"I predict that you won't soon see the following multi-campus sites opening: Fellowship Church Wilmer-Hutchins Campus, Saddleback Watts Campus, NorthPoint Community Church Bankhead Campus, or Second Baptist Houston Third-Ward Campus. The multi-site movement and the preponderance of domestic SBC church planting is focused like a laser upon those areas where people with lots of money live in church-friendly cultures—places where it is easy to fill a church with rich people." Bart Barber, Pastor FBC Farmersville (TX)
Not often that you hear harsh words of criticism from a SBC pastor directed at significant initiatives within the SBC, but pastor Bart Barber spoke truth in his blog post from last November in which he criticized the trend toward multi-campus (i.e. "satellite") churches and "church plants" in areas already served by SBC churches .
Barber claims these plants and satellites are predominantly targeting those who have money, in areas already served by SBC churches. As he says in the quote above, you won't see satellite churches in the slums around the megas, but in the wealthy neighborhoods. FBC Jax is a prime example. Where was their first satellite? In Ponte Vedra, the wealthiest part of Jacksonville, in an area already served by several Southern Baptist churches.
And please don't dismiss Barber as someone who doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to SBC trends. He is a church historian, a Ph.D. graduate, adjunct faculty and trustee at Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary, so he certainly knows his stuff.
And as Barber points out, as these satellites and church plants are funded in areas already saturated with Baptist churches, the SBC is simply adding to their bloated bureaucracy as each new church is adding additional overhead costs of buildings, utilities, high-priced ministers - when the ministry could be done by an existing church. Barber says these church plants have to be curtailed:
"If younger Southern Baptists are serious about getting resources out to where lostness is, then we will witness some stanching of the flow of young seminary graduates out to plant new churches throughout the Southland. If it is wrong for a local congregation to keep the preponderance of its money and if it is wrong for a state convention to keep the preponderance of its Cooperative Program receipts within a state, then it is equally wrong for seminary graduate after seminary graduate to cram their new church starts into wealthy Southern suburbs tighter than sardines in a can."Interesting use of the word "stanching", used most often in terms of stopping loss of blood, or loss of vital resources. He is saying it is a waste of money given for missions, for the SBC to take funds and start churches in wealthy suburbs where there is already an SBC presence.
He goes further:
"If the Southern Baptist Convention's leaders are really serious about getting more resources out to reach the most lost areas of the world, they ought to reject entirely the notion of widespread church planting (apart perhaps from language work) within the strength areas of the SBC and labor hard to curtail it—and yet a steady stream among our seminary graduates eschew established churches and choose to create yet another local church bureaucracy in communities already served by multiple congregations, reducing with each new work the funding available to send to the nations."That is not some disgruntled blogger saying that. This is Dr. Bart Barber, pastor and educator and historian in the SBC.
But why does the SBC do it? Well, from a pure marketing perspective, they are either very smart, or very stupid, and I'm not sure which it is. You see, what the SBC is doing is what marketers call "brand cannibalization". It has many facets, but cannibalization can occur when a firm opens new retail outlets that are located physically too close, and the two outlets end up competing for what are essentially the same "customers". Not a smart strategy, unless you're the pastor of the new outlet and can get help from the SBC to fund your new church, or if you're a megachurch pastor starting a satellite, and you plan on taking customers from the existing churches in that area.
But probably the truth is the SBC is willing to engage in some cannibalization as a means of what is called "brand extension", knowing the new church plant will reach a different market with a younger pastor. Perry Noble, who was trained at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, said recently he learned from Dr. Aiken that it is easier to give birth to something new, than to resurrect something that is already dead - thus it is better for a young pastor to start a new church than to resurrect an old one.
Given what Barber says, it is doubly sad to see the lengths pastors will go to justify to their congregations the concept of satellite brand extensions. I recall back in September 2008 when Mac Brunson made the ridiculous assertion that in Paul's day the church in Rome was a group of "satellite churches", in his attempt to sell the congregation on starting a satellite in Ponte Vedra. But more satellites can be expected from FBC Jax very soon as Brunson admitted in this recent interview, in a city that has a church on just about every corner.
So get ready Westside, or St. John's County, for more FBC Jax's. But something tells me there will not be any in Arlington or on Spring Park Road.
We need more pastors like Bart Barber willing to speak the truth on issues like this one.
