Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

March 7th, 2014, 8:13 am #21

Donnie, I'm not sure what you mean by "former Baptist pastor." My knowledge comes from what I have witnessed, although at one time, the weekly worship guide on Sundays had a FAQ section with a question something like, "By what title do I address Max?" The answer was to "simply refer to him as Max."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Tom, thanks for the info from a FAQ section. Being "pro-Baptist" in certain respects is perhaps the more appropriate identity. It's quite revealing when we Google-search: "Pastor Lucado ... Pastor Max Lucado ... [etc.]."

There's a thread that I initiated sometime ago:[/color]
[color=#FF0000" size="4" face="times] Max Lucado -- "stepping aside as senior minister" (Houston Chronicle) [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Tom Brite
Tom Brite

March 7th, 2014, 3:30 pm #22

Ken, I think that is a fair assessment. Max tends to fall somewhere between the traditional Church of Christ view and the traditional Baptist view on baptism. I have talked to him about the topic and that is the best way I can explain it. Donnie, I think that you have to remember that journalists do not have the subject of an article proofread the article. In today's world, the vast majority of journalists see nothing wrong in referring to a preacher as "pastor." It is a normal and accepted practice. Just because a journalist uses that term does mean that the use is condoned by the subject of the article. I have seen Church of Christ preachers referred to many times as "pastor."
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

March 7th, 2014, 3:32 pm #23

Donnie, I'm not sure what you mean by "former Baptist pastor." My knowledge comes from what I have witnessed, although at one time, the weekly worship guide on Sundays had a FAQ section with a question something like, "By what title do I address Max?" The answer was to "simply refer to him as Max."
It would be helpful to have the FAQ's with all the context, but probably that is lost.

The whole topic of "title" begs discussion of many Biblical topics, such as "the pastor" versus "pastor."

But there's also need to consider "if any man would be master let him be the servant." "You are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and people of God's own possession." "Call no man father. . . " Elders are not to "lord it over the flock."

The confusion of "title" with "role", "function", "duty", "work", and "oversight."

The man David Lipscomb and his generation were very nervous about the use of titles, since to assume an "office" or "title" seemed to confer authority over the Word of God, and established a religious hierarchy.

When the question popped up "by what title do I address Max", it would have been a good time to bring these topics to discussion. Of course, there are many today who like these titles, hierarchy, and deference, and so we avoid the discussion.

I think if a church issue goes to civil court, with the behavior and mind-set of current COC members, the judges will default authority to the elders.

What rights do the "royal priesthood" have? That is the church membership?

An Assembly of God in Indianapolis found out that there was a small clique that had fired preachers sequentially, and when this was discovered, the church "fired" the clique, and brought the "pastors" back to apologize to them and right the situation.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

March 7th, 2014, 5:20 pm #24

I think I remember reading David Lipscomb saying that "a man has no more authority after he is appointed than he had before he was appointed."

Lenski reads Paul's instruction to Titus and I believe that is what the text says to "point out men who are already laboring to the point of exhaustion in preaching and teaching."

Rubel Shelly defined the shift when he says that the elders are leaders but the "minister" is best qualified by training and charisma to be THE leader. He may have begun the mantra which caught on that the elders are just the shepherd of the senior minister. In other words, the elders are now board of directors as in some denominations.

My old church in Murfreesboro, tn is a good example of a preacher who cannot speak the truth and substitutes his "sermons" for the commanded Word. The defacto pastor begins to heap on a host of paid STAFF or ministers and demotes the decons to menial servants or gets rid of them completely (Rick Atchley for instance). The STAFF defined in all pagan religions as PARASITES take care of social gospel ministries and gain the power and spend the money.

The pattern defined by Rick Atchley originally was in the form of a pyramid or Tower of Babylon. Because the songs and sermons are devoid of the command to speak the text and the Lord's Supper becomes Holy Communion celebration with humming, singing or strumming as backup music; and because there is no command or example of "passing the plate" for parasites, they have zero DNA which defines the ekklesia, synagogue or Church as A School of the Word (only) where the Lord's Supper reminds everyone that Jesus Died and we have nothing to offer except our minds receptive to the Word.

