Recently, I’ve been covering Jenkins more than normal. But it’s all part of the month long celebration of the sheeple moving into the Mausoleum, Museum and Memorial over in Kettering, MD. This will likely be the last posting for a while. This one is a little long, but I think it will be a profitable read in that it will lay out some of the techniquest the pimps use to bind the people they use.
As an uninvited participant in the celebrations, I went out to the church almost a month ago and actually bought the CD of the September 23, 2007 evening worship, communion service, and general railing against the nay sayers who are apparently still there trying to bring some spiritual reason to the religious chaos.
It was quite impressive to listen to John talk the sheeple into believing that his voice was the only voice they are to listen to and that they were not to disagree with whatever it is he is telling them. I wish I could train my boss that well. Heck, it’d be great if I could train my children like that.
What? You think I’m exaggerating? I wish that it were so.
John spoke from Acts 2:41-42, a brief summary of what went on in Jerusalem right after the day of Pentecost. And during the speech, John worked some truly marvelous eisegetical magic on the text. The Acts section reads as follows:
And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
You wouldn’t think there would be very much in this little snippet of Acts to enable John to misdirect his sheeple. But like a champ, he managed to run the gamut of pimp maneuvers and distortions. If you want to make sure I’m not feeding you a line of hooey, and you don’t object to giving the organization even more money, remember , get the September 23, 2007, PM service CD entitled “Elements for a Growing Church.”
He starts off the discussion by stating that the very first thing that happened on the day of Pentecost is that Peter started a mega church. In fact, he uses the phrase twice within a couple of minutes of each other.
However, the Bible says that these people were added that day, not that there was a church organization (like, for instance The First Christian Church of Cohen Way) with a really impressive church building housing more than three thousand people. The section even goes on to point out that they met in each other’s homes and in the temple. And unless you want to say they owned the temple, I’m not seeing any kind of church structure here.
In order present to you what he said as accurately as possible, I had to listen to portions of the sermon several times; first to transcribe the words and then to makes sure the transcription was accurate. I may have missed an “a” or “so” here and there, but what you’re reading is an accurate transcription of the speech.
Here’s John’s take on the verse:
I thought I would spend a few moments looking at this text because it unveils for us, I believe, some key components or some key elements that need to be in place in a growing church that’s a mega-church so that we can make sure that we are maintaining what it is that got us to where we are today.
I think I want to be clear. I want us to be clear that we don’t want to get here (MN: In the building) and then all of a sudden change who we are.
I want us to be clear that yes, we have a beautiful facility, yes it seats four thousand people, yes we got top of the line and state of the art equipment, and yes it’s a bad place, it’s awesome, yes it’s beautiful. But we are still the same people who shouted over at 3600 Brightseat Road. We have not changed. We must remain the same. We must make sure that we keep in place. And I thought I would discuss tonight for a couple ofminutes, I won’t hold you long, I’m going to get you bam, bam, bam, bam real quick, and then I’m going to be done and finished.
I want to highlight and uplift what it is about us that we need to maintain in order for us to remain an impacting church and impacting the community.
I believe when this text was written right here, when Peter preached and then the , that when Luke wrote this scripture right here, and he recorded these words, he tell us four things that this mega church had incorporated in their, the life of the church that I think is critical that we maintain in the life of our church.
I think if we want to remain healthy and impacting, these four components, these four elements must remain in our church. So I want to talk about these elements of a growing church.
The first thing is noted right here in verse , matter of fact, they’re all located right here in verse 42.
It begins by saying “They continued steadfastly in these four things. Somebody say “They continued steadfastly. That word “they continued steadfastly” means that they were persistent. They made a determination that they were not going to stumble or falter, be faulty, but they were going to be persistent in these four things that’s listed in verse 42.
John’s very first foray into the section is a gross reading INTO the Scriptures rather than allowing the Scriptures (and consequently God) to speak for themselves. He has already set the people to thinking that Mega-churches are the norm and have been from the beginning. He laid current terminology and concepts on the folks back in Jerusalem.
And one of the saddest things about this sermon is that he apparently views growth in terms of numbers. FBCG has grown from some three hundred folks to over seven thousand in fourteen years. They’ve gone from a several thousand square foot facility to a 205,000 square foot facility.
Unfortunately, while they have grown in many physical aspects, they have not grown in the most important aspect , spirituality. Just listen to some of the poor sheeple who still come on to the site to defend their pastor and his mistreatment of them.
John then said that the church in Acts grew because they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine. The actual verse says:
They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Try as I might, I can’t see that Luke ties the three thousand to being devoted to the Apostles’ teaching. Luke simply states that this is what the group did. But I suspect John has a reason for tying the NUMBER of people to the teaching of the Apostles. He uses it to further develop what I like to call his “Ray Charles” theology.
Here is another portion of his speech, the part where he says some interesting things about the sheeple there at the First Baptist Church of Glenarden Mausoleum, Museum, and Memorial. And he pretty well lays down the law with respect to disagreeing with what he says. Read on.
That’s the first thing they did. The word doctrine is important here, because it means in the Greek “teaching.” They highlighted, and they put parameters around what the apostles taught them. And they made the determination that no matter what happened, that they were not going to let somebody else come into the church and teach them something that was contrary to what the Apostles had already taught them.
Now that’s an important thing because we got a lot of people going around saying stuff and teaching things, we got a lot of folks that ain’t got no call, not gift on their life who will challenge you in particular areas, and all of a sudden you will trot right along behind them and yet you will forsake what you have been taught. And I want to raise and elevate the fact that we need to honor what our leaders have taught us.
You see, you know what’s also the problem? Today’s culture don’t want to be taught. They don’t want nobody to teach them. We want to make up our own rules. We want to be our own chief. We want to be our own leaders. But the last time I checked, God elevates and trains and anoints people to teach you. You can’t teach yourself!
