgodmovie.com/
—
@ TOM PARKER:
Fair enough. Anyway, it’s time for me to go have some dinner on this rather balmy summer evening.
Have yourself a nice weekend Tom 🙂
I ultimately think it’s probably more than just money. If Reid is thought to be a gifted “young gun” who’s might steal their congregation, the pastor (and deacons/elders) just might want to send the competion elsewhere. The problem would be more than just the money.
*
Reid = “gifted young gun.” (And they accuse me of lack of compassion – )
The World we live in – sadly
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/27/outside-study-finds-uconn-ignored-allegations-professor-endangered-children-and
@ numo:
Yeah. Be interesting to get various more modern ideas. I saw what some anthropologist have said and drawn of what Jesus probably looked like. Really ethnic. I note that Bruce Marchiano is producing a new Jesus movie (the thing that is used in missionary endeavors) and is trying to be as authentic as possible. I am sure it will be as accurate as possible with scripture (script) but it will be interesting to see what they come up with in background. Much of it is being done with green room technology. I have hopes for this film, but we will have to see.
@ numo:
This happened in Pilgrim’s Progress. An entire explanation of why the dietary regulations in the Torah meant that Christians had to part ways with sinners and meditate on Scripture (cloven hoofs = parting with sinners, chewing the cud = meditating on Scripture).
@ numo:
Ah, yes. I think I know which magazine you’re talking about. Don’t they have their own terms which have different meanings than they do in the dictionary? I learned this when they called The Series of Unfortunate Events movie “pagan.” I mean, don’t get me wrong, Jim Carrey was a terrible casting choice, but that doesn’t make it “pagan” in any normal sense of the word. 🙂
@ Dave:
I have seen Seneca/Jimmy name-call. Not often, but he has. My problem is that he never (or at least very rarely) engages in substantive conversation, just shoots one liners at people and never actually addresses the points they make. If he came on here and other blogs and had a real give-and-take discussion, I think he would annoy others a lot less.
@ Hester:
That is probably a big part of the problem. Pot shots and one-liners are like being a sniper instead of a combatant. If anybody wants to engage in the world of ideas they need to step up and say it and give others a fair chance to agree or disagree. And, IMO, there needs to be a lot of refusing to take offense too easily.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have a few stories myself.
@ Deb:
I may have to seriously think about this.
@ lemonaidfizz:
I am convinced that blogging is slowly effecting a change in the church. I give major props to the good people of Recovering Grace for bringing us the stories.
lemonaidfizz wrote:
So glad for this.
So glad to see these ostentatious concrete castles cracking under the weight of their own lies and corruption.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Again, I have no trouble with your interpretation on Isaiah. You could be absolutely right.
I was watching a talk show when I was folding laundry the other day and the interviewer was talking with the actor who plays Jesus. She went on and on about how good looking he was and how that would attract people to the movie. He was blushing while obviously attuned to the fact he as good looking. I have to admit, I was not amused and thought she missed the point.
As for me, I will probably see the movie, most likely after it comes out for home viewing-my preferred venue. My husband and I love to pause movies, discuss what is going on, or, more likely say “Do you know what;s going on?” Dee opens her trusty computer and reads a synopsis.
Personally, I would have enjoyed seeing Johnny Cash play Jesus but that probably speaks to my rather low brow tastes. I’ll discuss it with him in heaven one day.
This movie is the Jesus segment of The Bible as seen on TV, edited to make it a theater-length film and with the character of Satan removed because of the appearance of the actor playing Satan. Apparently huge numbers saw it on TV, and huge numbers bought the DVD (I did) and now in theaters. I can’t see that it makes much difference at this point in any impact on people, since so many people have already seen the contents of the film, unedited, on TV.
@ numo:
I take a bit of a different view. I believe that Scripture is cohesive, always pointing forward and always pointing back. Take the ministry of Jesus. It is well recorded and it stands on its own. But, then we come to Paul who looks back at the ministry and , curiously enough, does not emphasize Jesus’ miracles. He laser focuses his discussions on the Cross and Resurrection.
By reading Paul, I begin to understand better the overarching reason for Jesus and his ministry: to save me via the Cross and His Resurrection and I am able to better understand HIs ministry with this emphasis.
You said we do violence to the text of the OT. I disagree when we look at large passages like Isaiah 53. It can be both. As for Jews viewing themselves as the suffering servant, it is true historically. However, the Jews, as represented by the OT, were rebellious (just like me) and often suffered because of their constant turning from God (just like me). The cycle of repentance, forgiveness, apostasy and punishment is a cycle which is repeated throughout the OT, time and time again. It shows what appears to be a hopeless pattern until the Cyclebreaker made His appearance.
I am against proof texting by looking at obscure verses standing on their own.
@ Nancy:
I sometimes think that the reason that there is little evidence for the appearance of Jesus us that He wanted mankind to imagine Him just like them. I have seen beautiful depictions of Jesus as African, Chinese, Northern European, Indian, Native American, etc. And somehow, I think He smiles at a little Navajo child who thinks Jesus looks a lot like him.
@ Dave:
Perhaps your observations are not colored by the years of comments. Seneca has a poor history in showing concern for victims of child sex abuse, particularly those in SGM. He also has a penchant for siding with the powers that be in most situations. Tom makes a valid point.
In fact, TWW as allowed Seneca to keep posting even though he has managed to alienate just about everybody on this site. I have my reasons for allowing him to continue to comment but I watch him carefully. Talk about a suffering servant….
@ TOM PARKER:
I understand your POV and would guess that just about everybody here agrees with it. As you may know, he is often thrown off the blog for short periods to reboot.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs.:
TOM PARKER wrote:
Seneca- read what Tom just wrote and think about it.
@ dee:
I never thought of that, but that sounds like something He might do. I am going to file that thought away somewhere and bring it out now and again as needed. Thanks. You have a good heart–it shows.
dee wrote:
“Suffering servant?” Oh please Dee – dryly
numo wrote:
No sign will be given this generation except the sign of Noah (Jesus)
And beginning with Moses and the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Luke 24:27
OK, what did I do wrong. In the above comment what was said by the prior commenter is in quotes. My comments start with “no sign…”
And I said Noah and should have said Jonah. That would be Jonah!
Maybe it is because I am trying to lose weight and am radically hungry. Sorry for the confusion.
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
There will probably be more repercussions at UConn (as in “heads will roll”) than there would be at your average mega. Look at what happened at Penn State. The ex-president of the university and several other high-ranking officials lost their jobs and are under indictment as a result of the Sandusky child abuse scandal.
Now compare that to the widespread child abuse within the Catholic church and note that no bishop or cardinal has gone to jail for aiding and abetting child abuse, although virtually EVERY.SINGLE.DIOCESE in the country has been touched by this scandal. A monsignor in Pennsylvania (William Lynn) went to jail, but his conviction was overturned and he was released at the end of 2013 because an appellate court determined that he did not supervise children, thus he could not have been convicted of child endangerment.
I’d also point you to the abuse tracker at Bishop-Accountability.org to see the sheer landslide of cases where church authorities not only did nothing, but actively covered up and moved priests when the leadership knew they were molesting children. Not a one of these red-hatted men has spent a day in jail for doing this.
So, bringing up UConn is good, but note–the secular authorities do their jobs when they find out. Heads roll. People lose their jobs. Some people may go to jail. But when it comes to the religious, they have an exceptionally bad habit of covering up, evading, dodging and avoiding. It’s a terrible scandal, it’s been going on (in this iteration) since 2002 AND THEY’VE STILL NOT COME CLEAN. Again, go to the abuse tracker at Bishop-Accountability.org. Be sure to take your barf bag with you.
dee wrote:
There’s also a “Seneca Griggs” popping up occasionally in the Internet Monk comment threads. If it’s the same guy, he’s less of a A-hole on IMonk.