So we have institutional churches and non-institutional institutional churches and most of them cannot define the ekklesia or synagogue and therefore cannot define "worship."

So! Shall He find faith when He returns? The rhetorical question is answered, "NO, almost none." That's the pattern where Jesus doesn't pray for those OF THE WORLD and speaks only to those not OF the World.

We should never be surprised or disturbed when the "numbers" begin to show up as empty pews.
Quote
Like
Share

William
William

March 8th, 2014, 6:34 am #25

I have heard Max on live TV, after being introduced as "America's pastor", say in the discussion "well, I am a pastor." I have heard him introduced as America's pastor a few times, and I have not heard him ever say anything to the contrary afterwards. I got the impression that he expected that introduction.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

March 8th, 2014, 8:09 pm #26

Yes, I have heard Max called the nation's pastor and called upon to minister and pray. We remember another person who accepted such honor and was consumed with maggots. Josephus also defines Judas Sicarri or the assassin.

http://www.piney.com/Ant-20.html

Jesus is the only Chief Shepherd: a shepherd FEEDS HIS SHEEP. The commanded food is the "prophets and apostles." The elders are commanded to EJECT the cunning craftsmen or sophists meaning rhetoricians (self-speakers are sons of the Devil says Jesus), singers and instrument players. The reason we have stated is that all THREE of these are called hypocrites (Jesus quoting Ezekiel 33) and Sorcerers (quoting Jesus in Revelation 18). Paul says that their assignment is to LIE IN WAIT TO DECEIVE. They are ALL angels of light or they would never be placed in the majority of pulpits.

Max FEEDS lots of people and is the foundation for Rick Atchley etal all of whom lie TO God and ABOUT God. They even use as PATTERN God's abandoning people to paganism. Why do they do that? They know that after a decade or two of lying (blaspheming) the lambs have been made dumb before the slaughter.

Proverbs 28:6 Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.


If there is any truth in the Scriptures used by the "progressives" but denounced in their teaching, then it is a provable fact that Max is "perverse" in all of his teachings claiming to speak for Christ. Max continues to pour out worldly wisdom which he knows is treated as truth by the weak. He holds "concerts" and accepts praise. Jesus said that those who followed him and spoke the WORD as God gave it to him.

The national press knows him as the National Pastor meaning Vicar. Why do they know that? Because Max has promoted himself. If you claim visions and offer people SALVATION by ignoring Jesus Christ then the WORLD (Aliens according to Job) will love to have it so. Many (most) are called (invited) but few (almost none) are chosen to be the ELECT by being added to the Church by Christ ONLY AFTER obedience in baptism

Proverbs 28:20 A faithful man shall abound with blessings:
.....but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.


fidelis , e, adj. 1. fides, I. that may be trusted or relied upon, trusty, faithful, sincere, true

A PISTIS or FIDES by definition COMPLIES and is baptized. A person who is APISTOS and does not comply is called a traitor being OF the World.
Max tells Christ in prophecy and Jesus in a conditional command a liar. There is no easy way to say that.

MAKING HASTE is defined as working really hard at WRITING songs and sermons which is an OPOS and therefore legalism. Tom can tell us about the Rock beat.

festino , festivum festinant diem, hasten to celebrate, Opus , 1. Work, art, workmanship
4. Of literary labor: (Graeci) opus quaerun
C. In gen., a deed, action, performance, business:
turb?dus , a, um, adj. turba, I.full of confusion or disorder, wild, confused, disordered (class.; cf.: agitatus, tumultuosus).


Jesus said DON'T GO THERE: the kingdom of God is within you and does not come with observation which means religious operations or festivals or celebrations. A faithful Christian who writes a book will be lucky and happy if he does not spend too much of his own money.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: [prophets]
.....if they speak not according to this word,
.....it is because there is no light in them.


The command is to BUILD a Church or educate a church on the Prophets and Apostles. The Law to regulate Civil life did not change the Spiritual life in the Church in the wilderness or synagogue. The command was to PREACH the Word by READING the Word for Comfort and Doctrine.