No organization can successfully function if everyone does what they feel is right in their own eyes. I said, no organization can function if everybody does what they think is right in their own eyes.
I believe every church should get behind their pastor’s vision. And if you can’t get with that pastor’s vision, you need to find you another pastor whose vision you can follow.
It’s drama for me to hear anybody say “Well I’m not with that with my pastor.” Well why are you there if you ain’t with that? You don’t belong to a church because your granddaddy’s name is on the side of a pew. You don’t go there because their name is up in the stained glass window. The way God flows is you hook up with somebody who God has called to speak truth into your life. And if you can’t embrace what they’re teaching you, leave it alone and go find someplace where you can hook up and believe what they’re teaching.
Go on and preach, pastor.
They continued steadfastly. They said” “This is what we have been taught.” And at First Baptist Church of Glenarden Maryland, if I can’t show it to you or if I don’t show it to you in the word, then you don’t have to do what I tell you to do. ‘Cause our banner here is to take this as the word of life, as the foundation of everything that we do and say, everything we believe, everything we try to operate on is based on some Biblical principal. And if you can’t flow with that, you need to flow right on out of here.
Can I get some help up in here?
I’m not gon’ be mad at you. I’m not gon’ be upset! I gon’ love you! I’m gon’ walk you to the door! I’m gon’ hug you and kiss you! I’ll even drive you to the church you goin’ to! Just go on and get in a place where you can submit to what you are being asked to do.
That’s the only way we can be successful here, is that we are doing exactly what they said, continuing steadfast. They continued steadfast in the Apostles’ doctrine.”
Now, in case you missed it, let me outline the above diatribe. You can skip over it if you wish.
I. Defined the Word Doctrine
II. Believers’ response to Apostles’ teaching (doctrine)
a. Put parameters around it
b. Wouldn’t allow someone to come in and teach something else
III. Important reaction because today:
a. A lot of people go around saying stuff and teaching things
b. These folks have no gift on their lives
c. They will challenge you in certain areas
d. You will forsake what you have been taught
IV. Today’s culture doesn’t want to be taught
a. They want no one to teach them
b. They want to make their own rules
c. They want to be their own chief
d. They want to be their own leaders
V. What God did
a. God elevates people to teach you
b. God trains people to teach you
c. God anoints people to teach you
d. God says: YOU CAN’T TEACH YOURSELF
VI. The church must get behind the pastor’s vision
a. If not with it, find another pastor
b. God flows by hooking you up with a pastor called to speak truth into your life
c. If you can’t embrace this speaker of truth, find another and believe what they are teaching
VII. Our standard for teaching
a. If it is not in the Bible, you don’t have to do what I tell you
b. The Bible is the foundation for all we do or say
c. Everything is based on some biblical principal
d. If you can’t flow with that , get out (i.e. Hit the road, Jack)
I broke these speech out into segments in order to make it a little easier to examine and evaluate what John says to his sheeple. For the sake of brevity (yes, I know some of you say it’s already to late for that), I’m not going to examine every section, just the more egregious ones.
John does an excellent job of framing the argument to suit his end. In item IV he forces a choice between being willing to accept what he says or be guilty of not wanting people to teach you, wanting to make up your own rules, wanting to be your own boss/chief, or wanting to be your own leader. All of these sound terrible. And if you’re not careful, you will back off in order to not seem like such an awful person. Unfortunately, the choices he provides are not correct. And before that, he calls into question the motives and abilities of folks who might teach something he disagrees with.
I may disagree with him because I think he’s wrong or because I believe he is distorting scripture, as in fact he does spend a majority of his time doing during this particular speech. Interestingly, he even distorts the context of the discussion, making it difficult to have a real conversation with him.
Having established that disagreeing with him would mean that I don’t want to be taught by anyone and that I want to be my own leader, most dissension is pretty quickly shut down. And it’s a good thing too. With what follows, he’d have a difficult time keeping the sheeple in line simply on the force of his right use of the Word. And what follows is absolutely breath taking in its absurdity. He makes four statements which, if accepted by the members, make them absolutely dependent on the words of John K. Jenkins.
First, he tells them that God elevates people to teach them. Yet the Bible says teaching is a gift for the edification of the Body, not a matter of being elevated. It’s a position of responsibility and service, not a matter of being elevated. First Peter 5:3 seems to imply that it’s not a matter of being elevated. After all, if I remember correctly, the shepherd smells just as bad as the sheep.
Then he tells them that God trains people to teach them. Here is another level of division between the sheeple and their lords. Obviously the sheeple can’t complain about what they are being taught since they aren’t trained (whatever that man mean).
God also anoints people to teach you. With this, it becomes very difficult for a person to think they might be able to understand what the Bible is saying. After all, the person who teaches them has to be elevated, trained, AND anointed. With all that going on, I should probably just sit back, relax, and let the pastor tell me what the Bible says and what it means.
But he didn’t stop there. John went on to tell the congregation of sheeple that they can’t teach themselves. That’s right, John said they can’t teach themselves. After all, they aren’t anointed, elevated, or trained.
But wait, what do you suppose John the Apostle means when he says, in 1 John 2:27:
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
Hmmm. It seems to cover the bases. John says that we are all anointed. And he says that we don’t have a need for others to teach us. We can study for ourselves. Yes, God gives the Body teachers, but the teachers aren’t the only way the average saint can learn. The bottom line? We can teach ourselves. At least, we don’t have to depend on the pastor to teach us.
In section 6, John states that the church must get behind the pastor’s vision. But try as I might, I can’t make that sound the same as “Imitate me as I imitate Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1). From what he is saying, God somehow puts a”vision” in the pastor’s head and from that point on everybody must support it or leave.
