VEE: Free Church?

Excellent point here.

Finally…

http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-kjv-only-fundamentalists.html

Mike Foster: The Necessity of Church as Mother

Very insightful and very spot-on blogpost here:

American Christianity has been severely synchronized to the idol of individualism. This has been clearly illustrated to me time and time again by the numerous amounts of Christians who have a complete disregard for the centrality of the local church. They act as if belonging to a church is an option on par with belonging to a gym or pouring cream in their coffee. They see church as merely an additive that is optional. This, of course, is a lie bellowing up from the smoky pits of hell. I have spent the last few years of my life working hard to confront this hersey. When I speak on this subject I will often cite the following quote from Cyprian: “You cannot have God as your Father if you do not have the church as your mother.”

Read the whole article here.

Riverside

Interesting view here on the decline of respect for clergy in modern America…especially how it ties said decline with a corresponding rise in “professionalism” in the ministry.

Today they are regarded as hired help.

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinteresting…

AV: The Church of the First Adam

I subscribe to a very large variety of newsletters, e-zines, and regular dead-tree magazines, and mostly from different theological perspectives than the ones I happen to subscribe to.  This is because perspective usually comes from looking at the same thing from many different angles – or, to put it like Solomon did, “Where there is not counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” [Proverbs 11:14]  This applies not only in the immediate sense of determining God’s will for ourselves or growing in grace or such-like, but also in the much broader sense of hearing what the Spirit might be saying to the whole Body of Christ, and not just what my particular member of it says.

One of the newsletters I subscribe to comes from a tradition which is quite distant from my own in theological terms: American Vision.  AV is a Calvinist, Postmillennial, Preterist, Reconstructionist concern – and one which produces a lot of good material, even with all that.

The latest missive from AV contained a stellar article on the state of the modern American church:

The real problem with church attendance goes far beyond being simply boring or fun. It even goes far beyond the overused catch phrase of the mega-church movement: “relevant.” Where does the Bible claim that church should be fun or relevant? Or to ask the question a different way: What is the purpose of church? Is it only supposed to be a time when believers gather together each week to drop money in the plate and listen to a self-help sermon? If this is the case we could mail our checks in and watch an episode of Dr. Phil instead. The role of the local church is an important and vital one, but the modern idea of "doing" church has gotten so far away from the biblical understanding that it is no wonder that we must resort to advertising and marketing to remind the community that we exist.

Perhaps church attendance is so low because it has become "fun." "Fun" churches have nothing to offer after the fun wears off. This country needs a good healthy dose of maturity and adulthood and the very place where it should be found is becoming more adolescent and childish. Just as the first Adam was a model of immaturity, the last Adam (Jesus Christ) was the prime example of maturity. The first Adam shirked responsibility, but the last Adam faced it head-on. Jesus should be our example, not Adam. Church attendance should not be the goal, but church faithfulness. If Christ's Church would become less concerned with how many are not sitting in the pews and actually disciple the ones who are, the empty pews will begin to fill as a natural result. The question is: Does the modern church have enough faith to actually begin doing this?

You can read the whole article (which is very much spot-on) here.

When the Body becomes a Business

The article Daniel quotes here is absolutely spot-on. I mean – wow.

Vision

I just read an excellent word from a pastor friend on another blog regarding the issue of “vision”:

I think we need to depart form the idea of the pastor having a vision for the whole church, and the people are worker bees there to help the pastor pursue what he feels called to do.

My objection to that is this: people live out the pastor’s vision, and may never discover what they are supposed to be doing.
I know that some folks are called to be Joshua’s, and just help the pastor do his thing.
That is their vision.

However, others can and should be doing things that I and you are never called to.

A hearty amen.

With all the focus on vision, visioneering, vision-casting, etc., it’s helpful to point out and realize that the mission of Christ’s Church has not changed in the past two thousand years:

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen.

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

His vision, His mission statement, cannot be extended or improved upon.

At best, any “vision” we “cast” is nothing more than an application of Jesus’ unchanging vision to our local context – anything beyond that is only so much worthless babble.

Charisma Magazine: Did the Prosperity Gospel Cause a Church Recession?

Refreshingly – and surprisingly – good article here examining the question of whether or not the “prosperity gospel” is a major contributor to the “church recession” which roughly parallels the economic recession we are currently undergoing.

The same ideas can be translated, I think, to a correspondent analysis of the Growthinista^® movement…?

On Small Churches

Great article by Chuck Warnock here.

Let's face it: small churches, like Rodney Dangerfield, get no respect. Or at least very little. Small congregations typically are viewed as stodgy, dead, or sick—that last one according to a very prominent church consultant who will remain anonymous.

I am sure we could find small churches that would live up to each of those perceptions. But I have also seen larger churches exhibit the same characteristics. Why is it, then, that small churches get such a bad rap? Numbers. Small churches don't have the numbers to validate their success, and our culture is all about numbers, even in ministry.

Here's an example: last year a prominent denomination offered a "small church" conference. Just offering a small church conference was a minor miracle, but guess who was asked to speak? You guessed it—large-church pastors. The clear message to those small-church pastors who attended was, "Come to this small church conference and we'll teach you how to make your small church into a big church.

Great article. Go read it.

The Other Side of Church Growth

Bryon Mondok reviews an article by Phil Johnson, The Other Side Of Church Growth, which is a very interesting (and I would say important) read.

A very great deal of what characterizes the Western Church – and American Christianity in particular – is somewhat unique to our experience and is not in any way universal to the entire Church.  Much of what is American Christianity, for instance, does not translate well in other contexts without either ignoring those contexts entirely or imposing Americanism on them.  For instance, the triumphalism of the Word-Faith Movement does not translate well into the context of the suffering church (which is, by the way, the majority experience of the church through the world and through history).  Likewise, the seeker-sensitive movement does not translate well into other contexts where Christianity has not materially impacted and shaped the culture to the extent that it has and continues to do in America.

Church Growthism is another peculiarity of American Christianity which does not necessarily translate well into other contexts.  The Growthinista maxim that “healthy churches grow” (always with the unstated but strong undercurrent of “invariably” driving their presuppositions) only works in (many but by no means all) Western contexts.  Perfectly healthy churches can, in fact, experience decline.  Not only in the large context of regions and nations, but in local contexts as well, and for a quite possibly innumerable number of factors.