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
What’s sad is that the “church” should be setting an example of how to protect the most vulnerable members of society. Yes, this is the world we live in. But the “church” shows itself to be nothing but freakin’ hypocrites when it rails against abortion and homosexuals, yet keeps its mouth zipped when it comes to molested children.
Hester wrote:
And the movie review consisting of a series of tallies and checklists: “27.355 taking the Name of the LORD in Vain; 32.4 alludes to “breasts”; 14.6 times Blaspheming the Holy Spirit (no definition given)…”
Back in local Eighties SF litfandom, we had two sayings:
1) “It’s gotta be Christian — look how shoddy it is!”
2) “It’s gotta be good — all the Christians are denouncing it!”
Think about it…
Nancy wrote:
This got mentioned on morning drive-time radio. Including the comment that with all the stock footage, “Production costs were probably around $200.”
And what was the exact beef about “the appearance of the actor playing Satan”?
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
Well, you know, Seneca. NONE of the Calvinistas would put up with someone like you questioning anything on their “holier than thou” blogs.
Yeah, I’d say Dee’s assessment is way more on track than you will ever admit.
Long time lurker, first time commenter. I want to say a word in defense of Seneca, of all people. I don’t know what makes him tick, but I can speak from my experience.
As someone who was the victim of a frivolous and dishonest lawsuit, I have learned to think like a defense lawyer. When I hear allegations, I ask: are these claims all true? Are there mitigating circumstances? Is there anything in favor of the person the mob is braying for?
Sometimes a bit of detachment and some left-brain analysis is helpful and necessary. It doesn’t mean the person is without feelings.
Where I differ from Seneca is that he’s an authoritarian and I am not. My experience with the Boston Church of Christ gave me a distaste for, and perverse fascination with, authoritarian and cult-like forms of Christianity so-called.
Dee and Deb. thank you for this wonderful blog. I read it every day.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Some people thought he looked like Obama, so they deleted him from the movie version. Roma had a press release on it.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
They cast someone who looks amazing like President Obama and when a complaint appeared in the media, they re-edited it, as that was reputedly not the intention of the producers and directors.
@ An Attorney:
You know, though, when you have Jesus looking like a rather self-absorbed cutie pie and satan looking like POTUS, maybe you better think about getting a different casting director next time.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The Life of Brian is not only not a parody of Jesus himself – though it does brilliantly parody mindless sheeple religion – it is also a masterpiece of cinematic comedy. Those TWW readers who don’t mind a secular movie being full of swearing (no denying that part) and who haven’t seen it, should. But you may hurt yourself laughing.
Jerry Springer The Opera, on the other hand, I have no opinion on. Whatever else it may be, I gather that it is an opera; and I hate opera, so I’ve no plans to see it.
All the Seneca talk is a distrction from the main post. Sometimes I think he’s just trolling. For those of you still trying to figure out the name of the church in the post above, my posts last night at 11:42 and shortly thereafter are a major hint. Bill Clinton actually mentions the name….
Regarding Seneca “j” Griggs’ quote: “My first thought; ‘Well, I’ve heard Reid’s side.’ ”
I think this is biblical and just reasoning. Believers are admonished that the first to plead his case seems right until the other party presents his case. This presumes both parties are willing to open themselves to pubic scrutiny.
From what I’ve read here (and elsewhere), the victims of relative super powers have opened themselves up to huge public scrutiny while those with the power, voice and money not only hide the details of their accusations reframing what appears to be cowardice as nobility (claiming to take the “higher ground” by not responding). And they further the assault by alleging their victims to be bitter, angry, vengeful, crazy, slutty, etc.
Once a “victim” presents a credible case, as Reid has, it is incumbent on the accused, especially those in leadership positions in the family of God, to open his case to scrutiny and accountability and work toward, as much as it is possible, peace with other believers. And peace always involves truth.
__
Weighing In Fo Da Gospel ?
hmmm…
…helping those who have shared the struggle in the cause of da gospel?
What?
Sharing da struggle, the cause of the gospel? (hmmm…da tellin’ kind folk about Jesus’ gift of eternal life, and a prepare’d room in His heaven , – to all those who would believe in Him, to all those who would call upon His precious name?)
huh?
“pop, pop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is…”
(grin)
shall we rejoice in da Lord’s generous gift(s) always?
shall we let our gentle appreciative kindred spirit(s) be known to all kinda folk?
Woooosh!
…cuz, da Lord, is near n’ dear?
hmmm…
(burp) 🙂
hum,hum, hum, amaz’in grace, amaz’in grace, sweet Lord! I’ze lik’en da melodical harmonious metered sound of it!
hum, hum, I once was lost…till youze found me dar…
…now I’ze free!
geeeeeee thanx, Lord! 🙂
Sopy
—
@ Nancy:
You forgot to close the blockquote. I just did it for you.
At the risk of sounding authoritarian, could we return to the thoughts on the post instead of focusing on an individual who has a long history of issues at this blog? The Deebs have their reasons regarding allowing Seneca to continue to comment on an on again/off again basis. He is in permanent moderation which means we must read every comment before it shows up here.
@ Cayuga:
Wow-thank you.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zjz16xjeBAA
@ jkpvarin:
A little statement like “If what Reid says is true, I think his treatment was terrible.” before going into the “let’s hear the other side”. There is enough “let’s wait and see what the other side says” out there already. Expressing a drop of sensitivity for the victim would go a long way to making Seneca something other that a troll and defender of evil in the church.
@ jkpvarin:
I have come to the conclusion that megachurch pastors have their following who will arise to defend him at all costs. One only need look at the insults that Stuart Watson at NBC Charlotte is receiving by the members of Elevation Church. It is frankly disgusting.
The victims in our stories do not have the mass idolizers behind them. So we offer our platform and support. A long time ago, Barbara Dorris of SNAP gave us a great piece of advice. She said to never lose sight of the victims in the stories that we do. We haven’t.
An Attorney wrote:
Yes. Seneca-are you reading???
@ Eagle:
Funny
@ Mara:
Darn, that was good.
__
“Da Presbyter?”
(act 3, scene 4)
hmmm…
soundbite: “hey pal, its all about ‘donor protection’, get wit da program, we got expenses…see, we’se tryin ta run a profitable 501(c)3 religion racket, er, legit non-profit business here…don’t rock da boat, huh?”
soundbite: “Reid, we like you, we really do, but if you cross us, we’re gonna haveta breaka your legs…sign and make peace…”
—
Sopwith wrote:
(Sigh). Ain’t that the truth? 🙁
@ Eagle:
AND REMEMBER…if I get spanked…I’m doing better than I deserve!! 😯
Yikes. Sorry for not making myself clear. I absolutely believe the victims’ stories I have read. I have one of my own that no one in my community believes. My only point was that once a victim with little voice or power puts his story and often his identity out there for the public to see, that constitutes a legitimate charge. He (or she) has placed himself at risk for the sake of exposing the truth.
It was a rebuttal against having to hear the other side (which chooses not to be heard or only partially heard) before veering toward a judgment.
I’m sorry for any indication that I doubt any victim’s story. These stories are what has given me courage to tell mine.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
He looks like Obama. Seriously.
The sad part about it is that the guy is a well-known Arab actor who just happens to look like Obama in some shots.
Eagle wrote:
It’s not hard to figure out at all. Just Google the name of the writer of this post and then look carefully at the first 10 results. For me, the name popped up in the fifth search result–I didn’t even have to visit the page.
@ jkpvarin:
You didn’t/ The comment was not directed at you. I was explaining how we approach the issue for those who think we knee jerk towards the victims. (not you) It was a musing comment not pointing at anyone except, of course, the megaidolizers.