Of course, this is where tithes and offerings do the most to make it possible for the pastor to chase a vision rather than the Lord. Since the people have been beat into submission with respect to giving money, whether it’s the mandatory tithes, or the guilt driven offerings, the pastor doesn’t have to listen to God. He only has to listen to his financial advisor, the real estate agent, and the bank - the unholy Growth Trinity.
He then goes on, in that same section, to say something that is beyond the pale of rationality. He says that the pastor (that would be him), is called to speak truth into your life. If you can’t accept the truth he (John) speaks, then you should find another pastor and believe what he is teaching.
Let me see if I understand this. John is going to speak the truth into your life. But you get to decide if you want to believe his truth or leave and find another fellow who will speak another truth into your life. If we’re talking the Bible, wouldn’t both truths be the same? If that were the case, why would I accept one “truth” yet reject the other?
But more than that, Jesus said that God’s word is truth. So if I read and study my Bible, am I not having truth “spoken” into my life? What truth is John talking about here? What is he doing that the Holy Spirit can’t do on His own?
Finally John makes the mockery of the Bible complete. He says:
1. If it’s not in the Bible you don’t have to do what I tell you:
a. Jesus suffered in hell for your sins , Not in the Bible
b. The pastor speaks truth into your life , Not in the Bible
c. You can’t teach yourself , Not in the Bible
d. God elevates, anoints, trains people to teach you , Not in the Bible
e. You have to support the vision of the pastor , Not in the Bible
2. The Bible is the foundation of all we do:
a. Ordaining women , The Bible says no, but they do it anyway
b. Putting up a $60 million dollar building , The Bible says no, but they do it anyway.
c. Pressuring them to tithe , The Bible says no, but they do it anyway
d. The entire Word of Faith foolishness , The Bible says no, but they do it anyway.
And as with most of the pimps, if you can’t accept these teachings, then hit the road. Jack.
Interestingly, what they really mean is that you should keep your mouth shut and hit the road, ’cause they don’t want you to blow their game. As a case in point, once John made it clear that he believed that Jesus suffered in hell for our sins, and that he was not going to recant, I left , after I told the class I had been teaching WHY I was leaving. I gave each one a copy of the reasons. Not only did John’s Holy Ghost Gestapo come into the classroom and take the sheets up, he called me later that evening and nearly blew a blood vessel shouting at me, telling me how he no longer considers me his friend, and whining, saying I was going to confuse people. And this was after he admitted that everything I said in the sheet (with one very minor exception) was completely true.
Remember, the basic rules with the pimps is: My way or the highway. Can’t you just hear the Rayettes in the background?
I never heard of John Jenkins before I started coming to this site…I hope he isn’t related to me,lol….He sounds like a lot of COGIC preachers that I’ve heard…ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY…..I was actually kicked out of one COGIC church because I questioned the pastor about wearing suits..
(MN: Having now heard of him, beware if he visits your church or local association. If he visits, it means your pastor either isn’t paying attention or he or the association just don’t care. Which ever the case, you should call him on it and have him explainwhy he is having a man like John Jenkins speak to the congregation(s). )
Hey Melvin,
Great breakdown. I just have one question. Which version of the Bible did you use, because in my Bible it also uses “stedfastly”:
Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking bread, and prayers.
I am reading King James Version. Could you do break downs using more than one version? Does it matter? Should I think about using a different version? Any information would be good.
(MN: Doesn’t matter. The issue isn’t the use of the word “steadfastly”. The issue is his take on the absoluteness of his teaching. We should be steadfast in the teachings of the Apostles (New Testament). But this does not equate to all the stuff he laid on the congregation and it doesn’t go toward the creation of a mega-church.
Oh yeah - I use the New American Standard Bible.
I’ll post the first three comments that complain that this version denies Christ’s diety, changes things around, etc., etc. However, I am not interested in going around the version perversion circle. Oh, and exactly one of those comments can claim that the KJV is an inspired translation. )
Oh, I agree and I got the point. He is ridiculous! I was not making that the issue I was just clarifying it for myself–my own personal stuff. lol Thanks!
Obviously, this clown is seriously perverting scripture to suit his purposes. I would be interested though to hear your take on “First Century” churches like the Churches of Christ. As a whole, do they hit the mark?
Great post brother Mel.These excerpts from pastor Jenkins sermon are evidence how dangerous and manipulative preachers can be.I shiver everytime I read this scripture:
Hbr 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an ACCOUNT. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you
I realize this scripture is often used to control and trick God’s people.However as a undershepherd of the Lord every pastor is accounatable to God for the messages they communicate to His sheep.
I don’t know pastor Jenkins but if his intentions are to manipulate and lord over God’s people (which seems to be the case). He better repent quickly.
I can’t stand the arrogance of many behind pulpits today.Many like pastor John are arrogant enough to think that they themselves are the key to the spiritual growth of the people they preach to.Yes God has placed some in the position to teach the Word to others.They are to use that gift to edify the body.That does not make them spiritual supermen or
elevate them to some place higher than other believers.Too many people exalt the gift of teaching to a place where God did not intend it to be.Paul talks about this in 1st Corinthians chapter 12.Every christian is given different gifts none more important than the other.The same Spirit that is in the pastor, is in every single believer and it God’s Spirit that enables us to teach ourselves and others His word.
I mentioned this to a church where I was the guest speaker recently.Needless to say I didnt get very many “amen”‘ or “preach preacher”.
Some preachers like to feel needed and many people in pews are just fine not studying for themselves.I’ve noticed many people like being under a heavy handed do it my way pastor.For them it’s seems to be easier to just follow aimlessly and not to think.
One of my major goals as a pastor is to teach others to feed themselves God’s word.Then they in turn can teach others to do the same.If this happened the the wolves out there would starve, because they couldn’t find gullible sheep to dine on.