The article is very much worthy of reading (even though it is published in “Christianity” Today – you know the old adage, even a stopped clock is right twice daily); I give you, however, one quote in particular:

As I was writing this book, I became very conscious of one question, which is how you measure the success of a church. I am tempted to measure it in terms of numbers, whether it's 5 percent of the population, 40 percent, or whatever. But I suppose an argument would be made by somebody from a Mennonite or Anabaptist tradition that that's not the question—that the question is not numerical success but quality of witness, that the New Testament does not guarantee worldly success or growth or megachurches.

Majority Church

I ran across this blogpost early this morning, and totally had to share it.

We (small churches) are the majority.  Why not call our churches “majority churches?” 

Hi, my name is Chuck and I pastor a majority church.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?  All of a sudden we’re not ecclesiastical outcasts anymore.  No more ducking at the pastors’ conference when you see Reverend I. M. Abigdeal coming.  Nope, you hold your head up, stick  out your hand, and say, “Rev, sorry you megachurch guys are in the minority.  What’s the matter, why aren’t you serving a majority church, like I am?”

I love it.

Signed: Mike Macon, majority church pastor.

Measuring Success

Chris Elrod hits a homer here.

Leadership is for Sissies

Okay; I just grabbed a second to catch up on my blog reading - it's been a wild whirlwind of a month, trying to juggle the church and my day-job-to-support-my-habit so that I can keep diapers on my boy, so I haven't had much time to do much of anything else.

Oh, except for reading a lot; you get to do that on planes & in hotel rooms & stuff.  While I don't mind TV (after all; hockey season's coming up), I vastly prefer to read. So my "extra-cirricular" entertainment reading has been stuff by Jack McDevitt (sci-fi writer; I just finished Eternity Road and Infinity Beach, both of which were just flat-out awesome), Robert Charles Wilson (his book Spin - oh...my...goodness was it good... Probably the best speculative sci-fi I've read in a very, very long time; I can't wait until the sequel is released in e-book format), Peter Hamiltion (The Dreaming Void - sequel series to the Commonwealth Saga and set 1500 years after the events in Judas Unchained - Pete's perhaps my favorite modern author, with McDevitt a very close second), Stephen Baxter (light on character development, but loooooooooooong on plausibility and taking our current cosmological and physics understanding to the limit - great speculative fic, Vacuum Diagrams was a great summary of the truly epic sweep of his Xeelee Sequence) and others.

But other than that, I haven't had time for much of anything else.

So after a discipleship meeting this morning with a great brother, I fired up my blog reader, and found this absolutely awesome pearl over on The Blog Of Which We Do Not Speak which I think succinctly describes the critical key differences between "leadership" (which so very many in the Growthinista camp are all a-goo-goo over) and servant leadership - which is a very exceedingly different sort of thing altogether.

LeaderMan: Wants a platform on which to say something

Servant Leader: Has something to say

———–

LeaderMan: You almost feel you know his family, because he’s your Leader

Servant Leader: You allow him to influence you, because you know his family

———–

LeaderMan: Wants you to know he’s a Leader

Servant Leader: You’re not sure he knows he’s a leader

———–

LeaderMan: Loves the idea of the Gospel, and the idea of The Church

Servant Leader: Loves God and the actual individual people God brings across his path

———–

LeaderMan: A great speaker, but self-described as, “Not really a people person.”

Servant Leader: Makes himself a people person

———–

LeaderMan: Helps you find where God is leading you in his organization

Servant Leader: Helps you find where God is leading you

———–

LeaderMan: Gets together with you to talk about his vision

Servant Leader: Just gets together with you

———–

LeaderMan: Resents “sheep stealing”

Servant Leader: Doesn’t get the “stealing” part, since he doesn’t own anyone to begin with

———–

LeaderMan: Wants the right people on the bus

Servant Leader: Wants to find the right bus for you, and sit next to you on it

———–

LeaderMan: Shows you a flow chart

Servant Leader: Shows you his whole heart

———–

LeaderMan: A visionary who knows what the future looks like

Servant Leader: Knows what your kitchen looks like

———–

LeaderMan: If it’s worth doing, it worth doing with excellence

Servant Leader: Not exactly sure how to even calculate “worth doing”

———–

LeaderMan: Talks about confronting one another in love

Servant Leader: Actually confronts you in love

———–

LeaderMan: Impressed by success and successful people

Servant Leader: Impressed by faithfulness

———–

LeaderMan: Invests time in you, if you are “key people”

Servant Leader: Wastes time with you

———–

LeaderMan: Reveals sins of his past

Servant Leader: Reveals sins of his present

———-

LeaderMan: Gives you things to do

Servant Leader: Gives you freedom

———–

LeaderMan: Leads because of official position

Servant Leader: Leads in spite of position

———–

LeaderMan: Deep down, threatened by other Leaders

Servant Leader: Has nothing to lose

I absolutely love this list, and I'm printing it out and framing it in what passes as my office to be a continual reminder.

I have no time - or patience - for "leadership."

So go to all the seminars and coaching networks and hoedowns and interpretive finger painting classes as you'd like.

But in my opinion: "Leadership" (as it is currently defined and as is currently all the rage) is for sissies.

A must-read

In this blogpost, a church planting pastor bares his heart, and in the process offers a resounding critique of modern American Christianity® Inc.

HT: Vee

Chaddick/Heidkamp Celebrity Death Match

...not really.

But I was browsing the Vineyard's website the other day, and ran across their audios for their recent national pastors' conference, and found the session that Jeff Heidkamp gave on the Emerging Church.  It's an interesting counterpoint to Tim Chaddick's workshop on the ECM at the recent Calvary Chapel senior pastors' conference.

I still think Tim's session was better (vastly better), but Heidkamp's session was still quite balanced - a bit more on the "pro" side than Chaddicks, but that surprises precisely no-one - and an interesting perspective, nonetheless.

Junior High

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

You remember Junior High?  When petty disagreements between two people would resonate outward like pernicious ripples from the principals through all their myriad relations and relationships, sundering ties and restructuring alliances, like the European states after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

You know what I mean:

Hey, man; Bobby-Jim and I are fighting.  I don't like Bobby-Jim.  So because I don't like him, and you're my friend, you can't like him.