@ Eagle:
I prefer to do a Jethro Gibbs upside the head.
@Erik – not happy that you’ve gone through what you have, but glad that someone else can understand where I’m at. And one thing I don’t do well at all is fake. I think God can work with that, though.
@ numo:
“I really have to wonder what home videos of Jesus and Palestine would look like – probably mind-bendingly unlike anything we tend to picture, by being at such a remove plus the influence of 1800 years of visual imagery in religious and popular art.)”
++++++++++
I long to be able to peer into these things, too.
The pictures and word pictures we have inherited and continue to create ourselves of Jesus of Nazareth, “heaven”, (just for starters) create a much more distorted understanding than any of us would ever believe.
if only we knew how off the mark we are (especially those who think they’re God’s hot stuff and his specially commissioned agents).
elastigirl wrote:
It’s funny you should say that. I’ve see one of Akiane’s paintings before, and, IMO, the painting she of Jesus did looked to me more like 1970s era singer Barry Manilow, but with a beard.
If you search the name “Akiane” in Google images, look at the very first painting there (her painting of Jesus, where he’s facing you straight on), then compare it to this photo of Mannilow:
Barry Manilow (album cover for “Manilow Magic, The Best of Manilow”)
and tell me if you don’t see the resemblance (but you have to picture the clean-shaven Manilow in that photo with a beard and ‘stache! 😆
But I do see the Kenny Loggins resemblance, too. There’s also a little bit of a 1970s era Bee-Gee’s Barry Gibb vibe.
@jkpvarin thank you for your feedback and thoughts. I appreciated reading your comments and agree with what you shared. thanks for the encouragement.
Seneca “j” Griggs wrote:
No, it wouldn’t, and you wouldn’t appreciate it if I pulled that on you – or, if you have a wife, sister, daughter or granny, you wouldn’t like it if someone else did that to them.
If your teen aged niece came on her saying she was mugged or harmed in some way, you would not for one second appreciate anyone immediately going into a cold, Vulcan, logical analyzation mode, rather than giving her compassion and care.
People don’t appreciate reasons, rationales when they are hurting or have been wronged.
Like every time a hurricane hits or tornado kills a bunch of people, scads of people are angered, offended and hurt by John Piper or Pat Robertson trying to explain and say, “It was God’s punishment for Town X to be hit because Town X did thus and so a sin.”
@ dee:
This is one of the minor points I’ve been struggling with faith-wise the past few months (or maybe longer), or it’s kind of related.
I’ve seen Christians argue back and forth about how much the Old Testament can and should be applied to Christians today. I don’t mean the ceremonial / dietary laws in the OT (Old Testament). I think most Christians agree that because of Jesus, believers today can eat ham sandwiches.
Sometimes, it’s not only arguing, but I will see
1. one Christian on one blog or television show quote a verse from the OT as though it’s valid for Christians today. They just assume the OT thing they are quoting is good for today.
2. But then I see other Christians on other blogs/shows say, no, that verse (and all or most of the OT) was only for the Old Testament Jewish people.
I understand that not every single last verse or teaching in the OT is applicable today (such as tithing or dietary laws), but I’ve seen those in group 2 go pretty far with it.
I think I am more group 1 than group 2. I don’t see how or why some concepts and promises in the OT cannot apply to believers today even though I understand the first/ primary audience were Jewish people 2,000+ years ago.
The OT contains verses such as God is merciful, God will hear and answer prayers of believers, God will protect the person whose faith is in him, God does not like murder, that God loves all people, etc. I don’t see how those things necessarily become null and void in the New Testament, but that is what some Christians make it sound like.
@ Jeannette Altes:
Thank you for bringing this topic up. I’ve notice this too, with Christians. They will complain a lot that Hollywood movies are too trashy, why doesn’t Hollywood make more clean movies, or more movies about Jesus, etc, but when they do make a movie about Jesus, it gets ruthlessly picked apart and trashed by Christians!
I remember when the Mel Gibson Jesus film came out about ten years ago, there was a split. You had some Christians who thought it was great that a major movie about Jesus was being released, but the other half went crazy online, saying it was too tainted with Gibsonian Catholicism, so people should stay away.
Some Christians will nit pick a television show or movie about Jesus (or other Bible characters) to pieces no matter how goo it is, no matter what the motives are of the movie makers. Some Christians are not happy no matter how Jesus (or Bible stories) are depicted. They will always find something to complain about.
numo wrote:
But Jews who wrote the NT, such as Paul, saw some Old Testament characters as being foreshadowers of Jesus, or quoted some OT passages as pointing to Jesus, especially when writing to a Jewish audience.
numo wrote:
And that may be one reason why so many Jewish people did not, and do not, see Jesus as being their Messiah.
I’ve heard opposite stories, though. I’ve heard of Messianic Jews who asked their Jewish family members to read the New Testament (in some cases, at least the Gospels), then re-read the OT (especially Isaiah 53), and they said a light bulb went off with their family member, and they believed that Jesus was their Messiah afterwards.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
Count me in as one who agrees. Some years back I sat in a lecture hall and heard a Jesuit say this very thing with regard to textual criticism. In my belief system, Jesus was the most beautiful specimen of man ever conceived [conceived by the supernatural power of the Almighty–no human male sperm involved] by woman. And why not? Why would the last Adam be any less perfect than the first? How do I know? I don’t know. I have no iron-clad-airtight-Euclidean-proof-from-Scripture, it’s what I choose to believe.
@ Nancy:
Some people have theorized that the reason so many early cave drawings/ paintings of Jesus look so similar is that they were based on the image on the Shroud of Turin. Some think the Shroud may be genuine.
@ Dave:
If I feel unwanted or misunderstood by most participants on a blog or forum most of the time, I usually leave in quiet, or I try to fit in with the blog/forum culture better.
I’m more interested in knowing why Seneca keeps posting here, when he knows he rubs most people the wrong way.
If he genuinely likes most of the people on here, IMHO, he should try harder to fit in and stop trying to ruffle people’s feather on purpose. I suspect he enjoys annoying people on this blog on some level, and he knows he is doing so. (I could be wrong about all that, but that is my feeling.)
@ elastigirl:
Love Kenny Loggins! I have his Nightwatch album (arguably his best) on vinyl.
@ Daisy:
very funny. I have that LP. “Ooooh Mandy, you can and you gave without takin”
“Looks like we made it (ahhhhh ahhhh) left each other on the way to another love…”
“…when will our eyes meet…When can I touch you…when will this strong yearnin end…”
Ooooh…my 9 year-old heart…
Yes, perhaps Jesus looks like a composite of Barry Manilow, Kenny Loggins, & Barry Gibb. He’s a fabulous person regardless.
@ Muff Potter:
..except he can’t hit that high note any more on “Forever”
Hester wrote:
One thing I’d like to clarify about myself – I don’t feel comfortable in bickering with people, so I may at times bow out of conversations here (or on other sites) if I feel it’s becoming too heated on either (or both) sides.
It’s not that I’m trying to be a “drive by” commentator who comes on and makes a nasty comment and wanders off quickly, or just shoots off one-liners, but I have a certain amount of aversion to fighting. I may back up my views strongly at times, but my preference it to be a lover, not a fighter 🙂
As I’ve said before a long time ago on this blog, one reason I post at this blog is not to pick fights, or fight constantly, with other people.
My preference is to get along with people, so I may drop out of debates or fights for that reason, or only post in such conversations sporadically. (I’ve had people on other sites misconstrue my behavior in that regard as trolling or as being like Seneca, but that’s not my motivation.)