69 comments:
Hi WD,
I haven't read this post yet, but I'm getting ready to. But I wanted to post a link which everybody may already be familiar with. It was new to me and fascinating church history. It really explained things well and makes a lot of sense.
Forgot to post the link! Here it is:
http://lifewalkblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/tithing-and-clergy-salaries/
Akin has a point which needs to be pondered and put on the floor for discussion.
We are in a generation of churches who don't like their new pastor if he has modern ways which buck the trend. We have to many churches who are looking for a specific type person which no longer can be found in their immediate neighborhood. Wrong color or language.
If a new church plant, mini or mega will reach those the present churches are not reaching, then for the sake of the kingdom, reach them.
It is never to be what people are looking for, it is to be about what God is sending.
We present what the Lord sends, not what people want.
What is right does not always work. It is not ours to do what "works" it is ours to do what is right, as I believe Adrian Rogers put it.
Many of the so-called "trends" are not matters of preference, but principles of the world masked in Biblical language.
Barber is categorically right on this one. No one should have the right to hear the gospel twice, until everyone has had a chance to hear it at least once.
Baptist churches, have no business starting baptist churches in the same vineyards as other baptist churches.
Paul modeled this plainly when he said in Romans 15:20 - "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation
Romans 15:20
Everybody seems to want to be a "missionary" but no one wants to leave home.
That great theologian, Yogi Berra, said one time, "Hit em' where they ain't"
True mission work is "sending 'em where we ain't."
"Touch not thine anointed" Prophet Jon has spoken.
(see the "married to the pastor" thread for reference to what Jon believes.
Note that his comment is pastor centered.
"If a new church plant, mini or mega will reach those the present churches are not reaching, then for the sake of the kingdom, reach them."
Reach them with what? Touch not thine anointed? Does not go over so well in the ghetto. The ghetto would need a real beliver not the me centered perfumed princes the seminaries are churning out.
Francis Chan's not Jon Estes
Anon 9:46,
I thought the "touch not thine anointed" WOULD work in the ghetto. Well, maybe it works everywhere, actually, depending on the background of the people. By that, I mean that they've been taught that that's Biblical, and they care about being Biblical.
To put it in plain language, wealthy, well-educated people require the same in their pastor.
I once heard a missionary talking about their efforts to reach a neglected group-the wealthy elite of some South American country. It sounded interesting, plus it sounded like that mission field would certainly be an easier field to go to. It would be safer, neater, cleaner?
Just my disjointed thoughts.
"Baptist churches, have no business starting baptist churches in the same vineyards as other baptist churches.'
Yet, what if those churches already there are not reaching the masses around them? Do we, for the sake of buildings already standing, go elsewhere?
I'd be OK with this if we did not have so many fortresses who are closed off to the frontier just outside their door.
I agree that this blog has a right to exist and has exposed some excellent issues. However, I fail to understand why Jon Estes can submit his opinion on church planting and then a blogger makes some caustic remark toward Jon. Jon has some good points. When we attack each other personally it makes our own arguments very weak.
WD-
6 1/2 years ago we started a church with 6 people about 12 minutes down the road from Farmersville and the First Baptist Church. We were not a church split, nor were we a NAMB or SBC church plant. Quite the contrary.
When I met with the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas to try and get some type of support, they turned us down because when asked what was our target group we were trying to reach, I told them we were after those who were unchurched and unsaved. And I was told, "I appreciate your enthusiasm but that answer won't get you any funding from us!" That is a direct quote, I will never forget those words as I was stunned and numbed by them.
We are still considered a Southern Baptist Church (but very loosely) however we do not send one red cent to the Cooperative Program, IMB or NAMB or obviously to the Southern Baptist Convention of Texas, however we do support particular missionaries directly and our little church gives over 14% to those missionaries each month.
But it has been a learning process for us, as we have seen God bless our church and though not a mega church or large church or even medium sized church we are reaching the drug addicts, the alcoholics and abused women and girls on a weekly basis and seeing lives changed by the saving power of Jesus! And we are doing it WITHOUT the help of the SBC or SBTC or the local association.
Kyle
Watchdag, just like Rick Warren, who targets the BABY BOOMERS, he goes after the money. Always has, always will! Most of these BRANDED,Purpose Driven churches are doing the same thing. You know this! Enough people on this sight have commented on this subject. Most of the SBC big churches are now following Purpose Driven growth plans. It works! However, they are relying on mans plans to grow their churches and are becoming WORLDLY. You can see it in their music, in their preaching and in their lack of concern for the lost. Just keep the money coming in and enjoy the cruises. Solomon turned to his wives and the Lord turned from his children. Brunson turned to money and do we believe that the Lord will not turn away from him?