There was no act or Rhetoric, Singing or playing instruments under the Law of Moses. Therefore, those who try to impose it are said to HAVE NO LIGHT IN THEM.
</font>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

March 9th, 2014, 5:33 am #27

[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]Source: Christianity: then & now[/color]
[color=#000000" size="3" face="times]Vol. 13, Number 6, Supplemental Issue, Number 76[/color]
_________________________________
<table width="100%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="98%">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

<table border="0" width="98%" align="center"><tr><td>
[color=#000000" size="5" face="times]
Understanding Change Agents
[/color]
[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]by John Waddey[/color]

[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]After extended observation, it seems to me the underlying causes that motivate the promoters of unauthorized changes for the Lord's church are false philosophies. Among them are:

Humanism which is a philosophy or attitude that is concerned with human beings, their achievements and interests, rather than with God, Christ or the Bible. In this system, man himself is the ultimate judge of right or wrong.

Post-Modernism which is a reaction to certainty. It denies universal and ancient truths. It seeks to break down long held views and beliefs. It argues that truth cannot be fully understood therefore it is relative to each man. It argues for ultimate tolerance of every idea and thought except those absolutes of Christianity.

Relativism which argues that all truth is relative to the individual person, his place and time. Thus there are no absolutes or universal truths.

Pragmatism which argues that what works best or produces the most result is therefore right.

Utilitarianism which says whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number is therefore right.

All of these false philosophies fall under the umbrella of philosophical Liberalism which rejects the absolute objective authority of the Bible. Those under the influence of such thinking, while still lurking among our congregations, do not hear when we cite scripture to establish our beliefs and practices. To them Scripture is no longer considered their standard of authority. Scripture affects their thinking like rain on a duck's back.
[/color]
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]Their authority is their personal desire. It is that of which their seared conscience approves and that which will attract the largest number of disciples.

    [/color]</li>
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]They reason, "Does this please my constituency?" If yes, we will do it, if not we will trash it."

    [/color]</li>
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]They ask, "Will this increase our numbers to make us a mega-church?"

    [/color]</li>
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]They want to know, "Will it help us be accepted by our evangelical neighbors?"
    [/color]</li>
[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]The change movement is like a contagious disease that has found entrance into the body of Christ. To overcome it, we must isolate the carriers and deal with the root causes. Using the medicinal value of God's Word, we must nourish and strengthen all we can reach. We must point out the dangers of this new approach to Christianity. We urge all to beware and avoid any contact with those who are infected with the fatal virus. Paul says, "turn away from them" (Rom. 16:17). Have no fellowship with them (II John 9-11). By hearing the faithful teaching of God's Word, our brethren's immunity to error will be greatly increased. Isolated, change agents will look elsewhere for vulnerable souls they might infect with their polluted doctrine.

As our forefathers fervently prayed when in their days pestilence stalked the land, let us now pray that God will sweep this plague from our midst.
[/color]
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Scripture,

Thank you so much for providing info regarding Lynn Anderson. I got the same impression as you did -- you explained it very, very well; I could not have done any better. [I asked for you input because I wasn't sure that I fully understood the message he was trying to deliver. Was it my hearing or was it his voice?]

Thank you also for dealing with this subject: "Change in Leadership." We may need to discuss this in more detail when time allows. As you may be aware [we may review the events surrounding the upheaval] that the "first" of the two was mainly responsible for the "progressive" move to transform/restructure Madison.

I have a question for you: What do you think of the "relationship" between Jason Shepherd, the young minister, and Chris Lindsey, the young "worship leader," and his supporting cast [the quartet performing on stage] and the rest of his Praise Team in the front rows? Because I'm not always present, I'm just wondering about how you would rate their behavior in the "worship" assembly. [I have yet to witness one speaking to (or "complimenting") the other -- "as the manner of some is."] [/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

March 10th, 2014, 12:55 am #28

[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]Source: Christianity: then & now[/color]
[color=#000000" size="3" face="times]Vol. 13, Number 6, Supplemental Issue, Number 76[/color]
_________________________________
<table width="100%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="98%">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="98%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

<table border="0" width="98%" align="center"><tr><td>
[color=#000000" size="5" face="times]
Understanding Change Agents
[/color]
[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]by John Waddey[/color]

[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]After extended observation, it seems to me the underlying causes that motivate the promoters of unauthorized changes for the Lord's church are false philosophies. Among them are:

Humanism which is a philosophy or attitude that is concerned with human beings, their achievements and interests, rather than with God, Christ or the Bible. In this system, man himself is the ultimate judge of right or wrong.