@ Daisy:
I think there are real differences between family friendly movies and faith friendly movies and biblical movies. If a movie is presented as a biblical movie and is not accurate biblically then the folks who want biblical accuracy with bail out. The producers take that risk. I do have to say about the current discussion of the movie Son of God that the producers never claimed biblical accuracy. They have been very upfront and forthright about the fact that they aimed for creative adaptation of biblical stories. This gives the potential viewer a choice to watch or not. What I think is dishonest is to represent something as biblical and then take liberties with the story without telling people that up front.
I may watch stuff that is not biblically accurate, and in fact I do, but I would not tell the grandchildren that here you go kiddies, this is what the bible says. I am trying to make a strong point for honesty in advertising. Wait, is honest advertising an oxymoron? Perhaps I want too much.
@ dee:
There was a show on History Channel several years ago that sometimes gets repeated around the holidays. On the show, a bunch of scholars teamed up with some computer artists to recreate what they think Jesus really looked like.
(And I do not mean the more recent show where the computer artist guy used scans of the Shroud of Turin, it was some other show.)
The end result the TV show people/ scholars/ artist came up with was (in my opinion) Shrek – looking, only their “Shrek” looking Jesus was not green and didn’t have the additional pair or ears, horns, or antlers (or whatever they are) on top of his head like Shrek has.
I think I found a photo of it:
Shrek Jesus
(Some may disagree with, but he just reminds me of Shrek there.)
Nancy wrote:
Didn’t Jesus also compare his death and resurrection to the situation of the Old Testament character Jonah being in the belly of the fish? I looked it up real quick on Bible Gateway:
Matthew 12:40
40 for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
@ elastigirl:
Billy Joel can’t negotiate the high spots in Piano Man anymore either.
@ Daisy:
Hey, He did ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. Too bad it didn’t talk like Balaam’s.
🙂
@ Daisy:
That was an error on my part. I made two corrections to that comment right below it. It was Jonah.
Reid, I am so so sorry that this happened to you. Truly. It’s terrible.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Some people complained the actor who played Satan looked like Obama and some of the folks who were offended claimed it was intentional.
Obama-Satan lookalike cut from film version of hit mini-series The Bible
@ jkpvarin:
Very good points.
Non compete clauses have been around at least since the 1990’s. Unfortunately, there are some out there who really would come into a church just to get the info as to who are members, who might be disgruntled, etc, and then try to either oust the current pastor or steal the sheep.
Now, I don’t like the idea of non compete clauses. But I can understand the rationale, having watched a couple of incidents of very legal “church stealing” from the YRR crowd.
That said, the issue isn’t so much the non compete clause. Even if it was offered as part of a severance deal at the very end, one can accept it and the severance or go without it and with no severance.
The issue to me is the way it was handled–very poorly. Church leaders may have believed they were defending the flock from a fleecing, or may have been evil and defending their turf, or whatever. I cannot know the state of their hearts so will give them the benefit of that particular doubt.
But why not just a calm, ordered, sit down meeting stating their view of things and offer (not demand) a non compete with severance or no severance with no non compete. In the business world the latter usually does mean no good references will be given out. That would have left it up to Reid to accept or reject, but all would have been able to behave themselves as Christian gentlemen with no black eye on the cause of Christ.
So IF one views a church as a business entity OR simply uses common business techniques as part of management of a large church, non compete clauses do make sense, although it certainly is better to offer them upfront at time of initial employment. And with cheats and shysters running rampant in the Body of Christ, I’ll reluctantly say they may even have merit.
Which honest admission leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and makes me very grateful for oilpatch tailgate meetings and cowboy church–no buildings, no one is hired so no one can be fired, and no money changes hands.
@ Daisy:
Nah. It was not intentional. Nothing else about the series looked remotely like it was produced by the far right politically or the inerrantists theologically. That only leaves people trying to be creative and make money. Why would they do something intentionally that might blow up in their face? I have said that I think there were some casting problems, but there is no evidence that these people are marginal ideologues of any kind.
Thank you, Sara.
@ Nancy:
From some of the attitudes and criticisms I’ve seen by some Christians in regards to the Gibson film about Christ and the Downey Bible mini series, there is no pleasing the Christian critics, even if the movie is pretty faithful to the biblical text.
Even the portions of these movies and shows that are more wooden, frame- by- frame, word- for- word depiction from the text will still be panned and criticized as not being bible-y enough.
Sometimes, I think it’s due to a denominational bias. I do disagree with some teachings of Roman Catholicism, but the Catholic-y leanings of the Gibson film did not bother me. You have Rosebrough, who is a Lutheran guy, and I suspect he’d only be happy if an all-Luthern cast, crew, director and script writer made a Lutheran-flavored “Bible” or “Jesus’ movie.
It can’t be just “bible-ish” with these sorts of guys, it has to be stamped with their interpretation of their denomination’s doctrines / views before they will like it.
One problem is, though, if a Lutheran guy made a “Lutheran” flavor Jesus movie, your Independent Fundamentalist Baptist would not approve. They would find stuff to nit pick about.
Your Southern Baptists would grill a Methodist-produced Jesus movie. etc etc etc.
I think about the only type of film depiction of Jesus these types of guys would agree on is an actor wearing a paper bag over his head (so you cannot supposedly be distracted by his gleaming, shiny teeth, and perfect chiseled jaw, and flowing, pretty hair) reading straight from a KJV or ESV being filmed reading it. But how boring that would be for the rest of the audience.
Hester wrote:
Oh that’s right! Shrek had Donkey as a best friend, and Jesus rode a donkey. I don’t think Jesus’ had a wise-cracking, singing donkey, though. Maybe if someone ever does a musical of Jesus on the big screen, they can work that in. 🙂
Daisy wrote:
That is hilarious. I have been thinking about this, and see what you think. Some people come from an image-rich background like the catholics. Some people come from an image-poor background like the baptists. I imagine that might affect people’s perceptions of not only what media presentations should be but even whether media presentations themselves are intrinsically forbidden. Back in the day, for example, the IFB people preached that one should not go to the movies at all–not any–not ever. I don’t know what they say now, but it may be that there is still some influence of that kind of thinking. So, maybe nothing is ever good enough to get past some lingering guilty feeling for even going to the movies in the first place.
@ Daisy & Nancy
Wait till Aronofsky’s Noah film hits the silver screens. It’s gonna (already has) get lambasted on two fronts. Conservative evangelicals will diss it for the usual (eye-roll) reasons, and ‘scientific’ progressives will get their sphincters in a dither over catastrophism vs. uniformitarianism regarding the flood story. Personally I look forward to seeing the film. They couldn’t have picked a better Noah than Russell Crowe.
@ Muff Potter:
Yeah, I saw where they were thrashing around trying to get some high profile pastors to say something good about it, and I think they got Joel Osteen and that guy in Australia. I think linking the flood to environmentalism like they say they did seems a stretch, but Crowe is surely a good pick for the role.
I am so tired of Noah’s flood and Noah’s ark that I plan to skip the whole thing. But I do like a movie which is well done.
Nancy wrote:
I guess I’m not sick of it because I’m thinking that most ancient writings contain these catastrophe stories. And if they are not the same, they still may be linked. Atlantis may be telling the same story through a different culture. I like to look at them and consider that this is just part of our collective conscious, collective understanding of history.
Nancy wrote:
Me too. That’s another Bible story told to kids that glosses over the the dark side of the story. I wonder if the movie will show the children and infants drowning when the flood comes?
@ dee: but I think the “violence” is only happening when people take the OT as a repository of prophecies and nothing more. The kinds of typology I’m talking about, and that Hester mentions above, just do not come from a respect for the OT on its own terms.
I agree that things are interwoven, but I think we might differ on some of the mechanics (not so much on meaning).
@ Nancy: what I’m referring to re. xtian typology goes way, way beyond what’s stated and implied in these passages, though. See the post above by Hester re. some Puritan typology…
@ Muff Potter: agreed on textual analysis!