I am sure that many of us can identify with what jcrep32 is saying, especially the Heb 13:17 scripture. I used to wonder why, but in my old church, the pastor used to pronounce curses like an incurable disease to anyone whom had negative things to say about the church or who disobey. Or if you didn’t participate in the ministry, you are burying your gift. He would use Matt 25:14-30 as an example. I am not ashamed to say this, but he used to scare the living daylights out of me.
Amen Brother, if we all would study the bible for ourselves, these so called men of God wouldn’t have the control the have over peoples lives. We must remember they are not God or Jesus.
It depends on which Church of Christ Church you visit. There is a new movement within that denomination that is headed towards Grace versus the current state of Legalism that has defined them. So you can’t throw them in the same bucket like you could 30 years ago. If the specific Church has the “one true church” motto, run and hide, I think the music thing is a pesonal conviction; however, when you state that you are the only true church, you have crossed the line into pure legalism and are in danger of a different Gospel.
But isn’t there supposed to be only one true church according to scripture. The one that Christ established and the “bride” (not brides, plural) that he will return for. I am aware though that there are some “cultish” groups using the “Churches of Christ” banner that practice a form of control over their followers. While investigating the “real” CofC several years ago I happened across this cult. I don’t profess to know the answers. Just asking the questions.
Yep, one true Church; however, not one true denomination. The “Church” is made up of many denomination throughout the world. All of us agree on the essentials which are:
1. One God revealed in Three Persons (Trinity)
2. The Virgin Birth, sinless life, death, and bodily ressurection of Jesus Christ
3. Christ’s divine nature though being 100% human (Hypostatic Union)
4. Christ Finished work on the Cross, to satisfy God’s wrath (the atonment)
5. Justification by Faith apart from works of the Law
6. The return of Christ (though we disagree when and how) to destory the sin and death, judge the non-believer, cast them with Satan and his demons into the eternal lake of fire and establish a New Paradise and a New Earth.
7. The ressurection of both the believer and non-believer one to eternal life the other to eternal death.
8. Finally, the Bible being the Word of God, (some differ between inerrancy and infallibility, but that is a current debate)
I think I covered them all. Now some of us are Arminian and some Calvinistic (me), some are a bit more charsimatic others are conservative (me). So as long as you agree with the 8 above and I may have missed a couple you are part of Christ’s “Church”, we are all baptized into one body through the Holy Spirit. We don’t agree on the minors (some big minors) but we all have one head who is the Christ!
Finally you are correct about your findings of the Church of Christ. Some of these guys come from the Boston Movement (a unregenerate group as a whole, though some may be regenerate). If you see something like the DFW Chruch of Christ (or any other major city or metroplex and then the Church of Christ attatched to it) run, they are a works based group, leaning heavily on baptism as essential for salvation and they use the word discipleship much differently than most of us on this site would.
So each of us are part of the church, most of us may not agree on some things and debate heavily about it, but at the end of the day, we are still brethern and will spend eternity with our Lord. God bless.
MN, 1 John 2:27 your kidding right, so are you still standing on the shoulders of men????, Lol
(MN: Yes. Just as Polycarp stood on the shoulders of men. Just as men stood on the shoulders of Polycarp. Just as the next generation or following generations stand on the men of God who came before them. MSAMU, I have no intention of going around in this circle again. Neither you nor DTG have done anything approach a credible job of arguing your position. I don’t see it changing or improving and I’m not going to give a platform. The Bible says what it says - here, in 1 and 2 Corinthians, and other places. My primary point in using this verse is the fact that it so clearly contradicts the statement John makes denying the ability for people to “teach themselves” and implying that you CAN’T learn without a preacher.
Just so folks don’t think I’m being disingenous, I will tell you ahead of time that I’m not going to post the comment you make in response to this. )
Oh please MSAMU…….again I ask, if you don’t stand on the shoulders of men you’re in some SERIOUS trouble,because as far as I know it was MEN who translated the Bible into a language you can actually understand.
Without these GOD ORDAINED MEN, your Bible would be nothing but a paper weight because you couldn’t read it.
So YOU stand on the shoulders of Jerome and Wycliffe and Tynedale and Coverdale and Luther and the Reformers among thousands of others. God ORDAINED these men to PRESERVE the Bible, GET the Bible TO you,and translate it into a language you UNDERSTAND.
I fail to see why this concept is so difficult to grasp………
Man up Mn, just come out and say
You Banned….
(MN: For this particular thread - yeah, pretty much. From this point on in other threads, you get a lot less slack than I have been trying to give you. )
that’ s what I’m talking about, man’ing up,
I’ll Talk with Gary V off line.
blackandreformed,
Thanks for the considerate response. However, I am troubled even my the existence of denominationalism. On what Biblical authority are any of the denominations formed? It we were obeying Biblical commandments, it would seem that we would all be learning the exact same things and worshipping the exact same way (albeit with some “cultural” differences). All churches would be organized the same way and with the same oversight. The biggest problem I see in Christendom is that everyone wants to do things their own way and not according to Biblical commandments. Thus, female preachers, deacons and elders, mega-churches, praise teams, gospel hip-hop, tithing (which is not authorized under the new covenant), etc.
You said, “All churches would be organized the same way and with the same oversight. The biggest problem I see in Christendom is that everyone wants to do things their own way and not according to Biblical commandments.”
Amen, Kamau, amen.
The problem you mentioned might be reduced to “unregulated worship.”
The “worship-is-unregulated” practice was the philosophy of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. After the division of the Hebrew nation, Jeroboam initiated his own worship program (see 1 Kings 12).
These many changes he “devised of his own heart” (1 Kings 12:33, NASB). Jeroboam was, indeed, a worship innovator who used his personal convictions to cause Israel to sin. We must remember that such examples were written for our learning (Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:6,11), because we will have always have “Jeroboams” in the church.
Thank you.
Well Kamau, a lot of denominations were also the result of a formerly Biblically sound organization slipping into heresy,thereby forcing out those who cling to Truth.