Oh, and Debbie-Sue's Bobby-Jim's friend, so you can't like her, any more, 'neither.

Basically, if you don't agree with me 100%, then I don't like you - and if I don't like you, my friends can't like you, either - otherwise, they immediately forfeit the privilege of friendship unless they toe the line.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.  We're all (at least nominally) adults now, and we can handle disagreements - even strong disagreements - without pouting, picking up our relational ball, and huffing off home to sulk.

We can disagree with someone, even strongly, and still like them.

In the context of the Church (and by "the Church" I mean the Church Universal, not simply the local church) this becomes and even greater issue and blessing.

The Body of Christ is large - very large.  And there's a whole, vast range of preferences and opinions on secondary and tertiary issues of faith and conduct.  The Bride is truly beautiful, not least of which because of the richness of the myriad tones and undertones in the grand chorus of the sundry voices engaged in worship, expression, discussion - and yes, debate.

I can appreciate what a brother from a different tradition than mine has to say; I can mull it over and consider its relative strengths and weaknesses, both without necessarily agreeing with a single thing the dude has to say or without casting him off as a heathen or unregenerate because of my disagreement with him.

There are hills that I will die on - foundational, core, first-order doctrines which define the borders of the Kingdom.  These doctrines revolve around the Person and Work of Jesus; disagree on these, and you are not my brother, you are not an object of fellowship - you are an object of evangelism.

Those doctrines that I will gladly fight tooth-and-nail over include:

• The full Deity and full Humanity of Jesus
• Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus alone
• His sinless conception, birth, and life
• Speaking about His birth - that it was a Virgin Birth
• His vicarious, substitutionary death in our behalf
• His bodily resurrection from the grave
• His return in glory at the consummation of the age

First-order doctrines which directly correlate with these, and which I will also gladly fight over include:

• The Trinitarian nature of God
• The fallen nature of man (born in sin, born innately a sinner, before any actual acts of sin had been committed)
• Jesus' Two Natures; He is One in Person, but Two in Nature
• (i.e., His Natures are not mingled in any way, yet with complete integrity of Person)

These (among others) are doctrines which separate between the Kingdom of God and everything else.  Compromise or reject any one of these, and you are not a Christian.

End of discussion.

Have a nice day.

Here's a Gospel tract.

These doctrines are precious and to be defended against all onslaught; we can never compromise here - never give ground...never.

But...there are a host of other doctrines which are important - even very important - but which are "in-house" arguments that, while they effect the spiritual formation and maturity of the one holding them, do not determine the eternal disposition of that one.

In other words, there are doctrines that are important, but are not salvation issues.

We might still disagree on these second-order doctrines - and even disagree sharply - but still be brothers, because we agree on the core essentials.

And I find great benefit from reading and interacting with as broad a range of Christian thinking as possible.  As I've said before, one of the reasons why is because it challenges my thinking - points out weaknesses and blindspots in my worldview that I wouldn't otherwise know were there, and gives me the opportunity to correct the situation.

Which brings up the main point I want to make with this blogpost.

Given that there is a truly broad area where we can disagree and still be brothers in Christ, and given that there is a large degree of permissible dissension in secondary doctrines, and given that secondary doctrines, though they don't necessarily impact on the salvation of the person holding them, are still important - given all that, there are going to likely be a great many areas where you and I might disagree.

That disagreement doesn't mean we're not brothers - it simply means we disagree on something which has a level of importance somewhat less than that of first-order issues of the faith.  Yet though it is of lesser importance, it is still important.

And because it's important, we should probably talk about it.

And by "talk," I mean that we will likely end up debating.

That's not a bad thing; again, as I've quoted before:

“A debate is a conflict which clarifies a position. A dialogue is a conversation which compromises a position.”
John E. Ashbrook, The New Neutralism II

Debate - or "vigorous dialog," if you get twitchy when the "D" word is used - is indispensable for clarifying our understanding of Scripture.  It doesn't mean we're on opposite sides of that border between the Kingdom of God and all else; it simply means we disagree to a substantial degree on something which, while we both lie within those borders, places us at opposite ends of a particular issue.

And it's important to be right about things which effect eternity.  I don't want to believe something just because my church teaches it, or my favorite teacher teaches it, or because, darn it all, that's just what I came up with on my own, thank you very much...and the best way I know of to constantly challenge my presuppositions is to (a) read those whose presuppositions differ from mine, and (b) interact with those whose presuppositions differ from mine.

The men and women that I respect the most are those who have challenged me, who have called me on the carpet, who haven't "gone along to get along," but have loved me enough to call me out and engage me on these important issues.  We may not have wound up finally in agreement...but I've always been enriched by the discussion.

There are men, fellow brothers-in-arms on the listserv for senior pastors for the movement I'm a part of who have seriously challenged me over the course of the last seven or eight years.  I value that - I greatly value that.

There are a few specific brothers who have challenged my deeply held views on things - and who I still don't agree with - but who have given me a different perspective on the issues in question and have given me the opportunity to really examine what I believe in a way that I couldn't have if I'd kept drinking my own intellectual bathwater, as it were, only thinking happy thoughts and interacting with peeps who already agree with me.

BTW - the point of debate shouldn't be to win - it should be to learn.  My opinions have shifted on things over the years as a result of this sort of true dialog, by discovering that my positions were weak and needed to be amended or discarded.  I am thankful for the brothers and sisters who have loved me enough not to leave me in my ignorance, but have challenged me to think.

All that being said: though I believe in the strongest possible terms that the richness of the diversity of the greater Body of Christ is a good thing, and that there is great value in listening to voices other than your own...it's also important to point out that I'm not suggesting that we all gather 'round in a great big group hug, sing kumbaya, forget about our real differences and just be happy-shiny-people-holding-hands.

Though you might be my brother, if we disagree on an important enough secondary issue significantly enough, I'm going to point that out.

And I fully expect you to do the same to me.

