Posted on 07/13/2016 8:25:59 AM PDT by Cecily
Well then Jesus had the same problem.
I don’t recall Jesus getting drunk. He did manufacture alcohol which would have banished him from SBC pulpits.
He didn’t get drunk.
He did drink.
Yet not the same thing. The SBC has always been Pharisaical about drinking but this guy must have really stepped in it.
It is affiliated with the SBC, although the SBC has called them out for the way they operate.
Right. I think it’s one thing to say, “The pastor appears to be narcissistic and greedy,” and something else to say that a congregation of a major American denomination is a “cult.”
Well, seems we have a cult member in our midst. These churches like Elevation and New Spring, who elevate the worship of their pastor above worship of Christ, are criticized by more than just me. You still haven’t addressed the issue of the pastor living in a 17,000 sq, ft, home, which costs $1.7 million. Who checks Elevation’s books? Not their board, as none of them are church members. These mega- churches would be fine if controlled by their congregations, but they are controlled by the charismatic pastors who set up boards of like-minded charismatic pastors to “control” the church. I don’t see much difference in this group than the followers of Jim Jones, except for the brand of Kool-aid they consume.
Really? Who?
You seem to think that I'm saying I support Elevation's business arrangements and approve of Rev. Furtick's lifestyle. Neither of those is true, to the extent I'm aware of any of it. I simply think there's a lot more to a "cult" than this.
I agree. But I don't agree with the comparison to Jim Jones, who I'm sure did not have oversight from any outside pastors.
And while we can question what kind of oversight they have, the fact remains that this pastor was removed from his post by this board for having personal problems that interfere with his ability to lead.
So obviously they do have that authority.
Some mega-church pastors supplement their income by selling books; some so successfully that they do not accept a salary from the church. I don't know what the case is here.
I am used to the church model in which a local board of elders hire and fire the preacher, and set the budget and salary. But then again, such a model is biased toward a very stable church body. I can see that a board consisting of mega-pastors would be biased toward fast growth. Its a different mentality. A church, a pastor, that determines to reach the lost by the thousands will think differently than one that is content to watching baptisms and funerals balancing one another out.
There are preachers who think in terms of reaching, not hundreds or thousands, but millions. They think differently, and would require a board of overseers who are on the same page.
Very interesting observations, marron. Your point about a different goal for the church, so to speak, requiring a different governance structure is quite sensible.
Considering that Jim Jones was a Marxist I am sure he had no pastoral oversight either.
Although Marxism is a religion dressed up as a political philosophy.
Perhaps Leonid Brezhnev could have given him some tips.
Yo, Gamecock,
I signed in tonight to tell you to remove me from your ping lists although I enjoy your articles, because I don’t come here too often anymore. However, I am “too new” to use this feature evidently, according to the error message I received. I’ve been here for a while, but if that’s the way it is, so be it.
So thank you for everything and GO COCKS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.