@ Daisy: there are huge problems with that theory. One is that Jesus wasn’t shown in the earliest xtian art, and when images of him do begin appearing, he is shown as a beardless youth. In fact, it is a stock image from that it’s, known as “the young philosopher.” The depictions of a bearded Christ come later, and the cross not until after it was abolished as a form of capital punishment.
There are a lot of good books on the development of xtian art, and the basics are also covered in the standard college art history survey texts.
@ numo: from that era…
@ Daisy:
Or a flying one. 😉
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgdFSL2A02U
numo wrote:
Indeed Numes, over time I’ve noticed that most of the ‘fights’ and ‘wars’ over Scripture are largely based on mechanics and logistics.
@linda
Thanks for your comments, I agree with what you shared. At one point I asked about a severance package and was told they were only offered to people that the church had done something wrong to.
To clarify, I was not offered any severance when I was requested to sign a non-compete. This would have made a lot of sense and I’m not sure why it wasn’t proposed as part of my leaving. From what I have learned about business, I am surprised they didn’t have the severance offer in their back pockets as a plan b if I declined to sign an agreement without something in return. Nevertheless, I was offered nothing and simply got paid through my last day of employment.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
I haven’t responded to what @Dee said because @numo’s pretty much said what I’d say. I didn’t want to repeat what @numo’s said, and better. (Sometimes I get pedantic and wordy, it’s the ex-lawyer in me.)
Reid–again, I am very sorry for what you have been through. And even more sorry that the state of the church is such that their despicable actions actually make some sort sense.
And let me invite you a genuine cowboy church if you can find one–not a denom plant called one. We don’t pay any staff, we meet wherever will be convenient next, and we try to treat every person round the coffee pot as a “pard.”
Ok, you might not be in ranch country. But I think you get the drift. It is entirely possible things like what you experienced are the good Lord telling us to put an end to the simony of the hirelings, and go with volunteer staff.
Peace, and hang in there!
Reid wrote:
There are sleazebag “churches” who do that – but it is still wrong.
If they offer a severance package, fine. But to tie it to signing a “non-compete” or “non-disclosure” agreement? That’s slimy.
Kudos to you for refusing to sign that non-compete.
TedS–I agree it sounds slimy, and is a way is slimy. However, if you have ever watched the YRR crowd steal a church right under the noses of the congregants, you understand the necessity of those in current contracts. As to not offering severance, that is also common if a person has decided to resign.
Reid
I’m sorry that you had to endure the horrors of – “two days of accusation, interrogation and intimidation by senior leaders. Before I knew it, I was drowning in accusations from senior leaders of moral failure and being pressured into signing a non-compete.”
Thank you so much for your story. And telling that story with much grace.
I know the pain when you’re no longer accepted, loved, by those you’ve trusted.
And I appreciate the end of your post. – “**I would never change a thing**” – Me too… 😉
Although it’s NOT the end of your story… 😉
You end with…
“Although I have spent the last two years fighting the frustration of being thrown under the bus by senior leaders of a megachurch, **I would never change a thing** (except perhaps to be a little more bold in calling out the obvious need for accountability for those who were at the top of X Church). My life has gone on.”
Also, thank you for your example, and your courage to walk away from what you originally understood as a “privileged position” – You write… “an opportunity I believed was one of pure privilege when I took the position.” – In my experience, “privileged positions” are like addictions, hard to walk away from. Because these “privileged positions” often come with Power, Profit, Prestige. Those things highly esteemed among men, but is abomination in the sight of God.
And, thank you for your example, and your courage to walk away from the financial perks that so many, most, “church leaders” have succumbed to today. – You write… “I myself even tasted these financial perks after receiving a bonus that was nearly 15% of my salary…” Yup – A few extra bonuses, dollars, money, sure looks like the blessings from the Lord. – BUT…
Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel. Pro 20:17
So, I thank you for your story, your example…
Although it does bring a flood of dark memories of what I now know as “Abuse” by leadership, a pastor/leader. A MAN, a Mere Fallible Human, who I considered a mentor, a good friend, a brother in the Lord, on a mission from God. A pastor/leader, who told me, ALL of us, over and over again, I was to obey and submit to because, as pastor/leader, he was a Gift from God to me. And he was watching for my soul. And I believed him.. 🙁
But NO longer – Because – Question doctrine… Question character defects… Question motives…
And, your soul is NO longer important – at least NOT to the” Senior Leadership”
So, “**I would never change a thing**” And I’m now thankful for the betrayal, the persecution, because I wanted to be like him. I was on the same path of being someone important, called of God, a “church leader.”
“**I would never change a thing**” because of that betrayal I lost much, and cried much…
I watered my couch with my tears. And I had NO place else to go…
BUT – To Go To – The “ONE” Shepherd – The “ONE” Leader…
Who Will Never Leave Me Nor Forsake me…
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
@linda – thanks for the invite!! I love your church’s model and would be thrilled to participate in a church where sacrifice was pursued before personal gain! 🙂
@ted – thanks for your kind feedback and support. What is most important to me in telling my story is not to demonstrate who was right or wrong as much as it is to give people an idea of what it is like to serve under “church” leaders that have external and self-imposed pressures to perform at levels that seem to often require the sacrifice of a staff member’s conscience or career. That part of my story is the rampant nature of the smiling missions director, or whatever leader you see get thrown into the positions of carrying on the growth of the church without the privilege of personal relationships that The Leader had when they had 50 people meeting in a school with them. In many ways I have always tried to represent X Church in such a way that gives them the benefit of the doubt – this is even true of my first conversation with Dee. Nevertheless, megachurch work is bloody and it simply becomes sick when common organizational decisions are over-spiritualized or decieptfully carried out without regard to the lives of the men and women who gave their trust and efforts to a cause that turned out to be an empty wind.
@ A. Amos – I’m honored that you shared your support and mutual understanding with me. I continue to remind myself to keep my eyes open for the kingdom of God and not get distracted when some dude says “look over here, we got the next best church exploding out the doors over here!” It’s a shame that we too often lack complete fellowship in our journeys of faith – a side effect that I have come to believe appears whenever we are not participating in the Church God is calling and growing. Suffering is quite a beautiful think. As it says in James, it develops perseverance. I told my mother throughout this experience that I would rather suffer incessantly for Christ than to not go through anything at all where I couldn’t see my faith tried and tested. May we all put forward a little more effort each day to live lives of complete sacrifice. God bless you.
I’m another long-time lurker, first-time commenter. The largest church I was ever a member of had about 200 members, so when I read Reid’s comment about going to “human resources”, it struck me how large this church must be. My employer doesn’t even have a human resources department. We have a guy in the office at the end of the hallway. Just one guy. Is it even possible for a church this large to be anything but a big business, with big business practices? Not that all business practices are wrong, but should churches have them? Can a church that large maintain a focus on worship and meeting the needs of its members? I don’t know, really. Just wondering.
Re: the music issue. It’s one of the reasons I’ll probably always be a Methodist, despite our many problems in the denomination. I believe there will always be a traditional service where we use a hymnal, where I can read the music and sing the harmonies. I can’t stand the lyrics projected onto a screen. It reminds me of being in a large lecture hall.
Deanna wrote:
About 10 years ago after attending a church where 2000 to 3000 people came through the doors on a typical Sunday I decided that a church of more than 500 regulars should plan to split up. Before they get to 1000. Before you get to 1000 you will be wandering amongst strangers much of the time. A church should be a place where you at least recognize all the faces.
__
Da Forty-Ninth Bell: “Seeking To Be Faithful To Christ, And His Message, Perhaps?”
hmmm…
“…A mighty non-compete agreement is our strength,
Our hope in shallow past,
Let detractors remove from whence they came,
Our bright future, secured at last…”
*
Reid, sorry your hope in da proverbial choo choo church was found ta be so shallow.