That doesn't mean we don't like each other and that we'll send some icky stuff through the mail to one another at Christmastide.  It means simply that we disagree on an issue that's important enough to contend over, while acknowledging the legitimacy of each other's place in the overall, greater Kingdom.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

A f'rinstance:

Rick "Syria's A Great Nation!" Warren is the big bad boy of the moment.  Personally - I don't care about Rick Warren.  I don't think Rick is the antichrist, I don't think he eats his young, I don't think he has the Number of the Beast tattooed to his forehead, hand, or nether region.  Do I think he's unwise in his associations?  Yep.  Do I think he's uncomfortably ecumenical?  Oh, yeah.  Do I think he's a pragmatist?  ...marginally, yes.  On some points.  Do I want to smack him upside his head and hopefully help some of those synapses to start firing in proper sequence so he never makes that egregious statement about Syria being a "great nation!" with "great support for human rights!" again?  Oh, you  betcha.  But do I think he's a brother - unequivocally.  Therefore, he will ultimately stand or fall before his own master, not me.

But, I reserve the right to point out where he & I disagree.  That has nothing to do with whether or not he's saved; it has everything to do with areas of disagreement between brothers that are sharp enough to warrant comment.

And no - it's not "nit-picky" to point out areas of disagreement over important-albeit-secondary doctrines.  And no, it's not an attack, so don't get your underbritches all in a bunch and go pout in a corner, rocking yourself into oblivion and wishing with all the fervency of your heart that nobody would ever disagree with you - or one of your friends - again.

Let's all take a deep breath and make that last little leap beyond puberty into adulthood: disagreement is not division.  Disagreement does not mean one person is saying, "me, Christian; you, unregenerate heathen pig-dog."  Disagreement is...disagreement.  And facing that disagreement is the best thing we can do to promote the health of the body - not to ignore it.  But name it, look at it, examine it, discuss it, and learn from it...and then move on.

All those marvelous creeds of the church arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

All the great theological terms we use on a daily basis, like Trinity, arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate and the need to further define what we mean when we say what we say.  And we are indescribably enriched by it.

The very face of diversity in the Church Universal arose out of environments of intense disagreement and debate.  The friction between the Roman Patriarch and the other Four, eventually culminated in the great Schism which apparently sundered the visible church into Eastern and Western communions - and which, ultimately, permitted greater expression and theological development, along with all the real garbage on both sides of the divide which were also attendant thereunto.

Then the disagreements within and without the Western Church gave us the Waldenses, and the Cathari, and the Hussites...eventually, a German priest nailed ninety-five points of contention with the institutional church of the time, and sparked the greatest controversy, the greatest debate in church history, the effects of which echo loudly down through the ages to me sitting here at my laptop plunking this out; I am in many ways one of his spiritual scions, given that I am Protestant.

And afterward; the disagreements between Luther and Zwingli over the Latin phrase, hoc est corpus Meum ("this is My body") helped formulate the Reformed view of the Eucharist...the disagreements on specific points of doctrine between Luther and Calvin shaped Protestantism for all proceeding centuries.  Between the Calvinists on the Continent and the British Isles.  Between the English state church and the Puritans. Between the Dutch Reformed and the Remonstrants.  Between Darby and...everybody who wasn't Darby.  The Pentecostal Revival. The great Fundamentalist-Modernist debates. The divisions in early Pentecostalism that led to the formation of the several Pentecostal denominations, including the Church of the Foursquare Gospel.  The discontent that Chuck Smith had with the Foursquare Church which led, ultimately, to his assuming the pulpit of a small, 25-member nondenominational church in Costa Mesa, California, in the mid-60's...which led, through a winding and exceedingly round-about way, to the planting of Calvary Chapel on the Lakeshore here on the glorious West Coast of Michigan.

I could go on; I could cite the disagreement between Chuck Smith and John Wimber which eventually led to the formation of a new expression of the Body - the Vineyard movement.  And who doesn't love Vineyard worship music? Again - through disagreement and debate, though there was pain, though the differences themselves remain unresolved...the greater Body of Christ is yet again enriched.

I love the Body of Christ - in all her messy, often cacaphonous glory.  I love the deep richness of her expression; I love the wild wonder of the fulness of her song.

And I also love the truth.  And so, even while rejoicing in the differences, I recognize - we can't all be right.  And so, I test and weigh and examine the differences - I debate.  I affirm a brother's place in the Kingdom - while also reserving the right (indeed: the duty) to point out those areas of disagreement and hopefully provoke discussion about them.

It is not in the least bit inconsistent to affirm the brotherhood of someone I am at practical or theological odds with on non-essentials of the faith, while at the same time pointing out those points of contention and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.

I don't have to agree with someone to like them.

Thank God we're not in Junior High anymore.

Open Letter to the Growthinistas, Pt. 1.9375

Yes, it's "Part 1.9375."  I'm still working on "Part 2."

About a year ago, at the recommendation of a brother-in-arms who I love, like, and respect...and very, very rarely agree with, I signed up for a newsletter for "Church Leaders" to glean insight into...how to lead the church.

Over the course of the intervening year, I've grown increasingly saddened by what I've read.

The dude whose newsletter this happens to be is very highly regarded in Growthinista circles - entirely because his church exploded from just a few families to well over a thousand in a short period of time in New York City - which, as the story goes, is an extremely difficult place to plant churches, I'm told.

And since the be-all-end-all for Growthinistas is results...the gentleman in question is regarded as being nigh unto a demigod in those circles.

The content of the newsletter (which I had initially hoped would have contained insightful, helpful nuggets for this whole "pastoring a church" thing) turned out to be a semi-regular infomercial-in-print hawking his materials...and that's pretty much it.

Correction: that is it.  The "newsletters" contain absolutely nothing else.

And when it comes to the work of shaking down the pastors who fawn over this gentleman's results and shell out some pretty decent coin to buy his materials which are "guaranteed to grow your church (TM)!!!", the newsletters are, by all indications, very effective tools.

I received the latest "newsletter" yesterday...and it just blew my mind.

Dear Pastor,

I'm writing to invite you to be part of my new Tele-Coaching Network for Senior Pastors that starts August 28.  This is the only Tele-Coaching Network I plan to lead until 2010.  I hope you'll consider applying.

As you may have guessed, this new Tele-Coaching Network is based on the same principles I have used to successfully coach 300+ other pastors through in person networks here in New York City or in Phoenix, Southern California, Atlanta or Tampa. 

In fact, the primary reason I'm offering this new Tele-coaching network is because of the long waiting list for my in person networks. 