There are sufficient churches of every description all over and around Duval County. There is absolutely no reason to attempt to start satellite offsprings unless you follow the Rick Warren senario. In the first place the Sr Pastor doesn't have time to tend to the members in the major church much less the satellites. Secondly, it cost money and during the current economic downturn even the rich are feeling the pinch. Also, the rich are the worst when it comes to tithing their income to some religious organization.
I marvel at the denomination that I invested over 30 years of my life in.
And not in a good way.
Bellevue started their first satellite in 2009. Was it in the inner city of Memphis? Anywhere close to Memphis? In an underserved area? No, it's in Arlington, a suburb in far east Shelby County (less than 10 miles up the interstate from Bellevue) where much of the "white flight" has gone. There are some pricey homes in Arlington, and a lot of Bellevue members (the main "campus") live in Arlington.
They help sponsor missions in Frayser (Impact, a black church) and Bella Vista (an Hispanic church), and when they began the Arlington satellite (the first time the term "satellite" was ever used), they began calling Impact and Bella Vista "satellites," so they went from one church to one church with three "satellites" overnight.
Steve Gaines' son wrote an article against the concept of "satellite" churches, not over financial concerns but because of more biblical concerns.
I've found that most of what we've seen in the SBC and in megachurches in general can be boiled down to one sentence:
Follow the money.
That will usually lead you to the answer to any question you have about "why" they're doing something. This applies to politics as well.
To some megas its all about size and branding. These men believe that in order to survive the next five to ten years that they must seize the moment in expanding their territory. For some unknown reason there is a false belief that bigger is better. People get lost in the larger churches they just become a number and oftentimes its a revenue statistic. If you have more in numerical numbers the revenue increases. This is one way of eliminating your competition since the pattern is that the smaller churches cannot compete with the larger ones. Unfortunately, the larger ones fail to preach the whole council of God and provide a "I'm ok, you're ok" and a place where everyone gets along. Sin and real Bible study is not important but mainly social meetings mainly maintained and organized by women. Men have always failed to organize social settings in large churches. They really arn't into that type of setting. One reason that Sunday School was less important to men than women.
Branding and bringing in more people just for the sake of being "biggest church" soon runs cold especially when more dollars are sought to promote trivial matters. Church is over especially in large buildings. The person who said he invested 30 years has it right if just attendance and showing up was the chief purpose. The main reason is one on one discipliship...winning the lost for Jesus. And anyone can and should be involved in that ministry since the organized church has failed to make that their goal anymore.
So are these megas actually interested in the lost or just finding the money?
Haven't the southern baptists learnt from history let alone the scriptures? Charles Finney must be spinning in his grave and only wishing that people would realise that pragmatism in church growth strategies only leads to more false disciples and apostates. We must always focus on preaching the gospel...therein lies the power of God unto salvation.
That is why we now hear the word "unchurched". Because it is not about converting believers...it is about getting folks into church so that there are more numbers and more money.
Poor folks can bring the numbers but not the money. Gotta pay the pastor, you know.
The sat churches I have been involved with through megas do not have their own preaching guy. The big cheese of the mega has his sermons downlinked to the sats. There are "ministers" on site to "facilitate" the worship service and the operations but they do not preach the main sermons.
A bit Orwellian for me. but then the big cheese is not about to share all power.
For those of you griping about where Baptist are planting churches may I make a suggestion to you? Go plant a church yourself in these areas you think need to be planted!
It is a shame at the number of churches we have in our towns in the south compared to the number of those who lost in their sin. We recently just got another church in the small town we are in. We have around 8 baptist churches,1 methodist, 1 Church of Christ, 1 Church of Christ in God, 1 AMC, dozen of more Apolstolic, 2 UPC, 2 non denominational, 1 Ag, and 1 Catholic. We have around 7000 in the zip code.
"It is a shame at the number of churches we have in our towns in the south compared to the number of those who lost in their sin. We recently just got another church in the small town we are in. We have around 8 baptist churches,1 methodist, 1 Church of Christ, 1 Church of Christ in God, 1 AMC, dozen of more Apolstolic, 2 UPC, 2 non denominational, 1 Ag, and 1 Catholic. We have around 7000 in the zip code."