*
Some ‘exit’ music, perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3CC4iR0Mng
And one shall say to Him,
What are these,
Wounds in your hands?
Then He shall answer,
Those with which I was,
Wounded…
In the house of my friends.
(sadface)
Sopy
—
Welcome, Deanna!
Daisy wrote:
Blasphemy against The Obama?
At most, I’d figure it as one of those “Whoops!” moments.
But the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theory card gets played and the Tyranny of the Most Easily Offended strikes again.
It either was intentionally evil or really stupid to make such a casting decision. Whoever did it was playing with a bad deck or was missing a lot of cards. Whichever, it was taken care of in the editing room.
@ Reid:
“It’s a shame that we too often lack complete fellowship in our journeys of faith – a side effect that I have come to believe appears whenever we are not participating in the Church God is calling and growing. Suffering is quite a beautiful think. As it says in James, it develops perseverance. I told my mother throughout this experience that I would rather suffer incessantly for Christ than to not go through anything at all where I couldn’t see my faith tried and tested. May we all put forward a little more effort each day to live lives of complete sacrifice.”
++++++++++++
Hi, Reid. I’m wondering….
1. what is “the Church God is calling and growing”? what is it not?
I meet with 2 friends once a week to pray — it is more dynamic, more powerful, more “charging up” than any church I’ve ever attended. it has a direct impact on how I live my life the rest of the week. we also seek to bring others into what we do.
Am I participating in the church God calling and growing?
2. Regarding suffering / participating in God’s church / suffering incessantly / living lives of complete sacrifice :
You reached a line, a boundary you could not cross in your previous church experience, and you left.
I think of someone in an abusive christian environment (totalitarian, controlling, manipulative, legalistic, psychologically/relationally destructive, sexually abusive, silencing victims & dissent, etc.). I’m sort of wondering what such a person would make of your words here.
If you have influence (you may have much influence, I don’t know), I’m wondering to what extent your words would have power for such a person to continue on in a destructive environment for the sake of “perseverance”. Because of any glorification of the notions of “suffering” and “sacrifice”.
don’t have any crystallized questions here… just wondering how you would respond to my thoughts in typed words here.
elastigirl wrote:
I am not Reid, but I did read those books by the missiologist who interviewed and researched in areas of intense suffering–not just a bad church situation but rather prison. He reported that in the Chinese house church movement the leadership is thought to inevitably go through the usual three year prison sentence, have the opportunity during that time to evangelize in prison, and be a mature leader after (but not before) the experience of suffering. When the missiologist was surprised by this he was asked by one of the older pastors, when did you quit reading your bible, son. The researcher is of the opinion that we are the ones who are deficient in this area, not those who suffer.
elastigirl wrote:
At this point, I feel like the Christian “suffering” card gets pulled out with the “bitter” card and the “slander” card simply to keep people in line.
Reading Reid’s post that you quoted, I believe he is sincere in his views and was NOT “playing the card,” just to be clear.
That said, it’s pathetic and sad that evangelical authoritarians have twisted verses on suffering, as you (e-girl) well know. Abusive domineering of the sheep has sadly taken the encouragement, grace, and healing balm out of these teachings.
Due to this, my reaction is to be on guard when I hear Christians discuss perseverance and suffering these days.
@ Nancy:
I agree that we learn & grow through hard times.
The information you’ve provided and similar things are used as a justification for putting up with destructive circumstances rather than rectifying the situation to bring life-giving change to oneself and others.
Unfortunately, the predicament in China appears to be unavoidable. Here, we are free to leave abusive predicaments. Hard times will come regardless — no need to perpetuate them for the sake of reaching a quota on suffering.
I don’t speak for you, here — just myself. But I can see how the suffering of China’s Christians (or that of Paul or Jesus, etc.) is used to justify keeping oneself and one’s children in destructive circumstances on some (unnecessary) ideal — the consequences of which can take years to recover from. Some stay with a person for the rest of their lives.
Rafiki wrote:
Jesus and the apostles taught us to endure suffering at the hands of the unbelieving world for the cause of Christ and the gospel. I don’t recall Jesus ever teaching that His people were to endure suffering at the hands of each other.
[Jesus taught us, saying:]”By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” ~ John 13:35
@ elastigirl:
I am probably somewhere between the missiologist and some of the opinions I hear from people about bad situations. I do not think that anyone is obliged to flee a situation just because things get bad. The operative word here is “obliged.” Here is an analogy. The girl’s soccer coach at the high school where my daughter teaches was complaining about a problem with girl’s soccer. It seems that some girls start out in recreational soccer and like it, but when they get to high school, and find out that now they can expect to actually get cleats in their shins, they immediately want to drop out. I think that some people may be continuing to continue in some situation in spite of the cleats in the shin, so to speak, because they have reasons to do so–like “you can’t make me stop” or something–and it is not the thing to do to demand that they flee the field (the battle) just because they get hurt. At the same time, I do not think that people should be unable to change their circumstances if that is what is indicated. There has to be room for both approaches, stay or go, depending on whatever the circumstances and variables are and whatever the persons involved decide for themselves.
And, yes, this is partly based on personal experience. I have dealt with some pretty bad situations from time to time, and had to listen to people tell me to give up. As in, “don’t you think that the Lord is telling you to (whatever)”. Thing was, I knew going in there would be cleats to the shin, and no I was not going to change my course of action just because of it. There has to be room for the legitimate staying and hanging in there. And somewhere along the line we need to differentiate between suffering on the one hand and victimization on the other hand, because the words are not synonymous.
@ Nancy: I think that what you’re talking about is not the same thing as what elastigirl and Rafiki are talking about. Having had the “suffering” card played on me by well-meaning people after I’d been booted/shunned by an abusive church did NOT help one iota. If I tried to talk about how angry and hurt I felt, they cut me off and would insist that I consider the story of Joseph, etc.
This idea of suffering as a purgative cure is deeply ingrained in church history, and has often been glorified and given a pride of place that minimizes human beings and the pain that we all experience in this life.
So while I agree with you that sometimes circumstances demand perseverance at one’s own expense, there is a *big* difference between *choosing* to get cleats in the shins and being involuntarily forced into painful circumstances and *then* being told that the people inflicting the pain are doing it for your own good. *Especially* when those people could have approached you as if you were their equals and talked things out, rather that kicking the rug out from under you with a jackbooted foot. To have well-meaning people *then* say “this will make you holier” is to endure what Job heard from his friends, who did mean well, overall, but just made some things considerably harder for him by not simply listening to him and being there without giving lectures.
@ Nancy: in short, you *chose* a certain course and stuck to it.
That’s so different to what many of us have experienced at the hands of abusive, bullying, authoritarian “pastors” who kick people around just because the can and/or because they feel threatened and/or because throwing their weight around is important to them. Of course, these behaviors and attitudes are terribly off, and any person in an organization (religious, employment, whatever) w here this goes on is potentially the next moving target for the abuser(s). The only way abuse can be prevented in those situations is for the person in the line of fire to get the hell out of there.
@ numo:
Which is very hard to do when you have been trained by spiritual leaders to suffer and bear your cross for the sake of Christ/unity/love. They are teaching half/truths when they don’t include the Godly responses that pastors/leaders should have toward others. Many pastors/leaders have set up the athority/hierarchy scenario which allows them to control and abuse in the name of God. Bleh!
@ Bridget: exactly.
Seven years? SEVEN YEARS?
This is kind of my gig here, inasmuch as I’ve taught it for over a decade and practiced for about two decades. If that church was receiving legal advice, I can only assume it was from the senior pastor’s nephew who graduated in the bottom 10% of his law school class and couldn’t pass the Bar. Anyone who tried to enforce a seven year NCA in court would be laughed straight out the door.