We have to remember that there has never in history been complete unity over theology beginning with Cain and Abel (dispute over what was the ordained sacrifice) moving to the Jews (Pharisees, Sadducess, Zealots, Essenes, etc) through the Early Church (Apostolic, Gnostic, Pelagian, Monergist, Semi-Pelagian, Montanist,Romanist etc), and on into today.
Unity doesn’t revolve around anything other than the individuals in the Body where it resides among all the separated ones who cling to God’s Truth in Christ wherever they attend.
I guess my point is that there would not have been any need for any denominations whatsoever if everyone obeyed the Gospels in the first place. It certainly makes no sense for the hundreds of divisions we see if Christendom now if we are reading the same book. Or are we? If not, which book should we be reading? And then there is the multiple questions that arise when one reads of history of the “councils” that served to establish “official” Christianity (most famous being the council of Nicea in 325AD). We know what was left in the Bible, but do we know what was left out? We, as the body of Christ, have quite a bit more to deal with than the pulpit pimps; although, with respect to Melvin, addressing these other issues is not the purpose of this particular blog.
Hey Kamau, in love, you sound like someone who does not trust the Canon we currently ascribe to. Also, Nicea didn’t establish anything new, just soldified what was held by those in the Body of Christ. It gave a definite statement to clearly articulate what had been taught the previous two centuries. Maybe you were not refuting this; however, your statement can lead to a dangerous assumption. If we can’t agree on the Bible we are in “whole heap of trouble”. The Bible we have has stood the test for roughly 2000 years (Nicea only Canonized what was already in circulation). Just my opinion. God bless.
BAR,
In love, all I am saying is that we don’t know what we don’t know about how the scriptures we study came to be included in the modern Bible(s). It is historical fact that many political decisions were made during these early “conclaves” to determine exactly what would be placed into early versions of the Bible and what would be left out. I sincerely believe that it is difficult, if not impossible, to solve any puzzle if some of the pieces are missing (or distorted). (MN: Whoa Sparky! You just made a fistful of assumptions and passed them off as facts. Care to back up and support these - and the ones that follow? )
The council of Nicea was but one of many councils in which Biblical canon was discussed, interpreted, reinterpreted, added or discarded. I am very interested in learning about how the Bible came into being. How can we all agree on the Bible if there are so many versions of it? Why so many interpretations (and many that widely vary)?
These questions are also related to my concern/confusion over the mere presence of denominationalism in Christendom. I do not and cannot subscribe to the “any church/denomination will do” theory. The Bible speaks of “one Lord. one Faith. one Baptism” which alludes to unity in Christ. Should there not be a single doctrine that all Christians embrace? Isn’t anything less anti-Biblical? Again, I do not presume to have all the answers, just a ton of questions…
(MN: Interesting comment. Anyone care to start? )
Kamau, we may have to talk on the phone. I will try to answer your question without getting too technical.
1. The ESV, NASB, RSV, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, and HSCB all proclaim the same truth. Some of these are paraphrases and for sake of studying, I would stay away from the ones that are. Though you can get some insight, you are dependent upon someone elses perspective (Someone stated that going to original greek would be the best, the only problem with that is we are missing the original manuscripts so you are still dependent upon the scribes copying of a cetrain set of scriptures). You can trust the word for word bibles about as much you trust your heart to beat the next second. Unless you are saying your last goodbyes because of fear of your heart stopping, I would also trust the word for word translations.
2. There is much history behind the different word for word translations and it will take up to much band width for it. However, many of the translations were written throughout history. We have discovered some extra manuscripts in the last few hundred years and because of that some of the translations were written. The truth of the Gospel in each of those translations remain the same. Christ born of a virgin, died on a cross, raised from the dead, and salvation is by faith in Him.
3. Nothing was reinterpreted. The Old Testemant has been the same one for the past 2500 years or so. Christians took the OT that was recognized by Jews and brought it forward. It is also a fact that what we have in the NT was agreed upon around 100 AD. Many of the Elders who were appointed by the Apostles themselves were still around and it was clear what they agreed should be circulated.
4. True there is One Lord (Jesus), one Faith (salvation by grace through faith apart frome works). and One Baptism (a baptism into the church where Christ is the head, this is not referring to water).
5. We all embrace one doctrine that is why we stand strong against, Islam, Mormons, JW’s, Buddahist, and any other religion or cult. That doctrine is the death, burial and ressurection of our Lord Jesus. Why do you expect more than this? We agree on the doctrine of Christ and we divide over stuff that is more sacremental or practice not doctrine.
6. No everything else is not anti-biblical. Let me ask you a question. What if your mother and aunt were talking about your great grandmother and one says, her hair was black and the other her hair was brown. Now would you say, well since you can’t agree my great grandmother must have not existed? The answer is no, that is a non-essential. We disagree on small matters. Some people believe you shouldn’t dance in worship others say you shouldn’t use instruments. Some believe you should only meet in a house, others say you should have a group of elders running the church, other believes the congregation should lead the church. Some believe you should preach topically others says expositorily, get my point?
So let me ask you a few questions.
1. What do you believe of our current bible and where do you get the information?
2. What is the one doctrine that we should prescribe to and where do you get this information?
3. Which “version” do you prescribe to and why?
4. Finally the greatest question of the day. How can man be saved from the wrath of God? I need exact details. If someone asks you “what must I do to be saved” what would your answer be?