And don't forget, with this Tele-Coaching Network, you will save thousands of dollars in airfare, hotel, rental car and time away from the office costs.

I'll admit that this network is not for everyone and the truth is, I cannot accept everyone who applies. 

But this is the perfect coaching network for those pastors with a desire to see their church grow and who are willing to invest the time and energy to cooperate with God in seeing it happen.

I can guarantee that if you apply and are accepted, this network will be more than worth your time and investment (in fact, I'm offering a complete money back guarantee - something I've never done for any regular coaching network).

** Please keep reading for even more info, but if you are ready to apply now, just click here:

{{url to the signup for the "tele-coaching"}}

I hope you'll be part of this one of a kind opportunity.

N.  {{dude signed his name here}}

Yeesh.

Take out the scant, seemingly after-thoughtish reference to God, and this sure does sound like one of the slickest, hard-sell marketing letters one would expect from one of those awfully-full-of-himself "personal life coach motivational speaker types that were real popular in the '90's.

Oh, but it gets worse... Just in case the veiled threat of not being able to get to cash into this incredibly awesome opportunity to Grow Your Church!!! didn't motivate you to pour out your oblation at the altar of Church Growth buy in and sign up, he goes on with a mini-FAQ:

WHY SHOULD I CONSIDER THIS NETWORK?
Here's a powerful question for you: What could you do over the next year that would more dramatically impact the growth of your church and your personal growth as a leader better than this network? 

Imagine for a moment, what if you church could double over the next year and so could your personal effectiveness?  What if you could consistently get everything done at the office, manage your staff well, see consistent growth and still get home on time for dinner and family fun each night?  What would your life and church look like one year from now if your church grew by 25% and your effectiveness increased by 50%?    I can't promise these results but I can say that they are typical of results I've seen in hundreds of pastors over the last five years.

I would venture to say that there is no conference or set of conferences in the world, nor is there a process offered by any other organization or denomination that is as proven as this coaching process.

I'm not teaching you theory or stuff that I've only read about.  I'm coaching you as a fellow practitioner who is in the trenches day after day leading a growing church in one of the most difficult cities in the world.  In addition, the coaching process that I will lead you through is a proven process that has been effective with over 300 churches from 17 denominations from all over the nation.

** Please keep reading for even more info, but if you are ready to apply now, just click here:

{{again with the url to the signup for the "tele-coaching"}}

...in fact, that ** Please keep reading for even more info, but if you are ready to apply now, just click here: link was liberally sprinkled throughout the "newsletter".  Very effective fleecing technique marketing.

Oh, but wait...there's more...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY TELE-COACHING?
Instead of you flying to my office in New York City or any other location where I'm doing an in person coaching network, you will participate in this coaching network via your telephone and your computer.

Think about it, you will experience the same network experience that others have experienced while SAVING THOUSANDS of dollars in travel costs and SAVING DOZENS OF HOURS on cross-country flights.

WHAT WILL I RECEIVE AS PART OF THIS NETWORK?
The short answer... I will share every church growth and personal development principle I know and give you every resource I've developed to help you implement each principle.  Don't worry, it will not be overwhelming... everything will be delivered in a mangeable bits over the course of the year.

All that said, here's the official list of all that you receive:

* Monthly hands-on coaching from {{Growthinista über-guru put his name here}}.

* A proven coaching process that leads to growth and health.

* Over $1400.00 in FREE resources from {{dude's church growth consulting business}} PLUS special discounts on any new resources.

* Unlimited email access to {{again with the dude's name}} and the {{church growth consulting business}} team.

* A monthly coaching environment where everyone is focused on a Kingdom agenda.

* MP3s of each session for your review.  NOTE: Even if you miss the exact date, you can listen to the network at your leisure.

* FREE attendance at all live or web {{church growth consulting business}} training events during your network (up to $1750.00 value).

* Private 'call-in' times with {{dude's name}} to have your specific questions answered in more detail.

* A private day-long meeting with {{dude's name}}, exclusively for tele-coaching participants (location to be determined, a $2100 value).

* The chance to grow and take your church to the next level

* Plus much, much more

As you can see, just the tangible benefits you will receive as part of this network will far out weigh you monthly financial investment.

** Please keep reading for even more info, but if you are ready to apply now, just click here:

{{again with the url to the signup for the "tele-coaching"}}

Dude! I'm so ready to sign up right no-----ow!  ...thanks, Matt, for slapping me upside the head, thereby breaking the trance. I was just about to drink the Kool-Aid...you saved me, bro...

But in case you thought we had thankfully come to the end of this marketing pitch, it unbelievably goes on:

HOW LONG DOES THE NETWORK LAST?
Each phone call is two hours long and we will meet monthly for one year.  This is a big commitment but I want to make sure that we fully cover all 8 Church Systems and each of the 9 Growth Barriers I've outlined in my resources. 

You will complete the network with a library worth of church growth materials and personal development insights.  Dare I say that this network is the equivalent of a doctorate in church leadership but I'll teach you the practical, will work tomorrow stuff they don't teach in seminary!

WHAT WILL WE COVER?
We will cover each of my eight systems of a healthy church plus issues related to personal development, time management and growth barriers.  As a reminder, the eight systems are:

Worship Planning - 'How we plan, execute and evaluate the weekend service(s) at our church'

Evangelism - 'How we attract unchurched people to our church and mobilize our people for evangelism'

Assimilation - 'How we move people from first time guests to fully engaged members at our church'

Small Groups - 'How we fill and reproduce small groups at our church."

Stewardship - 'How we develop extravagant givers at our church.'

Ministry/Volunteers - 'How we mobilize people for significant ministry at our church.'

Leadership - 'How we develop leaders at all levels at our church.'

Strategy - 'How we constantly evaluate and improve our church'

WHAT ARE THE DATES AND TIMES OF THE CALLS?
{{gives the dates & times}}

WHAT IF I CAN'T MAKE ALL THE DATES?
I strongly encourage you to make every date a priority but I also know that ministry is messy and uncertain so I will record every session and you will receive the complete MP3's of each session within a day or two of meeting.  If you attend, the MP3 is for your library and for your review.  If you are unable to attend, you will still be able to gain the full experience.

