"...When He [Jesus] saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." Matt 9:36

"Do not rob the poor, because he is poor... for the Lord will take up their case and plunder those who plunder them." Proverbs 22:22-23

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Young, Cross, and Richard (Re-SHARD) "Dog and Pony Show" Analysis

Readers - below is a radio show clip that contains some outstanding analysis by Chris Rosebrough of the Pirate Christian Radio network, analyzing the Ed Young, Mac Richard (prounouced "Re-SHARD"), and John Cross "Dog and Pony Show" at the Fellowship Church on February 6th. It was at this dog-and-pony show that these three men defended the integrity of the Fellowship ministry, and declared the jet lease to be a wise use of resources to take care of Pastor Ed Young and his family.

Chris Rosebrough is the founder of the Pirate Christian Radio Network broadcasting from Fishers, Indiana. His program is devoted to exposing doctrinal error in all areas of Christianity, both mainstream evangelical and also in the emerging church movement. In his shows he does sermon analysis, picking apart sermons that are filled with doctrinal error and watered-down theology. Its great to know there is a guy out there exposing the frauds in Christianity.



In the clip above, he does a theological and an MBA-level analysis of the statements made by Young, Cross, and Richard (prounounced "Re-SHARD) concerning the allegations raised by the local TV channel concerning Fellowship Church, Ed Young's salary and "parsonage allowance" and the leasing of a jet airplane. Hoo-boy, and Rosebrough pulls no punches. He claims to have spoken personally to some of the former FC employees, and he let's these three guys have it for this disgraceful performance.

I will be doing more articles on the Young controversy this week, as it does tie into some of the tithing issues discussed here - as well as my concern over the fact that John Cross is the president of our Florida Baptist Convention and has chosen to throw his full support behind the jet air plane and to declare Young's ministry to be so full of integrity.

And about Mac Richard's (pronounced Re-SHARD) statement near the end of the dog and pony show that he prays for those behind this news story....actually, the ones I pray for in this are Richard (pronounced Re-SHARD) and Cross...if it turns out that there are financial shenanigans surrounding the lease arrangements of that jet airplane that should have been disclosed to the church, then they will look very foolish and will be shown to be enablers of Ed Young's greed and wasting of God's resources. So, yes, pray for the people behind the news report especially the annoymous sources who stand to lose quite a bit if his identity is exposed...but pray for Richard and Cross as well.

And to Fellowship Church members: it will be painful to listen to this analysis, but it may help you understand how many Christians and non-Christians who are not at your church view what is happening at Fellowship Church. You might choose to hunker down and give more as you believe Richard's (prounounced "Re-SHARD") notion that you are under attack...but I think the wise choice is to ask even MORE questions, and demand full accountability behind the terms of the jet aircraft lease and other finanical matters at your church. You may not think you have any power because your board is made up of people not from your church, but you hold the ULTIMATE power...that is the power of the pocketbook.

And that, my friends, is a language these mega church pastors understand.

[Note: you can drag forward to the 12 minute mark if you want to start right where Chris begins his analysis...but his up-front remarks give excellent context]

10 comments:

New BBC Open Forum said...

Just for once, I'd like to see a staff member who is leaving one of these "ministries" where there are "shenanigans" going on refuse to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Tell them to keep their filthy money. Then write a tell-all book! I'd be first in line to buy it.

I know of one former staff member from Bellevue who reportedly refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement who has been quoted as saying he has enough "proof" in his possession "to shut the place down tomorrow," but now, several years later, everyone is still waiting. If someone has proof of these kinds of improprieties either reveal the proof or burn it and do not speak of it again. Ever.

Anonymous said...

BBC. Most staff members have no contract. However, the mega pastor does have. There would be no reason not to speak about such things unless the staff member is still working somewhere else. I suppose that most former staff members do not desire to be labeled as divisive as it is so hard to live with that around ones neck. Also, most pastors tell them being divisive is a sin, therefore, they just leave and say nothing. It will all come out later one way or the other. Thats the reason for all of us to be watchmen on the wall. The truth does set one FREE.

Anonymous said...