@lawprof please remember that the first NCA proposed to me was my lifetime, it had no termination date.
Hey @elastgirl. I’m replying from a phone right now, so forgive me for any over-simplification in my response please 🙂
Before I try to answer ur questions, please let me say that I was a fundraiser at a megachurch, not a pastor. I did major in bible in college and go through some seminary classes as part of an ordination program I did not complete. All that to say that there are much more learned people to answer the questions you asked me, but I am happy to answer your questions from as much of a biblical position as possible.
As for your church that consists of a few people, I find that to be so admirable. I really have such an appreciation for the ability to grow in an intimate spiritual environment where accountability exists peacefully and where worship is focused on God as he has been revealed through the Bible (as opposed to being filtered through someone’s so called “vision”).
As to your question on someone who may currently be serving under unhealthy leadership and enduring it with a suffering servant mentality… Suffering for Christ is a result of faithfulness to Jesus, not putting up with unhealthy situations (as it relates to the context of our conversation, at least). So I believe that my personal sufferings (which pale in comparison to Christian sufferings that are being experienced across the globe right now) were not as much from finding myself in a crummy position as they came to be when I decided to completely break myself away from the appearance of a life of ministry for a path to obedience that had very few cheerleaders. I would encourage any one in an abusive situation like the one u described to remember their personal responsibility to the Gospel. It does not matter what someone’s title is above or below them – if they don’t meet or uphold biblical standards and requirements for church leaders than that’s the end of discussion and those staff in abusive situations should boldly represent and/or share the Gospel with the abusive leaders. But that’s where it gets tricky for so many people inside of churches because there is such rampant perversion of God’s word that you can’t even reason with the leadership.
I hope I’ve answered ur questions with some level of adequacy. Please let me know if there is anything more I can elaborate on. And THANK U for so many great and thoughtful comments on this post 🙂
@ elastigirl:
@bridget. U my friend have seen this matter with perfect clarity. Great job articulating this issue so precisely!
Bridget wrote:
Why would a 7 year term be laughed out of court? Does that mean that someone in my situation could have signed the agreement and then broken the terms of the NCA without ramifications?
LawProf wrote:
Hey, rafiki. THANK U for helping to clarify the definition of suffering. I agree with everything u said and appreciate u distinguishing the suffering card syndrome :). Thank u also for giving me the benefit of the doubt for the context in which I suffered since I did not outline the exact details of the suffering I made the claim of experiencing. Keep the thoughtful comments coming! -Reid
Rafiki wrote:
@ Reid:
“I would encourage any one in an abusive situation like the one u described to remember their personal responsibility to the Gospel. It does not matter what someone’s title is above or below them – if they don’t meet or uphold biblical standards and requirements for church leaders than that’s the end of discussion and those staff in abusive situations should boldly represent and/or share the Gospel with the abusive leaders.”
++++++++++++++
Thanks, Reid, for interacting.
I’ve long since lost the ability to process christianese. What you mean when you say “I would encourage any one in an abusive situation … to remember their personal responsibility to the Gospel”?
What do you mean by the gospel when you say “those staff in abusive situations should boldly represent and/or share the Gospel with the abusive leaders”?
To me, “the gospel” means simply the good news that God & I are friends, and we can enjoy our friendship all the day long. I assume abusive leaders in church already know this (in whatever terms they would choose to express it). What is it, then, one is to share with them?
I’ve come to realize in the last year there is no more bewildering word than “gospel” — it seems to have taken on a whole assortment of meanings I would never have ascribed to the word. Cultural differences I suppose.
you are very upbeat and gracious in how you communicate.
@ Reid:
Any lawyer worth their salt would know that that is outrageously outside the law. Three years is typically all that can be obtained, and then it must have been a fair exchange, which is why those are in employment contracts, not after someone is leaving. Without significant mutual benefit, NCAs are generally not enforced.
@ Reid:
Reid, let me stress, having been in an awful abusive work environment at one point in my life (the supervisor in question, following an investigation of employee’s stories which would blow. your. mind) I really really feel for your situation.
Plus as e-girl noted, you ARE upbeat and gracious in your communications. So you have beyond the benefit of the doubt. Your original post referencing suffering opened up a good dialogue. 🙂
@ Rafiki:
Whoops, meant to say above that the supervision in question resigned following the investigation.
The Body Watchers
Everyone had become a watcher in one way or another…
Eyes were open to what was written
Ears were open to what was spoken
The Body Watchers had front row seats
Like page six socialites
Eye level to calf and high heels
Of the model’s stomp down the one-way
Dead end ramp…
No need to dress up
No need to walk the Runway
No need for… heels, especially high heels
The Body Watchers, dressed in earth tone colors
And artist-black
For the Body Watchers had a place, they said
To speak the truth –fearless — to alert the industry
That the show is fake.
In earth tones and artist-black
The Body Watchers fearless to call it as they saw it…
Front row seats earned, they said
“We were abused by it…
No longer afraid — our line warning of abuse,
Defense and attack.
You’re not alone —
Don’t be deceived… see?
The Runway is a dead end stage
At the end, they all got to turn around
And go backstage… again.”
The Body Watchers said, sitting eye level
To calves and heels, “We have a place —
To speak the truth and help heal.
Those who won’t look our way
Those who stomp down the Runway…”
The day came when from a distance,
A pair of blue heels was asked model.
And when she did, she did what no one considered…
She stopped right in front of
The Body Watchers —
Right there in the middle of the ramp
She looked down at them
No one until that day had done that…
The Body Watchers, now forced to look up
Past the heel and calf
Gazed into a light brighter than the spots
That lined the place where the models walk.
Those who had lined up to walk after her
Thought, “This is it — I am done.
We can’t follow that.”
The blue high heel pointed toed shoes
Confronted the Body Watchers as if face to face
What now could be the defense?
In front of all the models and the show
This one’s blue heel and legs
Could, considering the position,
Stomp the model stomp on the Body Watcher’s head.
But the blue heels
With unmistakable red souls
Clearly testified,
Once is enough…
Silenced by this, the whole event waited.
She spoke through the silence and said with fire eyes,
“Go ahead, critique what I am wearing.
You want to create something better?
Are you ready to
show me sketches and designs this season? How about next?
Do you have a place prepared for me?
If this is it, Body Watchers, I’m not interested.
Thank-you, however, for the opportunity to walk the model’s isle.
And see you as you are…
What is hope and what did you expect?
Can you give up your seats so that you too might suffer
A Body Watcher critique?
Don’t be so quick to agree — think it through
Do you think any side, one or the other
Is able to create me a public style
With a Runway to show how wonderful I am?”
elastigirl wrote:
I’ve had pretty much the same epiphany over the last 15 years. I much prefer the good news of friendship with the Almighty as you’ve described it in your comment rather than the pass-go-collect-200bucks-and-put-it-all-on-Jesus’-back-so-you-don’t-burn-in-hell ‘gospel’. The former is really good news, the latter is only an ultimatum.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
OKay Senica, let’s try this (I’ll be analytical, so you can understand me): You can’t hear the other side. They have painted themselves into a corner. They are buried under the shackles of legal clauses. When they fired/dismissed/freaked-out on Reid, they made it impossible to defend themselves. Now note, just because they can’t run around and bad-mouth a former employee doesn’t mean they are innocent. It just means they are former employers and, therefore, under legal gag orders of various types. Who would even have access to an old employee’s files? To his resignation/dismissal file? Likely no one who could talk to the blogosphere about it.