I think there are at least two questions worth asking.
1 - How many of those 7000 are not in church on Sunday? Yes, I care about the lost and the unchurched.
3 - How many years have the churches named been in the city and what percentage of those unchurched have been reached as a result of their presence and witness?
There seems to be more concern about the competition being planted than the kingdom and the need to reach all people. If 20 more churches would guarantee that all those in your town would be reached with Jesus, would you support the planting of those 20 churches?
"1 - How many of those 7000 are not in church on Sunday? Yes, I care about the lost and the unchurched."
What do you mean by church? A special building?
Big mistake to assume people are lost simply because they do not attend a man made institution.
And we do not need paid pastors or special buildings in order to reach people for Christ.
BTW Jon, you do not have much credibility here after your refusal to answer reasonable specific questions about your teaching on this blog.
You said you did not like how they were asked. Typical pastor response. But the real problem was you got nailed with twisting scripture, once again, to benefit what you think of as a specially anointed position within the Body.
"What do you mean by church? A special building?"
I am using the term in respect to the regular gathering of the redeemed.
I don't know what you mean by a "special building". I've sat on mats out in the African bush with the church.
"Big mistake to assume people are lost simply because they do not attend a man made institution."
Who is assuming this? They may be, they may not be. If they are lost, share Jesus with them. If they are saved, invite them to be a part of a bible based fellowship.
"And we do not need paid pastors or special buildings in order to reach people for Christ."
I agree it is not the paid pastors job alone. If a local church wants to pay a pastor, it is their prerogative."
"BTW Jon, you do not have much credibility here after your refusal to answer reasonable specific questions about your teaching on this blog."
Oh well.
"For those of you griping about where Baptist are planting churches may I make a suggestion to you? Go plant a church yourself in these areas you think need to be planted!"
That won't happen! Most folks on this blog like just like to complain and whine on this and other sites, but will not leave their comfortable Westside Baptist Churches and practice what they preach!
Be a winner and not a whiner!
"Oh well."
Brilliant response.
You can only learn polished oratory like that from a seminary.
On the other hand, it beats trying to defend an unbiblical position.
At that point, the "annointed one" is reduced to - Oh well - instead of come let us reason together.
Jon,
You never answered my questions about your teaching of "Touch Not Mine Anointed" on the wedding thread, and now I see you have come over here and started another discussion.
Don't you think a pastor should be able to defend his interpretation of a Bible verse, and not run away and avoid questions?
That's how Lee Strobel became an athiest. As a teenager, he would ask people in his church to explain how the Bible squared against what he was learning in school.
Instead of working hard to answer his questions, they told him to be quiet and have faith. That's not what the bible teaches us to do.
But I "never never never give up."
So, here are my questions again.
I'm going to keep pushing until I get a reasonable answer, because I know that you wouldn't teach a doctrine that wasn't biblical.
1 - Now that you have named four men that you believe to be prophets, please verify their titles by listing their fulfilled prophecies. Remember that foretelling future events was included in your definition of a prophet.
2 - Are these the only modern-day men that are currently covered under the "touch not mine anointed" scripture? In not, who are the others and what is the test to determine authenticity? Remember you have already said that it matters not what the prophet thinks.
3 - How do "kings" fit into to the modern day interpretation of this verse considering that there are no kings in the US? Are we not to criticize other nation's kings or is that part of the verse not meant for today?
4 - How does "touching" equate to "criticizing" considering, in context, the person in question was in fear for his life at the time the verse was written?
5 - And finally how does this verse apply to you personally - Jon? Are you claiming to be a prophet or a king and what qualifies you to make that claim?
Please don't respond like the people who caused Lee Strobel to live a life of godless atheism - Jon - but instead follow the biblical paradigm and give a biblically sound defense of your interpretation.
Jon,
You never answered my questions about your teaching of "Touch Not Mine Anointed" on the wedding thread, and now I see you have come over here and started another discussion.
Don't you think a pastor should be able to defend his interpretation of a Bible verse, and not run away and avoid questions?
That's how Lee Strobel became an athiest. As a teenager, he would ask people in his church to explain how the Bible squared against what he was learning in school.
Instead of working hard to answer his questions, they told him to be quiet and have faith. That's not what the bible teaches us to do.
I "never never never give up."
So, here are my questions again.
I'm going to keep pushing until I get a reasonable answer, because I know that you wouldn't teach a doctrine that wasn't biblical.