Post-Modernism which is a reaction to certainty. It denies universal and ancient truths. It seeks to break down long held views and beliefs. It argues that truth cannot be fully understood therefore it is relative to each man. It argues for ultimate tolerance of every idea and thought except those absolutes of Christianity.

Relativism which argues that all truth is relative to the individual person, his place and time. Thus there are no absolutes or universal truths.

Pragmatism which argues that what works best or produces the most result is therefore right.

Utilitarianism which says whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number is therefore right.

All of these false philosophies fall under the umbrella of philosophical Liberalism which rejects the absolute objective authority of the Bible. Those under the influence of such thinking, while still lurking among our congregations, do not hear when we cite scripture to establish our beliefs and practices. To them Scripture is no longer considered their standard of authority. Scripture affects their thinking like rain on a duck's back.
[/color]
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]Their authority is their personal desire. It is that of which their seared conscience approves and that which will attract the largest number of disciples.

    [/color]</li>
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]They reason, "Does this please my constituency?" If yes, we will do it, if not we will trash it."

    [/color]</li>
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]They ask, "Will this increase our numbers to make us a mega-church?"

    [/color]</li>
  • [color=#000000" size="4" face="times]They want to know, "Will it help us be accepted by our evangelical neighbors?"
    [/color]</li>
[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]The change movement is like a contagious disease that has found entrance into the body of Christ. To overcome it, we must isolate the carriers and deal with the root causes. Using the medicinal value of God's Word, we must nourish and strengthen all we can reach. We must point out the dangers of this new approach to Christianity. We urge all to beware and avoid any contact with those who are infected with the fatal virus. Paul says, "turn away from them" (Rom. 16:17). Have no fellowship with them (II John 9-11). By hearing the faithful teaching of God's Word, our brethren's immunity to error will be greatly increased. Isolated, change agents will look elsewhere for vulnerable souls they might infect with their polluted doctrine.

As our forefathers fervently prayed when in their days pestilence stalked the land, let us now pray that God will sweep this plague from our midst.
[/color]
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>
<table width="100%" border="0"><tr><td valign="top" width="100%">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tr><td width="98%" bgcolor="#ffffff">

<table border="0" width="100%" align="center"><tr><td>
[color=#000000" size="5" face="times]
The Games That People Play
[/color]
[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]by John Waddey[/color]

[color=#000000" size="4" face="times]In 1968, Joe South wrote and published the song, "The Games People Play." It was a commentary on the hypocrisy of many in modern society. Being a student and observer of the change movement that is currently troubling the Church of Christ, I have discovered the following games to be common among the leaders of that movement.

Let's Pretend: When a change agent first appears in a congregation of conservative Christians, he will pretend to be one with them. They who are quite happy to worship and serve God as they have long done will thus accept him in their midst, perhaps as their minister, or as a teacher, a deacon, or even an elder. Only after he is firmly established and secure in his position will he reveal his real faith and intention to implement innovative changes to their faith and worship.

A change agent can mingle with conservative preachers and elders at meetings and forums and never let his true faith and convictions be known. He will use all the right words to leave the impression that he is one with them. Even if he is asked to speak, the average preacher or elder might not detect that the man really pities or even despises their conservative views. Only when the winds are favorable will he reveal his true nature.

When interviewing for a position with a congregation, a shrewd change agent can answer all the questions that a concerned eldership might ask, leaving the impression that he is as conservative and loyal to Christ and his Word as they. A few months later, they discover that he has quietly recruited enough of their members to begin pushing for unscriptural changes.

When asked about his views on instrumental music in worship he might respond, "I love our a cappella congregation singing." Or, "We have a wonderful tradition of singing that I fully support." Or, "I believe it's wrong to divide the church over instrumental music." But he did not answer the actual question about using instruments in worship. To him, if they can be introduced without causing a division, he would not object; in fact, he would likely promote the idea.

The same tactic is sometimes used when answering questions about baptism's role in salvation. The change agent might say, "I believe in baptism." But he does not believe that, without it, a believing penitent would be lost. He really believes the sinner is saved by grace through faith and is then baptized to declare his salvation. When asked about the nature of the church, he will declare that he believes in the one church of the Bible, etc. But he really means one mystical, universal church which includes the many denominational churches. He thinks the Church of Christ is only one of those denominations.

In the world of politics, this slippery manipulation of words is described as "spinning" the facts or truth. In scriptural terms, it is the black art of deception, calling evil good and good evil (Is. 5:20).

A second game, closely akin to Pretend, is Catch Me If You Can. In this, the change agent dodges and deflects questions and pretends to be wounded that anyone would doubt his loyalty to the Lord and his church. He operates on the basis that "you can fool most of the people most of the time." All the while he is working to convert members to his errant views, he pretends not to understand why you would doubt his intentions. He is hurt that you question his soundness. Yet he continues to attend all the gatherings of change agents. He reads their books and papers. He shuns those of conservative brethren. He is invited to speak for liberal churches, and they love his message. He leaves the impression that he is on their team. But when the news gets home to his congregation, he dances and dodges, hoping to hold on to his job until he can capture the congregation or, failing that, find a church that does share his views. Only when he is cornered and caught will he finally admit what had long been suspected.

Given the effectiveness of these false teachers, Paul's warning is most timely. "Let no man beguile thee." (II Thess. 2:3).
[/color]
</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

March 10th, 2014, 1:21 am #29

It would be helpful to have the FAQ's with all the context, but probably that is lost.

The whole topic of "title" begs discussion of many Biblical topics, such as "the pastor" versus "pastor."

But there's also need to consider "if any man would be master let him be the servant." "You are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and people of God's own possession." "Call no man father. . . " Elders are not to "lord it over the flock."

The confusion of "title" with "role", "function", "duty", "work", and "oversight."

The man David Lipscomb and his generation were very nervous about the use of titles, since to assume an "office" or "title" seemed to confer authority over the Word of God, and established a religious hierarchy.

When the question popped up "by what title do I address Max", it would have been a good time to bring these topics to discussion. Of course, there are many today who like these titles, hierarchy, and deference, and so we avoid the discussion.

I think if a church issue goes to civil court, with the behavior and mind-set of current COC members, the judges will default authority to the elders.

What rights do the "royal priesthood" have? That is the church membership?

An Assembly of God in Indianapolis found out that there was a small clique that had fired preachers sequentially, and when this was discovered, the church "fired" the clique, and brought the "pastors" back to apologize to them and right the situation.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Scripture,

Yes, a discussion between "the pastor" and "pastor" is only one of many biblical topics regarding this title or office.

In the denominational community, "Pastor Rick Warren" would be the leader or minister of the Saddleback Community Church in CA, and he is "the pastor" of that church.

In a church of Christ congregation, since the Bible uses "elder" or "pastor" or "overseer" or "bishop" or "presbyter" or "shepherd" interchangeably in reference to the office, we may address each one equally in that manner. The resident evangelist may also be addressed as such if he happens to be [is] one of the elders or pastors, etc.; the minister is "a pastor" in that sense, but he is not the only "pastor."[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

March 10th, 2014, 1:41 am #30

Ken, I think that is a fair assessment. Max tends to fall somewhere between the traditional Church of Christ view and the traditional Baptist view on baptism. I have talked to him about the topic and that is the best way I can explain it. Donnie, I think that you have to remember that journalists do not have the subject of an article proofread the article. In today's world, the vast majority of journalists see nothing wrong in referring to a preacher as "pastor." It is a normal and accepted practice. Just because a journalist uses that term does mean that the use is condoned by the subject of the article. I have seen Church of Christ preachers referred to many times as "pastor."
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Tom,

I completely understand how the Christian world and the media portray the resident preacher or leader as "the pastor" of his/her congregation/parish.

The journalist is not likely to understand if corrected right at that moment.

When in a public meeting or conference it is announced: "The Reverend Max Lucado will lead our opening prayer" ... an immediate response of, "Let me state at the outset that I [Lucado] am not 'the Reverend' or 'the pastor of my church' ... and now let's pray ..." would be a distraction or inappropriate to mention.

However, "the pastor" (if he believes that he is not) should make his honest convictions known to the public in some form.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share