Kamau:
Your comment is excellent. Are church denominations within the confines of the Word of God? “No” they are not. Some say: I’m a Baptist, I’m a Methodist, and the list goes on and on. However, according to 1 Corinthians 3:1 -12 . Vs.4 - For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Vs.11 - For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
So, why do schisms aka denominations exist? Because not all are of God - 1 John 4:6. If Christ is the Word of God ” and He is” John 1:1, then Christ is the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation .. 2 Timothy 3:16. Therefore there is only “ONE TRUTH” ..John 17:17. Jesus said to Pilate in John 18:37 …and for this cause came I into the world that I should bear witness unto “the” Truth. He did not say “a” truth, but He did say “the” Truth. True Christians have the mind of Christ, and are “perfectly” joined together in the same mind, and we speak the same thing .. 1 Corinthians 1:10. So basically, there may not and can not be any agree to disagree in “the” Truth .. John 17:17, which is “the” Word of God .. John 7:16, which is the Doctrine of Christ. Jesus warned the Church to beware of the “doctrine” of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees .. Matthew 16:12.
There is much doctrine “of men”, but there is only “ONE” Truth which is the “Doctrine of Christ”
Personally, it is the KJV for me …
In the love of Jesus Christ,
Deb
Nicely put BAR
Hello, blackandreformed:
You said
Would you please clarify your statement. I do not understand it.
Mahalo.
To blackandreformed:
You said “I think the music thing is a pesonal (sic) conviction;”
Would you please clarify your statement. I do not understand it.
Mahalo.
Some COC don’t allow musical instruments, I wouldn’t divide with them over that issue, I would however divide if they say, you must be baptized to be saved or if they say, we are the only true church, or anything along those lines. We have to be extremely careful not to say that our position is the correct position, unless they oppose that of what Paul laid out in Romans 3-5 and 1 Corinthians 15.
The musical instrument issue is one that is more in the Southern CoC groups than the northern ones and relates with abolition beleive it or not. They say otherwise, but you can check the source I cite below for details. Most every CoC spot I’ve known of sees the water as what saves you, although I’ve heard there are some that differ with that view. Overall from what I’ve seen, they see salvation in the act of hitting the water and that was their traditional written doctrine, that water changes you. Ask a CoC member when they were saved and usually they’ll usually say “I was baptized into the Church of Christ on XXXXX”. This is exactly the line Presidential candidate Fred Thompson has been using.
And many of the old schoolers in the CoC feel they are the ONE true church.
This site offers some insight on the worst of it: Is the Church of Christ Denomination A Cult?.
I know someone who knew Christ, but was not CoC. They wanted to marry a lady who was CoC…the pastor was like NOPE, not till you join up and get baptized WITH US.
I know PLENTY of people who beleive what I’ve noted above and claim membership in the CoC. Being in TN, this state seems to possibly have more CoC than many other denominations.
I guess once he pays off the $60 million on the building, he’ll have Georgia on his mind when he decides to branch out.
(MN: I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I did get THAT one. )
lol, That’s funny. Ray Charles…Georgia ….lol
Atlanta, Georgia: the pimp mecca of the WOF movement. At one time, I thought it was Dallas, TX.
Melvin,
Are you saying it’s wrong to follow your Pastor’s vision for the Church that he is leading?
(this has nothing to do with your recent blog, just curious, and looking for clairification.)
Depends on the vision PL. I also think you have the right as a member of that church to question what is being envisioned. I have a high view of pastors; however, if you can’t question the “leaders” then I probably would stay away from such a church. You have a right to challenge your church as it relates to stewardship, doctrine, and affiliations.
Blackandreformed,
You are so right regarding our “right” to question and hold leaders accountable. In fact, as followers of Christ, it is more of our “obligation” as opposed to a “right”. The bible clearly instructs us to “test the spirits”–being a teacher, I realize that one can only administer a test once they know the answer (for us it is the truth of Jesus Christ). This may be the reason that so many opt not to “test the spirits” because it requires them to test themselves first and compare themselves to Christ as the standard. The bible does not exclude church leaders from being tested. In fact, true, anointed leaders should invite being tested and questioned as a means of accountability and purity. Finally, God’s word instructs us to “judge the fruit”. So many leaders that are operating as pimps directly contradict the word of God by saying that it is not our responsibility to judge, but God commands us to, especially if we consider Christ to be the only example. I do not recall Jesus starting a megachurch, passing baskets for love or sacrificial offerings, driving a gold-plated chariot, wearing alligator sandals, or manipulating others into caring for Joseph, Mary, and them. He, instead, showed love to a dying world with no expectation of gain. While doing this, He also called a “dirty cup” a “dirty cup” when he called the church leaders out in Matthew 5. Remember, He shared that they had no intention of going to heaven and had every intention of blocking others from getting there….sounds familiar.
People who aren’t allowed to question the pastor or the pastor’s “vision” tend to be in cults or cultish groups suffering all kinds of spiritual abuse. And as this Jenkins fellow stated in his sermon, dissenters will be disfellowshipped from his church and shown the door. That is cultish.
BAR answered while I was formulating my response, but I would agree with him:
No. It certainly isn’t wrong. What’s wrong is to believe that his vision, his view of where the church should be physically and financially is somehow more authoritative than the “vision” held by the rest of the believers in the local church. Each of you is washed and led by the same Holy Spirit. Each of you is growing in grace. Each of you is studying to show yourself approved, rightly dividing the word of God. So why should one of the elders be able to say “this is the direction we are going to go in and none of you can disagree with it because I’m the pastor.” If all that I said is not true, then the elders are not doing their job. In that case, why are you even thinking about their vision since they don’t have the most important part (your edification) right?
Certainly most of the little things (finances, administration, etc) should be handled by the elders. But for something that is going to impact the church, the congregation needs to be involved.
Notice that it’s the congregation that decides to break fellowship with a discipline problem (1 Cor 5:3-5, 13; Matt 18:17 [the congregation is the final arbiter, not the elders]. The congregation chose the deacons (Acts 6:1-5).
The congregation, through their willingness to follow Christ and to be led by the Holy Spirit, control what is done in the organization. If no one wants to move to a larger building or build another building, it doesn’t matter what the pastor and the leadership’s vision is. The congregation is not going to support it financially. And if the elders attempt to do an end run, the congregation should be dependent enough on God’s guidance to walk away from the organization since the elders demonstrate that they have a program of their own and no real respect for the congregants.