1 - Now that you have named four men that you believe to be prophets, please verify their titles by listing their fulfilled prophecies. Remember that foretelling future events was included in your definition of a prophet.
2 - Are these the only modern-day men that are currently covered under the "touch not mine anointed" scripture? In not, who are the others and what is the test to determine authenticity? Remember you have already said that it matters not what the prophet thinks.
3 - How do "kings" fit into to the modern day interpretation of this verse considering that there are no kings in the US? Are we not to criticize other nation's kings or is that part of the verse not meant for today?
4 - How does "touching" equate to "criticizing" considering, in context, the person in question was in fear for his life at the time the verse was written?
5 - And finally how does this verse apply to you personally - Jon? Are you claiming to be a prophet or a king and what qualifies you to make that claim?
Please don't respond like the people who caused Lee Strobel to live a life of godless atheism - Jon - but instead follow the biblical paradigm and give a biblically sound defense of your interpretation.
I "never never never give up."
So, here are my questions again.
I'm going to keep pushing until I get a reasonable answer, because I know that you wouldn't teach a doctrine that wasn't biblical.
1 - Now that you have named four men that you believe to be prophets, please verify their titles by listing their fulfilled prophecies. Remember that foretelling future events was included in your definition of a prophet.
2 - Are these the only modern-day men that are currently covered under the "touch not mine anointed" scripture? In not, who are the others and what is the test to determine authenticity? Remember you have already said that it matters not what the prophet thinks.
3 - How do "kings" fit into to the modern day interpretation of this verse considering that there are no kings in the US? Are we not to criticize other nation's kings or is that part of the verse not meant for today?
4 - How does "touching" equate to "criticizing" considering, in context, the person in question was in fear for his life at the time the verse was written?
5 - And finally how does this verse apply to you personally - Jon? Are you claiming to be a prophet or a king and what qualifies you to make that claim?
Please don't respond like the people who caused Lee Strobel to live a life of godless atheism - Jon - but instead follow the biblical paradigm and give a biblically sound defense of your interpretation.
Have you heard of the "New City" churches planted by the PCA? They are churches purposely planted in poorer, culturally diverse areas.
Here's an example of one--they actually took an old farmer's exhange building (very run down) and by the sweat of their brow refurbished it. It did wonders for the neighborhood. Does the SBC have anything like this? Blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians are worshipping side by side.
http://www.newcityfellowship.org/
A JSO Officer learns the hard way about appropriate actions for a law officer:
JSO Officer Sentenced To 9 Months
"BTW Jon, you do not have much credibility here after your refusal to answer reasonable specific questions about your teaching on this blog."
He never had any credibility in the first place. It's just that it was made very clear recently.
Money rules.
"Have you heard of the "New City" churches planted by the PCA? They are churches purposely planted in poorer, culturally diverse areas."
Another line of thinking to churches in poorer areas are the churches who did not run to the brighter spots when their communities began to change. Some of these churches are doing well. Some are not. One I am familiar with in Dallas (Cliff Temple) found themselves in the middle of a changing neighborhood.
They did some very good and godly things but the criticism that remained had its affects on the former pastor.
His story can be found:
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=972
I thank God for those men who lead their churches to stay where God panted them. I hurt for those within the church who do not see the bigger picture.
From a pastor in a changing neighborhood who he wants to reach but still has some who see those in our community as "them".
Lord, Open our hearts and doors.
Jon ignoring valid questions about your interpretation of "Touch Not Mine Anointed" will not make them go away.
Please either answer the questions or revise your interpretation.
We simply can't take any of your comments seriously here if you continue to support a view that you can't defend and is self-serving at the same time.
Perhaps asking all five questions at one time was unfair.
Let's try them one at a time:
1 - Now that you have named four men that you believe to be prophets, please verify their titles by listing their fulfilled prophecies. Remember that foretelling future events was included in your definition of a prophet.
"I don't bother to read Jon and the Trolls. I just skip over them. As they arn't relevant to any serious discussion."
I agree about the silly trolls but not about reading Jon. He is a perfect example of why following a "pastor" or "sitting UNDER the Word" as Jon terms it, is so DANGEROUS.
Jon is our own "Exhibit A" for why you must be a Berean.
And Jon is PAID to teach this twisted view of the Word that benefits him personally. He thinks of himself as one of the "anointed kings". Delusions of granduer.
So...what exactly is wrong with going after the rich?
Jesus said the poor will be with you always.