I would think, like in most instances, when one is leaving one position to go to another, one must have a REFERENCE from the former boss, or they may not get the new job. What a shame that people are "hand-cuffed", so to speak, by this disadvantage when applying for another job. Actually, in some cases the former "position" may not be what it should be and the individual will do well to "get out" of a bad job, even if it is a church.

As to being asked or TOLD to sign a non-disclosure agreement, this would appear to be an unfair advantage when it comes from a church. I can see it maybe, if there is a business with competing products or such, but not from a church. Makes one wonder what the church is hiding from members and public. Why would a church want to make someone sign a non-disclosure agreement. One could always claim they were forced to sign "Under Duress". The duress is, understanding, maybe being told, the individual would have "difficulty" in getting another job. If after all a "church" being the bastion of good and honesty that it is supposed to be, then the individual could hardly defend themselves against a church. People still believe churches are not businesses using business tatics, to further and protect their "brand", and share of the market. Sometimes people get "trapped" in these disclosure agreements. Somewhat disillusioning isn't it.

New BBC Open Forum said...

"Most staff members have no contract."

I don't know who among us is privy to what type of arrangement or contract church staffers have, but I was speaking only about non-disclosure agreements which, when leaving their positions to "pursue other ministry opportunities" (translation: when they're being involuntarily shown the door), they're "encouraged" to sign if they want to receive severence pay and other benefits (insurance, pension, references, etc.)

One former BBC staffer was said on his last day to have been chased to the parking lot by security trying to force him to sign... which, as I understand, he refused to do. He's the only one I've heard of who refused though. I'm sure most thought their financial circumstances precluded them from saying no, but what about trusting God to provide when you do the right thing?

"As to being asked or TOLD to sign a non-disclosure agreement, this would appear to be an unfair advantage when it comes from a church. I can see it maybe, if there is a business with competing products or such, but not from a church. Makes one wonder what the church is hiding from members and public. Why would a church want to make someone sign a non-disclosure agreement."

Indeed.

Anonymous said...

Until someone has been through it they just will not get it. Can you imagine not being able to put your teure in a mega church on a resume because you will get a bad reference? How do you explain those years? What if they call?

Most organizations will believe the mega church and view the person as disgruntled and hard to deal with. It is a no win situation even if you refuse to sign the agreement and forgo the severence pay.

New BBC Open Forum said...

It is indeed a no-win situation. All I'm saying is for once I'd like to see one person buck the trend, maybe someone who's retiring and doesn't need "references," but I understand why most don't. As I said earlier though, if you haven't signed a non-disclosure agreement and then gossip (which at that point is all it is) about possessing proof of improprieties, either put up or shut up. Even if you have to don a hood and do your best Darth Vader imitation, if you can share the undeniable, documented proof with someone like a TV or newspaper reporter who will get the word out, either do so or quit going around telling people you've got proof while refusing to share it with anyone. If that's your choice, destroy the evidence and never speak of it again.

Anonymous said...

It is indeed a no-win situation. All I'm saying is for once I'd like to see one person buck the trend, maybe someone who's retiring and doesn't need "references," but I understand why most don't. As I said earlier though, if you haven't signed a non-disclosure agreement and then gossip (which at that point is all it is) about possessing proof of improprieties, either put up or shut up. Even if you have to don a hood and do your best Darth Vader imitation, if you can share the undeniable, documented proof with someone like a TV or newspaper reporter who will get the word out, either do so or quit going around telling people you've got proof while refusing to share it with anyone. If that's your choice, destroy the evidence and never speak of it again.

February 16, 2010 11:35 AM

Just curious, who is doing that?

New BBC Open Forum said...

Who is doing what?

New BBC Open Forum said...

If you mean the name of the former staffer who was reported to have been going around claiming to have all this evidence, since I have not directly heard it from his lips myself, I am not saying. The sources were people I know and trust who know him personally and claim he said it in their presence. Also, they do not know each other, so they're independent sources who would have heard him make this claim at different times.

Anonymous said...

I know what severance pay is...but it is beginning to take on an additional meaning in some cases (not all). An incentive to keep quite, if you sign the no disclosure agreement also. Sad.