The Mosaic model of leadership is no more valid now than the sacrificial system is still applicable. While the organization is not exactly a democracy, neither is it a dictatorship or an oligarchy controlled by one or more men. It’s this view (the dictatorship) that ends up creating the monsters we see at the head of the pimp ships.
I am a benevolent dictator. But even I have to occasionally appeal to the sensibility of you people for some of the decisions I make. I dislike having to do it, but it keeps me honest. Of course, a web page that entertains and occasionally edifies, is far different than a church organization. And the need for engagement on the part of the members is crucial to keep the church from becoming what First Baptist, New Birth, Evangel Temple, and a host of others, have become.
Walk away from your responsibilities for disciplining members and give away your charge to contribute to the Body, and eventually the leaders will become the church. Then the church is run by the vision of the pastor, not the Spirit of the Lord.
Way to throw in the Mosiac model
I am no way agreeing that what JKJ is doing is right. But I am not sure I see what the problem is if “the pastor” is being led by the Spirit, and trying to grow the ministry for the furtherance of the gosple and the edification of the saints.
I will admit that you run into a problem in that you have no way to verify that they are listening to the Lord, excpt by checking it against scripture. And in the case of some of these WOFers they can twist the scripture to say what they want it to… Just like JKJ did in his message. So that leaves you back to just trusting that He/She is hearing from God.
I guess the real question is what do you believe the correct way would have been for JKJ to move from the old location to a new location would have been?
just curious
(MN: My take on it - If no one in the congregation wants to do what the pastor is “being Led in the spirit” to do, then likely the pastor ISN’T being led in the spirit. What will usually happen is simply a variation on what John does. The idea that the pastor’s “vision” for the church is what should happen.
The correct way for JKJ goes all the way back to before they had thousands of members. It goes something like this:
1. John does a bang up job of teaching and helping the saints to mature.
2. John, with the elders (put forward by the congregation, not John) select several men to be John’s “understudies”
3. The men (possibly some of the elders, but not necessarily) train specifically to be interchangeable with John.
4. Once the church gets over some predetermined number, one of the elders/trained men takes a group of the people (say, people from a common geographical area) and they start a church there.
5. The original church may provide some financial and admin support, but the organization is pretty much independent of the original church.
6. Every time the first church grows over a certain number, a group is sent someplace else with another man selected and trained by John.
If you do this, there is never a need to house a bunch of people in a facility.
Are people automatically pimps for having big churches? Probably not. I don’t think Chuck Smith or John MacArthur are pimps and their churches are huge.
)
I am about to read the Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (MN: or here to order it.) . though I am not a pastor, I believe anyone in leadership (especially deacons and elders should read this book).
Thanks Melvin.
The state of the sheeple at FBCG is sad indeed. We have a cousin who attends services there. He is beginning to question some of the teachings and may start looking for a new church soon. He is in his early 20’s and “walked the aisle” at FBCG a couple years ago, so all he knows is Pastor Jenkins. The scary part is that he says that when he reads the Bible, he does not hear the voice of God, he hears the voice of John Jenkins… and that has caused him great alarm… and understandably so.
Just as this sermon highlights, it’s as if Jenkins’ twisted interpretation of the scriptures trumps what the Bible actually says.
Oh, here’s a point of amusement — When my husband started sharing with our cousin his concerns about Jenkins (with no mention of this site), the cousin immediately mentioned Pulpit-Pimps. Melvin, I guess you are much talked-about at old FBCG!
Sad state of affairs Mel……….I wonder of you will make it into the next Leadership Meeting agenda??
As far a a Pastor’s “vision”, can anyone direct me to the Chinese Buffet of “vision” options outlined in the Word of God?? Cuz as far as I know, there is only ONE God sanctioned “vision” for the church, and those churches do do not subscribe to it are no churches at all.
Act 14:21 ¶ And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and [to] Iconium, and Antioch,
Act 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
Act 16:5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
1Cr 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
As far as I can tell, the ONLY vision for the church is that it edify and strengthen the believers by the proclamation of Truth.
Praise God! Too many CEO’s and not enough Shepherds! As a famous theologian once said “Brothers we are not professionals”! Well put Gary V, the executive mind in pulpits is a recipe for disaster. Many pastors forget that the call to shepherdhood is a call to service not a call to be served. Wow how backwards the “position” of an Elder has become, why don’t any of them look like 1 Timothy 3, or Titus 1? Our qualifications have become the very things Paul talked against. Such as eloquent of speech, man-pleasers, smooth talkers.
Hillcrest Baptist in Temple Hills. Tell him to visit there.
Are there any other good churches to go to in the P.G county area, see I use to go to fbcg myself.
(MN: Try Hillcrest Baptist in Temple Hills - on Iverson Road.
If you don’t mind being Arminian and quietly Pentecostal, try Calvary Chapel Breath of Life in Largo. )
Milt:
Or perhaps a “house” Church, the Lord may be leading you in that direction. After all, it is He that set the members in the body as it please Him, and it is also He that add to the Church such as should be saved.
Romans 16:5 - Likewise greet the church that is in their (Priscilla and Aquila) “house”. Salute my well beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
1 Corinthians 16:19 - The churches of Asia salute you, Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their “house”.
Colossians 4:15 - Salute the brethern which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his “house”.
Philemon 1:2 - And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy “house”.
In the love of Christ,
Deb
Very quietly, almost a whisper, as a matter of fact I don’t even hear it.
You don’t hear it because you’re not listening. Talk to the pastor, the assistant pastor, read the books, listen to Chuck Smith (who was raised and is still Pentecostal), listen to the other guys at the leadership conferences, go back and review Pastor Raz’s lessons and sermon from several months ago and note the fact that Chuck was closely associated with Katherine Kuhlman (Benny Hinn’s patron saint, by the way) and the whisper may get a little louder.