TELL ME ABOUT THE GUARANTEE YOU MENTIONED?
As I mentioned earlier, this network is not for everyone but if you choose to apply and you are accepted, I would like to offer you a no-hassle, no questions asked guarantee.  Here it is:  I'm so confident that you will find this Network beneficial that any time prior to the fourth monthly meeting (November 13) you can call my office and tell me that this network isn't benefiting your church or your leadership ability and I will refund everything you have invested, including any long distance costs you might have incurred.  Plus, you can keep any of the resources, MP3s or seminar materials that you have received to date.

In other words, I want to remove any fear you might have in joining this network.  You can try it for three months with absolutely NO RISK!

WHAT IS THE FINANCIAL INVESTMENT?
I have tried to keep the monthly investment in this network as low as possible.  But remember, you are receiving thousands of dollars of resources, free passes to my seminars, email support and private consulting.  At the same time, you are saving thousands of dollars in hotel, flight costs, rental car expenses, gas, etc.  That said, the monthly investment is $195 per month.  Once you are accepted, your credit card will be charged for the first two months.

** Please keep reading for even more info, but if you are ready to apply now, just click here:

{{again with the url to the signup for the "tele-coaching"}}

Wow! Only $195/month, two months in advance! Such a deal!

I get the impression that dude takes himself more than a bit too seriously, eh...?

And yes, if you've been paying attention to the pattern, you know by now that this ain't over quite yet...:

WHAT WILL WE DO EACH MONTH?
In addition to the monthly call, you will be assigned to read or listen to one of my resources plus another book (generally, a business book with clear application to ministry).  While the network will stretch you to grow, study and read, it will not be overwhelming.  I'll help you prioritize so you can get the most from the network.

At the same time, there will be opportunities for you to share your ideas and learning's from the network plus you'll be able to submit prayer requests and ask questions to me and everyone else in the network.

WHAT HAVE BEEN THE RESULTS OF PAST NETWORKS?
While I certainly can't guarantee that our network will in any way produce the same fruit as previous networks, I can share what I've seen God do in the past!  I've seen:

*Churches that have been declining for years to start growing *Churches double in a year *Churches set baptism or evangelism records *Pastors become so effective that they never miss a day off again *Pastors wives write me letters and emails thanking me for helping their husband

I could keep going but let me allow some of my coaching alumni pastors to share their results:

I began this network two and a half months after launching a new church, with great uncertainty about taking the time away and spending the money.  Six months later, I would do it again every time.  I have grown as a leader and my church has grown as a direct result of being in this network. - {{"coaching alumni pastor" name here}} 

'Before I decided to attend the coaching network with {{Growthinista über-guru}}, I thought, I'm pastoring a church that runs under 200 and I live in San Diego, CA.  I can't afford to travel across the country.  Let me tell you, the network has been well worth all the time and money I spent!  It has changed me as a leader and it has changed our church.' -   {{"coaching alumni pastor" name here}}

'Our church has survived!  We were a church in 'crisis-mode'- now we are a church with momentum.  We have grown numerically, financially AND evangelistically and spiritually.' -  {{"coaching alumni pastor" name here}}

'I almost didn't do the network because of finances.  It is worth TEN TIMES the cost and I'm coming back again.  The network turned our church attendance around from declining by 5% a quarter to increasing by 5% a quarter.' -  {{"coaching alumni pastor" name here}}

'Listening to the podcasts and seminars on CD is great, but as a pastor I learned through the coaching network what I needed to do to implement and lead these systems.' -  {{"coaching alumni pastor" name here}}

'Really gave me a structure to organize priorities for leading growth. I have seen the principles I learned in this network have a direct, positive impact on my church. Coaching Community gave me more confidence, competency, inspiration. Do it! It is worth exponentially more than the fees! This is church-growing, kingdom-building, powerful, powerful stuff!'  - New pastor at a 25+ year old church

'Better than any leadership conference - and allows you to debrief everything you are learning.  I learned more in this network than any other ministry experience or church conference I've attended.' -  {{"coaching alumni pastor" name here}}

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS NETWORK?
As you've probably heard me say, I believe that God has called me to help 100 church leaders reach 1000 people over the next 10 years.  This is one of the ways I believe God wants to accomplish this vision.  Can you imagine what it would look like for you to grow by 20%, 30% or even 100% or more over the next few years?  This network is not about me, I've struggled long and hard about whether or not I should invest the time in doing it, but I believe God is up to something so I *have* to do it.  I hope you'll join me in what God is doing.

WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS?
{{Growthinista über-guru}} is the Founding and Lead Pastor of {{dude's church}} in New York City.  In its' first 5 years, {{again with the church name}} has grown from one family to over 1100 in weekend attendance, over 500 baptisms and 1300 in small groups!  This groundbreaking church sees the majority of its growth coming from new believers and currently meets in multiple venues across metro NYC, including Manhattan, Jersey City and Brooklyn.  He is the author of 3 books and over 60 church growth resources.  An in demand church growth coach, he has coached almost 200 pastors since 2004, many of which have seen their church double in size and several that have grown from a few hundred to over 1000+ in attendance.  His coaching networks fill up fast and often have long waiting lists.  Prior to coming to NYC, he was the founding director of {{another organization which it turns out is pretty controversial in its own right at the moment - though I admit unnecessarily so}}.

HOW TO I PARTICIPATE?
Please complete the application and return it to my office ASAP.  I am reviewing applications right now and will try to review your application and let you know within two weeks but please bear with me.  We are receiving greater response to this network than any other network I've offered. 

** Apply now by following this link:

{{and, one final time, the url to the signup for the "tele-coaching"}}

Oooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy... So much - so very much to comment on...

I'll just zero in on this - which to me, strikes right at the heart of why this dude concerns me so very, very greatly.

He states:

As you've probably heard me say, I believe that God has called me to help 100 church leaders reach 1000 people over the next 10 years.

My response: Then help them. What's with the massive pricetag?

I could understand this kind of thinking with Word-Faithers like Ken Copeland & crew - the idea that God's blessings are available in purchasable quantities and all that, and that ministry is a means of great gain. But this guy's not part of the Word-Faith Movement; he's (I believe) a theologically orthodox Baptist.