You have to have money to help the poor.
Jesus loves the down and out and the up and out.
Are you saying that Church Plants to the rich is wrong?
HUH?
Your point is............???
Speaking of TROLLS...
"So...what exactly is wrong with going after the rich?"
Good question. If the rich are lost, then lets reach them. It also seems that these people could be the hardest to reach.
Mark 10:25 (KJV)
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Maybe these church plants being denounced are actually putting their labor in the most difficult field? Something to at least think about.
See Jon, what you will find is that if these Churches went to "poor" neighborhoods, then those Churches would be accused of trying to take money from poor people.
There is NOTHING that Mac can do that is right....NOTHING!
But common sense is very hard to find on this blog.
It is full of vile, bitterness, hate, and very dumb reasoning.
What side of town is wrong for a Church to reach out too?
Do we have to check with Dog everytime we do a ministry initative to make sure that Dog agrees with it?
Rich people should not be reached?
New neighborhoods are off limits?
Only certain demographics should have new Churches?
A lot of you people are getting played!
People perish for lack of knowledge.
King Jon and the TROLL.
It's a match made...
Well, it was made somewhere.
Jon, when Slow to Think agrees with you, you are not in good company.
By the way Jon, what did you think of the article that Steve Gaines' son wrote about satellite churches being unbiblical?
http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/exegetical-critique-multi-site-disassembling-church
Or are you also not taking questions on this subject?
Hey Jon Estes.
You must have missed my question.
Here it is again:
1 - Now that you have named four men that you believe to be prophets, please verify their titles by listing their fulfilled prophecies. Remember that foretelling future events was included in your definition of a prophet.
"Good question. If the rich are lost, then lets reach them. It also seems that these people could be the hardest to reach."
And also the most lucrative. After all, when they are saved, you are going to tell them that they owe 10% to your church right? And 10% of a six digit salary is a whole lot more than 10% of minimum wage right?
And where does the majority of that 10% go? Salaries (of which yours is the largest) and buildings.
So, do you really want to reach the rich because it is hard or because its pragmatic?
Plus there is biblical precedent. Christ spent most of his time with the rich and ignored the poor right?
Your poor attempts to manipulate our thinking is wasted on those of us with an education.
Hey Jon.
What did you think of the article written by Steve Gaines' son about satellite churches not being biblical?
http://www.9marks.org/ejournal/exegetical-critique-multi-site-disassembling-church
Are you taking questions on that subject today or is it like "Touch Not Mine Anointed" where if someone asks for a specific defense of your position, you stop communicating?
Seems like that is the opposite of what I Peter 3: 15 teaches.
"Seems like that is the opposite of what I Peter 3: 15 teaches."
In the context of the verse you cite, you will not find a universality of the word always. You will find that the passage is teaching to respond to everyone among the heathen who inquires honestly.
1 - I don't think you are a heathen.
2 - I don't think your motives are honest (pure).
There is no desire to dialog (as I have previously stated) on your part so I will not waste my time on this.
Titus 3:9 (KJV)
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
2 Tim. 2:16 (NKJV)
But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
Jon thinks asking about his (as a pastor!) interpretation and teaching of the Old Covenant: Touch not thine anointed for pastor today, is an example of:
Titus 3:9 (KJV)
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
2 Tim. 2:16 (NKJV)
But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness.
Gotta love it! Bet he uses that twisting of the Word on his pew sitters...that is if they dare to question him.
Jon, you are digging the hole deeper. You should get your pastor pay docked. In fact, you need to get a new career.
Jon, You got nailed on the "married to the pastor" thread for your twisting of scripture and inability to respond in any way that makes sense to the text in the NC.
Now, you are just getting worse. You obviously do not want to answer the questions that have merit based upon what YOU HAVE TAUGHT HERE AND ON OTHER BLOGS ABOUT TOUCH NOT THINE ANOINTED IN THE OC BEING FOR PASTORS TODAY.
So, what do you do? You find some more proof texts and twist them to try and make it a sin to question your own teaching!
You have no shame. You are a fraud.
Regarding anointed ones. In 1 Chronicles 16:22 we read "saying touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm". If one reads the verses just prior 16-21 you will soon realize that the words penned by David pertain to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and that God did not allow foreign kings to harm them as they the Jews were anointed. There are no anointed ones anymore unless they are Jews. We confuse having a position or occupation as a pastor as being anointed. God anoints man apoints.
