Megachurches and FFA Attendance (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

Edit...Apparently CNN has the scoop on it.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Megachurch pastor resigns, citing 'moral failing'

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/07/megachurch-pastor-resigns-citing-moral-failing/

Calvary Chapel down here in South Florida, pastor will not say exactly what immoral thing he did but simply he can no longer lead the church. Guess he knew the split was gonna hit the fan soon and wanted to get while the getting' was still good. He wouldn't address the church personally, simply left a letter. had something along the lines of 15,000-20,000 followers.

What are the chances he starts up elsewhere? 98%?

 

[McGarnicle]

Megachurch pastor resigns, citing 'moral failing'http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/07/megachurch-pastor-resigns-citing-moral-failing/

Calvary Chapel down here in South Florida, pastor will not say exactly what immoral thing he did but simply he can no longer lead the church. Guess he knew the split was gonna hit the fan soon and wanted to get while the getting' was still good. He wouldn't address the church personally, simply left a letter. had something along the lines of 15,000-20,000 followers.

Gotta be male hookers.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Megachurch pastor resigns, citing 'moral failing'

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/07/megachurch-pastor-resigns-citing-moral-failing/

Calvary Chapel down here in South Florida, pastor will not say exactly what immoral thing he did but simply he can no longer lead the church. Guess he knew the split was gonna hit the fan soon and wanted to get while the getting' was still good. He wouldn't address the church personally, simply left a letter. had something along the lines of 15,000-20,000 followers.

What are the chances he starts up elsewhere? 98%?

Who knows? He has made money hand over fist for 20+ years doing this, he had a TV weekly to go with the church, honestly I never saw it but it was popular according to the news.

Only megachurch guy I ever see is Joel.

 

[AAABatteries]

Andy Stanley here in Atlanta runs the second largest church in the nation. His membership has exploded over the past decade, and he has satellite churches all over town. He's also one of the most liberal pastors you're likely to encounter. He has stated that it's okay if someone believes that Adam & Eve is just another creation myth, and he's very tolerant of gays. He's despised among the old-school Christian fire & brimstone crowd, but he's getting people to flock to his churches in droves.

Of course it's exploding. Telling people that they can do whatever they want, and God is cool with that....It's probably a very popular and appealing message.

Not aware of him saying that.

Basically, that's exactly what he's saying.

And you've heard him preach how many times?

Zero. In fact, I've never heard of him.

FFA, baby. Never disappoints.

I'm sorry for drawing a conclusion based on your comments. I didn't realize I had to listen to his sermons in order to form an opinion on his teachings.

Check him out on Youtube. He's a gifted preacher.

I've heard a lot of preachers in my lifetime - he's easily the best. My mother used to watch Charles every Sunday and on occasion Andy would preach. It was night and day - Charles was like listening to a theology seminar, Andy was totally genuine and very relatable. I told my mom back then he was better than his dad. I think she thought I was crazy but I think I was proven correct.

 

[mr roboto]

Andy and Charles Stanley are very good teachers.

 

[Jayrok]

The Biblical support for healthy things growing is the model we see in Acts that the church added to their number daily. That is the goal of the church.

It probably didn't hurt that the one couple was killed for holding out on some of the money they were giving to the church from the sale of their own property (Acts 5). Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about it. Maybe you guys could make an example out of one of your church couples who aren't tithing their fair share. You could televise it to all the satelite services as part of a sermon on giving and the early church.

 

[mr roboto]

The Biblical support for healthy things growing is the model we see in Acts that the church added to their number daily. That is the goal of the church.

It probably didn't hurt that the one couple was killed for holding out on some of the money they were giving to the church from the sale of their own property (Acts 5). Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about it. Maybe you guys could make an example out of one of your church couples who aren't tithing their fair share. You could televise it to all the satelite services as part of a sermon on giving and the early church.

To be fair, the church didn't kill them.

 

[Jayrok]

The Biblical support for healthy things growing is the model we see in Acts that the church added to their number daily. That is the goal of the church.

It probably didn't hurt that the one couple was killed for holding out on some of the money they were giving to the church from the sale of their own property (Acts 5). Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about it. Maybe you guys could make an example out of one of your church couples who aren't tithing their fair share. You could televise it to all the satelite services as part of a sermon on giving and the early church.

To be fair, the church didn't kill them.

The fear of God striking one down for not giving enough to the cause would be a powerful reason to collect more tithes I imagine. Why do you reckon church members/believers don't have this type of fear today?

 

[mr roboto]

The Biblical support for healthy things growing is the model we see in Acts that the church added to their number daily. That is the goal of the church.