The last conference I attended we were told in no uncertain terms that in order to lead you had to have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (the Pentecostal version). The book “Afterglow”, sold by the bookstore is filled with basic Pentecostal doctrines (see the essays section for an analysis of the book’s contents). The link is entitled “Pentecostalism (aka Charismatics).”
Remember, my primary issue with CC is they rarely ever are willing to say exactly where they stand. They want to be everything to everybody. You’ve read the paper they put out on Monergism vs Synergism. They say it’s not something to divide over, but then they divide over it. They’re not a denomination, but they have a set of doctrine you have to follow in order to use the CC branding. And you have to agree to a set of doctrine in order to hold positions of leadership. But again, it’s not a denomination.
Bottom line: You can hear if you are willing to listen.
A good Church would be Infinity Church in Laurel, trust me. Oh Yes Hillcrest Baptist is a good Church too.
Well, you can just ask Melvin’s wife, she still attends FBCG!
Need to Know, the folks already know she goes there. But she really doesn’t have much to do with the people there. And for me it’s an excellent exercise in patience and the right handling of the word.
For instance, yesterday we discussed the abortion of a sermon John presented on the Prodigal Son. It really turned out to be a fairly wide ranging discussion on the study of Scripture, the need for being willing to study Scripture even if it’s not talking about something that “means” something to me, and the need to understand what Scripture is saying in order to apply it.
I even got to point out that most of the 7000 people whose theology is being mangled by John don’t have anything else to look at. When they read the Bible, they read it through the template John has given them. If they are not saved, they’re not going to hear anything else and they have virtually no hope of escaping short of a real life salvation experience.
I was in absolute awe yesterday as we discussed the parable. It pointed out to me again that my wife is quite an amazing woman.
And then there are the trite and small people like you.
Well, I would say that your wife is a amazing woman, she stayed at FBCG and decided to not follow you.
No. She’s amazing because she isn’t anything like the empty-headed men and women who sit and defend John. When I present something to her, she doesn’t say the same inane things you and yours spout. She actually listens.
Over the last six years, I have been forced to trust God’s work in her life and not trust my own debating skills in rescuing her from that pit of poverty stricken preaching. I have learned not to get in God’s way. I have accepted the fact that I didn’t always do as good a job of protecting her and encouraging her to develop in good doctrine rather than the Pentecostal silliness flooding the churches.
However, you sound like a good fit with the empty-headed sycophants warming the pews (excuse me - stadium seating) at FBCG Mausoleum, Museum, and Memorial.
Between the know-nothing congregation and the less than worthless deacons and elders, I truly believe that place is a waste of concrete, space, and electricity. But God is gracious and He tolerates them. I can do no less.
No. She’s amazing because she isn’t anything like the empty-headed men and women who sit and defend John. When I present something to her, she doesn’t say the same inane things you and yours spout. She actually listens.
Melvin,
I agree with this statement in its entirety because this is exactly what I was saying when I first came to this board. But by the same token, there are people like this in churches all over the country who do not attend church as a means to be puppeted and have come to realize that defending the actions of others is really useless. At the end of the day-God will settle whatever is incorrect.
It is possible to have some things good-others bad in one setting and I think a lot of churchgoers realize this when choosing to worship where they do.
I have friends and family that attend places that I would not–but I don’t necessary think that calling them airheads would be beneficial because we each have our own spiritual need. On the same token, I have gone some places where others would not think of going (church wise)–ï?Š
I agree with your stance on doctrine, but then I ask myself-where on earth can I go where someone is going to be 100% correct, 100% of the time?
With that said, I think we all should engage in independent study and take what is profitable (scripture wise), from where we attend, and throw everything lese out.
As far as giving finances, one thing I never do is discuss the tithe because I think that it is a personal choice. I will however be honest, both sides, pro and con make very convincing arguments and neither side has ever been able to persuade me one way or the other so I personally give as I see fit on the Sunday (more if it’s pay week)–ï?Š
But, no one should give their entire paycheck and then go lacking for food–but I still think these mega churches are flourishing in the AA community (I say this because this is the type of church I have attended and as a result, I can only speak from experience) because of a sharp increase in middle and upper class attendees. Not to say that these people should be fleeced, but I think this is a part that is often overlooked and as a consequence, a picture is being painted that:
1. Most churches members of WOF are primarily poor
2. Most church member of WOF are giving to the churches more than they should of their disposable income
3. Most church members of WOF have no financial savvy at
I guess I am trying to say that I have witnessed people who are financially secure give large sums of money to their churches and it didn’t hurt them. So, I am left to conclude that those who earn more give more. As far as those in lower income ranks, I think that there are most certainly more of them, but on an individual level, I don’t think that are contributing more than those in higher income brackets. For example, 1 person may contribute $1000 per month because they have a yearly income of 150,000. However, the 12.50/hr worker, which translates to 26,500 per year and 500 per week, may give 10% of that which equals 200 per month. Thus, it would take 5 of these people to give as much as the one person in the higher income bracket.
I don’t have statistics; I just think that the people in the higher income brackets are taking a harder hit in the pockets which lessen the chances of the lower income people going to the poor house because of donations, tithes, what ever they choose to call it.
My Friend Melvin:
First, I want to commend you for your Christ like patience with ignorance of the highest proportion! While you do not owe anyone an explanation concerning the afore-mentioned information regarding your precious wife’s attendance at FBCG, I think that it is really “Big” of you as a Christian gentleman to share your imperfections with the rest of us imperfect folks!
While my situation isn’t exactly like yours, you have said some things in this posting that the Holy Spirit has used already to speak to me concerning my challenges. thank you for being transparent and authentic!
Blessings to You!
BlackTheologian