Look at Romans 3: 1-2 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way, chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God". You will not find any of those 40 men who wrote down the Holy scriptures being anything other than anointed. I wish we could say that about present day pastors, however, that is not the case. I hope this helps as the Bible is the best teacher. Now I do expect to hear from some that no you are wrong our pastor is anointed. My question is how do you know one is anointed. Isn't is odd that men pick and chose who is to take the position of a pastor. I believe some groups even take votes. This is one reason the church is failing to win the lost as the so called anointed are in it for prestige, admiration, and the money of course especially in the big buildings. There are some pastors who have a heart for the lost and really do not consider these three things and I say God bless you and my prayer is that many more will join your side in these endeavors. We are in the last days and there is no doubt about it. There is a falling away going on right before our eyes.
"In the context of the verse you cite, you will not find a universality of the word always. You will find that the passage is teaching to respond to everyone among the heathen who inquires honestly."
Oh Jon, did you really write that?
"1 - I don't think you are a heathen."
Judging by beliefs without knowing anything about me - not biblical.
"2 - I don't think your motives are honest (pure)."
Judging my motivations without knowing anything about me - not biblical.
But, this is encouraging Jon. I thought for sure that you did not know how to interpret scripture in context.
That is not true. You do know how. The problem is you only employ this method when it suits your purpose and benefits you personally.
So, you want to interpret "Touch Not Mine Anointed" completely out of context (it was given as a warning to the pagan nations to not kill Israel's king or prophets) and then change "touch not" to "criticize not" (even though Christ criticized the religious leaders of his day) and apply it to all present day pastors (even though you can't verify the credentials of any present day pastor as a prophet). And this misinterpretation of scripture is designed to benefit you and shut up the mouths of those who would rightly criticize your interpretation. Kind of ironic isn't it?
And after that exercise in self-serving eisogesis, you want to criticize me for taking a scripture out of context?
Do you have any understanding of how hypocritical that is?
Your church members must have zero discernment. How can they not see through the smoke and mirrors?
"There is no desire to dialog (as I have previously stated) on your part so I will not waste my time on this."
Dictionary.com defines a dialog as "a conversation between two people."
According to the dictionary, we are involved in a dialog Jon. Stop me when this gets too complicated for you.
So, you can abandon that argument.
"Titus 3:9 (KJV)
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."
Well, I had hope for a brief moment Jon. Now you are back to your self-serving interpretation method again.
You have applied a verse about foolish questions to a situation where logical follow-up questions were asked. Do you see how that doesn't apply in this case?
This is a verse used by people who can't defend their interpretation of scripture, but are too prideful to admit it.
Very similar to "Touch Not Mine Anointed" used by someone who is guilty of some sin and needs a hammer from scripture to hit someone over the head with to shut up their valid criticism.
Do we see a pattern forming here?
"2 Tim. 2:16 (NKJV)
But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness."
Again, this scripture does not apply to our situation Jon. My questions are valid. I am asking you to defend your interpretation of scripture.
In what way is that profane or idle?
Again, you are making the claim here Jon. Now you must make a case for your claim. Good luck with that.
I'm doubtful since you were not able to defend your interpretation of "Touch Not Mine Anointed." So what are the chances that you will be able to make a case for another verse that you have used out of context.
Is this how you handle questions from members in your church?
If they start probing for a good reason to believe your interpretation or question flaws in your thinking, you accuse them of asking foolish questions or idle and profane babbling?
I'll bet that doesn't happen very often does it?
Most probably are man-worshipers and believe everything you say.
Very sad.
"In the context of the verse you cite, you will not find a universality of the word always. You will find that the passage is teaching to respond to everyone among the heathen who inquires honestly."
In conclusion, Jon, you are arguing (in context)here that you should only have to defend your (mis)interpretation of "Touch Not Mine Anointed" to heathens with honest motives. Is that what you are saying?
I'm sure that the JW's and Mormons would agree with you.
Jesus - not so much.
Since all of your proof texts have been shown to be out of context, here is my question again.
1 - Now that you have named four men that you believe to be prophets, please verify their titles by listing their fulfilled prophecies. Remember that foretelling future events was included in your definition of a prophet.
Watchdog, I posted some verses on anointed last night which appeared and now fail to show?
You guys are being a little too rough on Jon. If it weren't for him, how would we know that "Always" means only sometimes and "Everyone" means not everyone?
Post a Comment