But this really does illustrate the subtle connection between Growthinista philosophy and an almost Tetzelish focus on funds - all in the name of growing the Kingdom, of course.  Unsurprising: the raison d'être of the church, in Growthinista philosophy, ultimately boils down to two indispensable absolutes:

1. Nickels
2. Noses

...and the two are tightly bound together in a strongly symbiotic relationship.

Sigh.

As I ponder this more, my heart sinks more...but at least there's this: whether in pretense or in truth, there are people getting saved through this guy's highly effective and fabulously profitable marketing empire church.

But it still absolutely blows my mind that even some Calvary guys eat this dude's stuff up and still clamor for more.

Argh...

The Taxonomy of the Pastor's Wife

There is no such thing as the office of a pastor's wife.

I want to be clear about that at the outset.

The Bible speaks of the servanthood of the church - elders (of which the pastor is the primus inter pares, the "senior elder"), charged with the spiritual care, protection, and leadership of the flock, and deacons, charged with attending to the material/physical needs of the flock. In both lists of qualifications, the wives of these men are listed, but not in the capacity of the offices themselves.

(Incidentally, in light of much of the ECM's love affair with egalitarianism, the language of the texts in question paints an unassailably complementarian  picture. Fascinating...)

This is important, because all too often when a man is called to vocational ministry, there are often heavy, implicit, contrabiblical expectations placed on his wife.

The pastor's wife is not the assistant pastor.  She is not a "shadow elder." She is not the be-all-do-all of the church. She is, simply and profoundly...the pastor's wife.

Too often, she's made to labor and suffer stoically under the burden of duties and roles that should never have been forced on her to begin with.

The pastor's wife is not automagically the Children's Ministry Director, head of the Women's Ministry, back-up counselor, she-whose-ear-is-to-be-bent by any and all who have a beef or a comment or feedback.  She is not the church de facto cleaning lady, interior decorator, or event planner.

She already has a truly daunting task - being a wife and (if she is so blessed) a mommy.

In our culture, this is often a difficult concept to get across; most people assume that, to get a hearing with the pastor, you first go through his wife. Or - and we've had this happen on more than one occasion since we came here to the Lakeshore - someone has a comment/suggestion/disagreement/complaint, and instead of manning up and coming directly to me, they waylay my lovely and gracious wife. Don't do that - come directly to me. My wife can seem like an easier target than me - but when someone backs her into a corner and starts unloading on her, I become distinctly displeased.

Too often, the pastor's wife is expected to be and to do what God has not Himself called her to be or to do.  And she's judged harshly for it.

If a pastor's wife also feels called to lead Women's Ministry (as mine does), then wonderful - but that's not an automatic calling.  I know of pastors' wives who didn't feel called to that particular ministry, and wisely handed it over to other ladies in the fellowship who did - and I know of others who didn't hand it over, and became very burnt out.

By the way - while I believe firmly in targeted ministries (Women's, Men's, Children's, etc.) it also needs to be pointed out that these are all relatively recent innovations in the church; the Bible itself knows nothing of these things, so they too are not automatic, necessary, sine qua non functions of the local body.  Churches which have these ministries are no more valid than churches which don't.

All that being said...

"Prodigal Jon" has posted a rip-roariously hilarious taxonomy of the Pastor's Wife here that's so good, I'm printing it out and keeping it.

Tee hee hee. Makes me chuckle.

Nate Williams goes to Mars

Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, that is.  For those who may not yet be aware, that's the church that's pastored by Rob "Jesus' Dad Was Larry!" Bell, author of Velvet Elvis and Sex God, and Exhibit A for what's wrong with the EmergENT side of the ECM.

Yes, yes, yes...I know, he's not really Emergent.

Because he says he's not.

...of course, he holds to all the essential elements of the ECM, with the possible exception that he's attractional.

But let's not confuse the issue with facts, eh?

Nate blogs about his experience in two parts:  Part 1, and Part 2.

Ken Copeland's Right

Surprised a bit by the title a bit, are you, eh?

Normally, you'd never catch me agreeing with much of anything by the Wrong Reverend Copeland.  Being a Kenyonite, his theology skirts the edge of Biblical orthodoxy - and often tumbles over the divide into what the good, late Dr. Walter Martin rightly called "the Kingdom of the Cults."  In one of his last two good books, Hank "I'm not a Preterist...I just believe in Preterism" Hanegraaff outlined some of the more egregious, obvious heterodoxies of the luminaries of the Word-Faith Movement, including Copeland.

No, Ken; we're not "little Christs," God isn't the biggest loser in the universe, and Jesus wasn't "born again" in hell - or at any point. You goober.

That being said, Copeland's got every right to be dead wrong; and those who are undiscerning enough to keep shoveling their money at him have every right to be...less than wise.

He has that right because this is still America.  America is still (at least in name) a republic - which means among other things that we are, as the second president of our United States wrote in his Thoughts on Government, a nation "of laws, not of men" - meaning that the law is the supreme and final word, the last resort, the ultimate court of arbitration - not the ephemeral whims of any given ruler or, worse "the people" (the founders, incidentally, feared a true "democracy" worse than they did the tyranny of the King of England; they rightly equated true democracy with its more common term, anarchy).  Even the congress, the judiciary (though they currently forget this of late), and the president himself are subject to and must bow before the law.  "The will of the people" is not the ultimate consideration in a republican government - and trust me, you don't want it to be - the tyranny of the majority is a terrible bus to be thrown under.

Inherent in the idea of republicanism (and by "republican" and "republicanism" I am of course referring to theories of government, not the GOP as a political party, which, along with the Democratic Party, long ago essentially abandoned republicanism as a guiding principle), at least in the American expression of it, is the idea of "separation of powers" - not only between the disparate branches of a particular republican government (ours has three - the executive, legislative, and judiciary, which are at least in theory coequal and sovereign within their respective purviews and which act as checks to each other's power) but also between spheres of authority external to what we today consider "government."

One of the legacies that the Protestant Reformation bequeathed to us is the idea of the separation of spheres of governmental power and authority.  To the Reformers, the State was only one of several distinct sovereignties that one owed fealty to; there was also the individual, the family...and, among others, the church.  Having witnessed what happens when the church gains temporal power and the line between State and Church becomes blurred, and having remembered what happened when the pendulum had earlier rested in its opposite extreme and the State itself reigned unchecked and supreme in totalitarian Rome, the Reformers eventually formulated the idea of a distinction and separation of sovereignties.

R. J. Rushdoony, an admittedly controversial figure in the Reformed side of the church, father of what is now known as "Christian Reconstruction," had this to say in an interview:

We have never had a more top-down culture than for about 1500 years, than since Rome fell. Rome fell because it confused simplicity with efficiency. They simplified the state and centralized more and more as if that were the answer. The more they centralized, the more they destroyed the fabric of society. We are following the Roman pattern. We are centralizing as though that were the answer and we are destroying the pattern of society.

Now as Christians we believe that the basic starting point is the regeneration of man. Then man takes and applies that faith. For Christians the basic government is the self-government of the Christian man. Then the basic governmental unit is the family. This means that every father and mother will be more important in the sight of God than heads of state, because He controls children, property and the future. Then the third is the church as the government, fourth the school as a government, fifth your job governs you, then sixth society governs you with its ideas, beliefs and standards, and seventh, one among many forms of government, is the civil government.

Today, we are implicitly totalitarian. We speak of the state as the government. That's totalitarian. So we have to rid ourselves of such things. The Christian theonomic society will only come about as each man governs himself under God and governs his particular sphere. And only so will we take back government from the state and put it in the hands of Christians.

Laying aside for the moment the many, many areas where I strongly disagree with the late Rushdoony, his sentiments here are absolutely correct.

And the essence of these is enshrined in our nation's founding documents, among other places, in the First Amendment, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is the "establishment clause" which wack-job groups like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State camp on; but it's the second clause in this Amendment which was intended to forever separate the State and the Church.

It's well known that the term "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Instead, it comes from a letter that the third president of the United States wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 guaranteeing them that the government would not - could not, due to the protection afforded by the Constitution - infringe upon their free expression and exercise of religious faith through the "establishing" of a particular denomination to the detriment of others.  In light of the current hostile-to-Christianity climate in our civil government, it's exceedingly instructive to note that the "wall of separation" that Jefferson speaks of was intended to be bi-directional - that not only could the Church not govern the State, but the State had no authority whatsoever to govern the Church.

The two sovereignties were, are, and forever remain wholly distinct.

I'm not sure when that wall began to erode; symptoms of its continued deterioration include the 1954 "Johnson Amendment" to the IRS tax code which, for the first time in American history, put an effective gag order over the mouths of religious workers and declared political speech to be off-limits to them - contrary to the nearly unbroken tradition in our nation going back to the time of the Puritans and before in which the Church - though remaining governmentally separate from the State, nonetheless acted as a necessary and more often than not effective counterbalance to the corruption and excesses to which any secular government naturally tends toward.

Though the Church could not legislate, she could comment on legislation, watching over the magistrates-that-be and thereby act as a moral compass to the mostly amoral activity of civil governance.

It was the pulpits of America which motivated the colonials in our struggle against the King's tyranny; it was the pulpits of America which kept our nation on course during the darkest days of the War for Independence.  And until 1954, it was the pulpits of America which served as the moral stabilizers of our government and citizenry.

But then something happened; the wall which not only prevented the Church from dominating the State, but also which prevented the State from interfering in and dominating the Church, began to crack.

It is now in woeful disrepair.

While the Church has been all but muzzled, able only to speak nice platitudes and hazy generalizations, the State has been very aggressive in its invasion of the Church.

The wall has been long-since breached, and the secular barbarians are rampaging across the sacred landscape.

Which brings me to why the Wrong Reverend Copeland is, at least at this one point, absolutely right.

It seems that RINO Senator Chuck Grassley's decided to forget the separation of powers and initiate an "inquiry" into the practices of several televangelists.

Now, while I in no way want to advance the idea that I am in any way defending the cast of characters being investigated (I emphatically am not), I am very adamantly opposed to some too-big-for-his-britches Senator calling a State-sponsored Inquisition, sticking the State's already-overlarge nose into the affairs of the Church - ANY church.

Or synagogue.

Or mosque.

Or Kingdom Hall.

Or...or...or...

This sets a deadly precedent (or, perhaps better put, continues a deadly precedent) which must be vigorously opposed.

Grassley's putting himself in the position of being able to dictate to a religious group how it is to administrate the funds of that group.  The rightness and wrongness of that group or how it functions is not in question (Copeland's unquestionably a wolf) - the important point to get is that the State now believes it has the right to dictate to a religious group how it is to function.

I can hear the objections:

Dude! Seriously! These nut-jobs are fleecing the flock, living high on the hog, and are taking advantage of tens of thousands of people!

I understand entirely; but, the sheep who willingly fork over their cash to these charlatans are responsible for their own actions (and their own lack of discernment).  The fact that Copeland can exist and even thrive is an indictment on the orthodox churches of America.

Something must be done - but not by the State.

Why?

Because when we cede to the State the power to govern the internal operations of any religious group - whether orthodox or heretical, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Satanist - we set a boulder to rolling downhill, and it's only a matter of time before that boulder smashes into us and destroys us.

Right now, the State's going after dudes we rightly regard as the Bad Guys.  Yay, State.

...but what happens when the State decides that oh, say, teaching on Romans 1 hurts gays, and so any church teaching that, or Leviticus, should be brought up on inquiry, too?

Or what happens when the State decides that a church which supports homeschooling is engaging in political speech...?

Or what happens when the State decides that teaching the Gospel inflicts undue harm to those who don't believe in the Gospel...?

It is the nature of governments to arrogate to themselves more and more power; and once they gain power, they never willingly cede it back.

Again, quoting from our second president:

Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

We are fools if we think otherwise, and if we think the federal government can be tamed, that once it has done our dirty work for us in applying discipline to the heretic, it won't turn the torch of Inquisition on us.

So, I take the shocking, historical step of declaring that I agree with Ken Copeland in so far as his stand against an overreaching federal government is concerned. Not for why he stands against it (I have no doubt that he has much he's trying to hide, and that that's his true motivation for his stand) but rather for the principle behind that stand.

The Wrong Reverend has gone so far as to set up a website in protest against the inquiry.

In his doctrine, he's a complete wack-job.

In this fight, however...Ken Copeland's right.