It probably didn't hurt that the one couple was killed for holding out on some of the money they were giving to the church from the sale of their own property (Acts 5). Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about it. Maybe you guys could make an example out of one of your church couples who aren't tithing their fair share. You could televise it to all the satelite services as part of a sermon on giving and the early church.

To be fair, the church didn't kill them.

The fear of God striking one down for not giving enough to the cause would be a powerful reason to collect more tithes I imagine. Why do you reckon church members/believers don't have this type of fear today?

It wasn't about the amount of giving in that story. It was the dishonesty with which they represented their generosity.

 

[Quez]

In a Mega church it is easier to make a bigger impact on the community. The resources and manpower are much greater. Smaller churches are very good, but they often are just struggling to keep the doors open because of economy of scale.

As far as the evangelism aspect, That is the basis of Christianity. We believe and know that there is a very real Heaven and Hell. We want as many people as possible to be in Heaven with us. (This is the nutshell version) This video actually says it better than I can.

Does your mega church backup traffic on Sundays? The ones around here they have to hire off-duty officers to stop traffic to let people out.

 

[Jayrok]

The Biblical support for healthy things growing is the model we see in Acts that the church added to their number daily. That is the goal of the church.

It probably didn't hurt that the one couple was killed for holding out on some of the money they were giving to the church from the sale of their own property (Acts 5). Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about it. Maybe you guys could make an example out of one of your church couples who aren't tithing their fair share. You could televise it to all the satelite services as part of a sermon on giving and the early church.

To be fair, the church didn't kill them.

The fear of God striking one down for not giving enough to the cause would be a powerful reason to collect more tithes I imagine. Why do you reckon church members/believers don't have this type of fear today?

It wasn't about the amount of giving in that story. It was the dishonesty with which they represented their generosity.

spin on.. generosity is generosity. I'd rather have a man give $30 of his $5,000 instead of none, if that $30 can help those in need. Acts says from time to time those who owned land or houses, sold them and brought the money to the disciples to dispurse to those in need. It doesn't say they were required to sale and give the money. They did it from time to time. Ananias kept a little of the money back, so what? It is deserving of death?

At any rate, you didn't answer the question. Why isn't anyone worried about being struck down anymore?

 

[Clifford]

Sooo Church of the Highlands update...

My friend got two of my other friends to go to some "Men's conference" this weekend at the church. He basically billed it as "guys getting together and having fun, there will be exotic cars, rock climbing wall (!), and a mechanical bull." So basically the same playbook, making it seem like secular fun to draw people in. I was invited as well but cited some bs commitment. I was at the beach and did not feel like getting into a religious argument.

So my two friends had two very different reactions. One friend, who is agnostic, said they got there Friday night and the event was in the church. He walked in and there was praise music playing, people swaying their arms, all that ####. After some brief preaching, they all went out into the parking lot and there was tons of food and aforementioned extreme sports.

The agnostic was really pissed about the whole thing. The other friend, non-church goer and likely agnostic, said he thought it was pretty cool. The next day they all assembled bikes for inner city kids, and the one who liked it went, the other had conflicts.

Neither will be joining the church, which kinda speaks to Pastor's earlier question.

 

[The Commish]

The Biblical support for healthy things growing is the model we see in Acts that the church added to their number daily. That is the goal of the church.

It probably didn't hurt that the one couple was killed for holding out on some of the money they were giving to the church from the sale of their own property (Acts 5). Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about it. Maybe you guys could make an example out of one of your church couples who aren't tithing their fair share. You could televise it to all the satelite services as part of a sermon on giving and the early church.

To be fair, the church didn't kill them.

The fear of God striking one down for not giving enough to the cause would be a powerful reason to collect more tithes I imagine. Why do you reckon church members/believers don't have this type of fear today?

It wasn't about the amount of giving in that story. It was the dishonesty with which they represented their generosity.

spin on.. generosity is generosity. I'd rather have a man give $30 of his $5,000 instead of none, if that $30 can help those in need. Acts says from time to time those who owned land or houses, sold them and brought the money to the disciples to dispurse to those in need. It doesn't say they were required to sale and give the money. They did it from time to time. Ananias kept a little of the money back, so what? It is deserving of death?

At any rate, you didn't answer the question. Why isn't anyone worried about being struck down anymore?

I have to agree with Mr Roboto here. While I agree that "generosity is generosity", simply giving something isn't necessarily being generous. Part of being generous is the motivations/attitude under which you give, which was what that story was about IMO. That story could be changed to one where they gave everything they had away and it wouldn't have changed the point of the story (again...IMO).