Therefore: there is only one side that you can legally hear. You have heard it. You have also read the other poster (his personal friend) writing in supporting the man who told his story. Likely the story is true because it keeps playing out in different religious organizations again and again. Long-time congregant does some innocent thing that leadership doesn’t like /is threatened by and leadership reacts with authoritarian overkill. Person thought leadership would be reasonable/balanced/honest. Person is shocked to discover leadership is not. Person has to sort through all their emotions at their most vulnerable point. Leadership doesn’t care/takes advantage of their upset sate. Person is left isolated and alone.
What other side would you like to hear? The ‘he deceived us and is a terrible person who wants to start a non-profit without us?’ ‘Cause that is about the worst kind of Christian ever, oh wait… The ‘he was undermining our donor base by starting a suspicious non-profit that might take away from our financial gain? ‘Cause all Church leaders should pastor and minister to the mighty dollar and protect Jesus’ (their) dollars from all the “wolves” out there? The “he was out to steal “our” donors, “our” tithe, “our” trade secrets – because the only way a church can succeed is if it has a good business model, a good revenue stream and a loyal ‘customer’ base – it has nothing to do with God, with Jesus’ teachings about money or about faith (following what you can’t see). Silly sheep, they think we “believe” in God, but we don’t, we just have faith in our business acumen and worldly status and he threatened that, so we can now drop the Christian shtick and go for his jugular. How dare he! It is our money, our business (God is a concept to draw sheep through the doors), our methods!
Do any of those scenarios help you see the other side?
Here is Jesus’s response – he would embrace anyone who wanted to branch out and bring his word to others. He released the 72, while he was still ministering on earth, he desired his disciples go make more disciples, he taught people to go into the world and spread his teachings around. He would not be offended or threatened if someone were to branch out on their own and not be ‘under the authority of the disciples’ – he even corrected the disciples for trying to ban a person they didn’t know personally from ministering in Jesus’/his name. Jesus shepherded everyone, even his own murderer. He never ran people out.
I really don’t think we need much of an “other” side of the story. The other side were not pastors, and in my books, they are not leaders. A worldly title means nothing in the Kingdom of God.
@ Mara:
That is also another count against Calvinism, because how could Jesus long to do something, yet not be able to do it? Freedom of the people (freewill) only makes sense here.
@ Seneca “j” Griggs:
But that is still entirely worldly. If a pastor doesn’t sense a call from God and can’t trust God enough to believe he/she is in the right place for the right time, they aren’t to be leaders of the church, God has gifted someone else for this particular time and place. When leaders start attacking others for having a similar gifting or call, it means they have missed the boat. That is the problem with the story. Even if Reid was competition, the Christian response is: great! More people reaching others and doing Christ’s ministry on earth. That is, ultimately, what we are all called to be doing, and so, it is a good thing.
The fact the leaders can’t handle his departure (threatened either by potential finical or influential loss), shows it isn’t about following Christ or being blessed leaders. Even if they have a building, the title “pastor” and a congregation the size of a city, they aren’t responding to a current call from God to lead. Do I sound harsh? Look at how God stripped Saul of his title and position, even after God chose him for the post. He removes leaders for becoming focused on controlling/coveting “their” positions.
@ Val:
Val — Wise words about call and the effect of treating God’s people as if they “belong” to a pastor. Such thinking is an abomination, a sin, because the pastor takes the authority and place of God in the life of the congregants.
HoppyTheToad wrote:
The issue of church money being handed down via inheritance as well as positions in the hierarchy certainly contributed to the rule of celibacy. In modern times, it does allow the church to not have to worry about paying clergy as much as Protestant churches need to. Our priest lives in a three room accommodation attached to the church offices, insurance is provided through the archdiocese and he receives a modest salary for his other needs. This frees up money in the parish and would not work if priests had families to support. I think the financial issue for parishes is a practicality that may slow down any movement toward ending celibacy in the priesthood.
Reid wrote:
That makes it even more ridiculous. These people know the law about as well as they know ethics and–perhaps–the Lord.
Pretty much, yes. Generally, you’re bound by what you sign, and you can even waive constitutional rights with your signature, but a seven year NCA is not one of those occasions.
Of course, having to fight something out in court certainly counts as “ramifications”, but yes, if they tried to enforce that 7 year NCA–even if you’d signed it in your own blood with a thousand witnesses present and the whole proceeding broadcast on live TV, whilst simultaneously swearing that this was what you wanted, you just loved this seven year NCA–they’d still not have been able to enforce it in court and the judge would’ve taken a long hard look at their lawyer and asked him or her why they were wasting court time with this utter garbage.
Reid wrote:
Hey Reid, As one of your former co-workers who was also flattened by the bus and the X church senior leadership, I thank you for sharing your story for the world to see just how corrupt, hypocritical, and heartless church “leaders” can be when they lose sight of Christ and now worship money, fame and power. I began to have serious questions about the “leaders” when they began to put quotas on us, the associate pastors, to bring in more people so we could get more money. I remember one of those dreaded Wednesday staff meetings in the Sr. leader’s office when he said “you don’t have time to work on ministry and Bible studies anymore, you must focus on getting more people in the doors”. I was later told that if I didn’t get my numbers up i.e. more attendees to my events, that I could lose my job. I was given no figure, percentage, or number.. just “up”. Apparently my efforts weren’t good enough, even though I did get my numbers “up” , and I was terminiated. Reid… I felt your pain and I remember hearing about your ordeal and feeling very sorry for you. I watched your zest and vigor as you began your new position at X church with such devotion to the sr pastor. I worried that you would one day realize that he was using you for his own benefit and that he was a master at feigning devotion towards his staff. The truth is that the second you decided to answer to Christ more than X church, you became his enemy. God’s grace is that we were rescued. You are now doing what God created you to do and doing so with a clear heart and conscience. I thank God He removed me from the toxic atmosphere of X church. You are free my brother. Rejoice.
Thanks, RR!
@ RR:
@ Reid:
Reid…I know Bill Clinton said that he still believes in a place called Hope. After what you have written I on the other hand will not believe in a place called Hope. Has this story started to make inroads in your former church? Have members started to ask questions?
I hope that day is coming…
At one point I asked about a severance package and was told they were only offered to people that the church had done something wrong to.<a href="#comment-134958" title="Go to comment of this
Interesting since I was given a 6 month severance package. Hard to believe they would ever admit to being wrong.
If you folks knew 1/2 of the horror stories about the “sr leadership” at X church, you’d think we were making this all up. After I was terminated, at least 5 other staff left due to the unbearable pressures placed upon them to “bring in the numbers”. Pray for a change.
@ Eagle:
No response yet, @eagle. Thank you for thinking of my story and following up to find out any updates!
@ RR:
@rr
And at least “5” stayed that were under qualified and flying under wings of immunity!
RR wrote:
This is what always happens. We come to a place where we have to decide who we’re going to follow? The pastor … or Jesus?
@ Katie:
Katie wrote:
So true. I wish the best for every one of us and pray that we will all show extreme diligence in protecting the self-sufficiency of the Gospel.
Reid..any word? Has this resulted in any changes at Hope Pres?
Hey, eagle! Thank you so much for checking in with me. Since writing this post I have been able to move forward in my own personal peace with my time in the church world. I hope my post will stand as an encouragement for church staff or church members who seek purification of the Church. I’m not really able to fully speak to the condition of the church I left as I am no longer at the church and have, along with my family, moved to a new church. I have personally, however, continued to seek to be faithful to all of Christ’s commands as much as I possibly can. Part of this process has included my own change of focus from having church organizations on a pedastool to viewing them more as organizations. I’m currently working much more on supporting the Church Christ is building and less time than on churches that men are building. I believe that God gives discernment to his children and hope that Christians will be more sensitive to what God is doing than to what men are doing. If you’d like to talk by phone sometime just shoot an email to Dee with your phone number and I’d be honored to give you a call to talk further. Thanks!! -Reid
@ Eagle: