You will notice as you continue to read, there is no mention of her mega church, her status a preacher, not even the name of Jesus or God.

I don’t fault her, because many are following her as she whitewashes her position as a preacher and exchanges it for a lifecoach.

I just pray that she will make a decision not to continue to straddle the fence by compromising the gospel for worldly benefit and acclaim.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=134679144

http://www.myspace.com/pwhitemin

Certainly NOT!!!!! Can’t have God’s mouthpiece lifting a finger.

I mean……….sure Paul wrote 2/3 of the New Testament. I guess you could say HE was God’s mouthpiece………..

And certainly Paul didn’t have reserved donkey parking outside the church, did he??

And why was Paul so often alone and hungry and beaten?? No armorbearers, that’s why!!!

And I guess Paul was just too carnal to work up the faith to stop working like Jenkins too. Poor Paul, out making tents to support himself so he wouldn’t be a burden the the churches. Silly man………..too bad Jenkins wasn’t around to set him straight. New camels to ride, flashy new clothes, bangin’ crib, birthday bashes………..all on the church’s dime, too.

Paul sure did miss out………

Wow……….just imagine how much Paul COULD have accomplished for God if only he had Jenkins to show him what REAL humility is about.

The more arrogant he gets, the more the scammed are willing to say “He’s so humble.”

Melvin

That is why I say the deacons and elders at First Baptist Church of Glenarden are a little less than useless. They do not have the testicular mass to do what the Bible says.

How can they stop a pastor, such as Jenkins from allowing a homosexual guy to lead Praise & Worship including the Music Ministry Department?

How can a deacon’s responsibility overrule a pastor who clearly compromises the word of God?

Is that why they tolerate a pastor who compromises God’s word by allowing homosexuals in music ministry?

Virtually all of the less-than-useless deacons at First Baptist Church of Glenarden, for example, failed to identify that point. Now, it almost doesn’t matter what John teaches or does. They will be there and will encourage others to stay. Ask Deacon Lee and Deacon Featherstone if this isn’t so. Have them tell you what JOhn would have to preach before they would be willing to leave.

Given this fact, do you believe that it is “safe” for believers to join a “non-denominational” church without first investigating the doctrinal positions of the Pastor?

Ten years ago I was an unlearned believer. I went to church, but I wasn’t able to recognize doctrine and make distinctions. Back then, I wouldn’t have been concerned about a pastor’s beliefs and church doctrine.

To God be the glory, those days are over. I’m not going to sow my finances into bad ground. I won’t support a church that preaches another gospel.

Basically, non-denominational means you don’t “belong” to any particular denomination. That you are not officially Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, or other denominations, of which there are literally hundreds.

As an example, I tend to be non-denominational. If asked what denomination I am I tend to respond “Christian.” This is because I don’t with most of the defining doctrines of the various denominations. For example, I problably wouldn’t make it as a Reformed Baptist/Pres/etc because I am not a sabbatarian. I wouldn’t make it as a Baptist (Independent or otherwise) because I don’t see the intake of alcohol as a sin (though I don’t drink because it makes it difficult to witness to others with a shot glass in my hand), I’m not a Lutheran because I reject the doctrine of Transmutation.

The bottom line, a person may hold a great deal of doctrine that is consistent with a particular denomination, but they hold it because of their own personal study, not because the denomination says it’s true. Kind of like tithing and the Baptists.

One respondant is right in that everyone has been influenced by theological teachings in one way or another. But the idea here is that the church I attend is not associated with a specific denomination. Of course there are groupings of churches who say “We are non-denominational” but have all of the trappings of a denomination including branding, doctrinal stands, and methods.

I would tend to agree with the writer. Any place that pushes too hard to identified as non-denominational is probably appealing to the public’s desire to not be associated with mainstream denominations.

Usually, a local church with no ties to other churches, except perhaps personal ties, would be considered non-denminational.

Anyone have anything to add, disagree with, or clarify?

I’ve always been warned to be careful about the so-called “non-denominational” churches. Why? They try to appease everyone of different faiths. You can’t do that because the truth of God’s word doesn’t appease everyone’s faith.

Whenever I meet someone from a “non-denominational” church, I question them concerning the salvation doctrine that’s taught. So far, I haven’t been impressed or felt lead to visit anyone’s “non-denominational” church. What they’re teaching is not accurate.

You can’t take a “balanced” approach to doctrine without watering down or misrepresenting God’s word.