 

[mr roboto]

What's your endgame with this Jayrock? I am no defender of large churches, pastors who clearly make lots of money off of tithing and push giving. I am not someone who thinks that the measure of a Christian disciple is how much money they give to their church. I'm just simply stating that in that narrative, the emphasis is on the fact that they try to represent themselves as giving all the proceeds of their land when in fact they held some back.

I don't think modern-day Christians are concerned about being struck dead if they lie about their giving because I don't see that response by God as normative for the ongoing operations of the church. Clearly in Acts it serves as a stark warning of the seriousness of lying to the community on matters of giving and generosity and holding oneself out to be more generous, charitable, or righteous then one is.

 

[Jayrok]

The Biblical support for healthy things growing is the model we see in Acts that the church added to their number daily. That is the goal of the church.

It probably didn't hurt that the one couple was killed for holding out on some of the money they were giving to the church from the sale of their own property (Acts 5). Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about it. Maybe you guys could make an example out of one of your church couples who aren't tithing their fair share. You could televise it to all the satelite services as part of a sermon on giving and the early church.

To be fair, the church didn't kill them.

The fear of God striking one down for not giving enough to the cause would be a powerful reason to collect more tithes I imagine. Why do you reckon church members/believers don't have this type of fear today?

It wasn't about the amount of giving in that story. It was the dishonesty with which they represented their generosity.

spin on.. generosity is generosity. I'd rather have a man give $30 of his $5,000 instead of none, if that $30 can help those in need. Acts says from time to time those who owned land or houses, sold them and brought the money to the disciples to dispurse to those in need. It doesn't say they were required to sale and give the money. They did it from time to time. Ananias kept a little of the money back, so what? It is deserving of death?

At any rate, you didn't answer the question. Why isn't anyone worried about being struck down anymore?

I have to agree with Mr Roboto here. While I agree that "generosity is generosity", simply giving something isn't necessarily being generous. Part of being generous is the motivations/attitude under which you give, which was what that story was about IMO. That story could be changed to one where they gave everything they had away and it wouldn't have changed the point of the story (again...IMO).

Imagine that. This couple didn't have to sell their land or give anything. They chose to. But were killed because they lied about the amount of money collected in the sale? Is this church the first church of the mafia?

Simply giving something isn't being generous? What do you suppose their attitude was when they decided to sell and give to the disciples?

Keep in mind that Acts 4:32 says that all the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

If this couple was a part of the body of believers, then they were of the same heart as the others and were willing to share their possessions they had. So it's difficult to accuse them of selling their property for any reason other than generosity. So we know they are generous, they just lied about the sale price (according to Peter). And the punishment for this is death before the church? yeesh.

 

[mr roboto]

Are you blaming God or the church leaders? Cause God did it.

 

[Jayrok]

What's your endgame with this Jayrock? I am no defender of large churches, pastors who clearly make lots of money off of tithing and push giving. I am not someone who thinks that the measure of a Christian disciple is how much money they give to their church. I'm just simply stating that in that narrative, the emphasis is on the fact that they try to represent themselves as giving all the proceeds of their land when in fact they held some back.

I don't think modern-day Christians are concerned about being struck dead if they lie about their giving because I don't see that response by God as normative for the ongoing operations of the church. Clearly in Acts it serves as a stark warning of the seriousness of lying to the community on matters of giving and generosity and holding oneself out to be more generous, charitable, or righteous then one is.

End game? I was just joshing with the pastor there with a biblical idea that may increase attendance and/or tithing in his church. I don't think you are defending any megachurch or anything like that. I did figure you guys would defend the Bible there though. To me this story is similar to Elisha and the shebears, in that it can be difficult to justify or defend. But it won't keep the many apologists from trying.

I understand what you're saying in the last couple of sentences. If one does something in order to "be seen" and praised in front of the congregation, then they aren't doing it for the right reasons. But is it really a bad thing if someone feeds the hungry even if only for self-promotion? Aren't those hungry still getting fed?

 

[Jayrok]

Are you blaming God or the church leaders? Cause God did it.

Not blaming anyone. Just pointing it out. God works in mysterious ways I guess. Punishment seemed overly harsh there, but who am I to question, I'm not the potter.

 

[The Commish]

Imagine that. This couple didn't have to sell their land or give anything. They chose to. But were killed because they lied about the amount of money collected in the sale? Is this church the first church of the mafia?

Well, the church didn't kill them. God did. Harsh? To us, of course. When I read that passage, I walk away with a lesson on where God sets the bar for our giving to/caring and loving for others.

Simply giving something isn't being generous? What do you suppose their attitude was when they decided to sell and give to the disciples?

I don't know their attitude but clearly God wasn't happy with it. Goes back to my comment above.

Keep in mind that Acts 4:32 says that all the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.

If this couple was a part of the body of believers, then they were of the same heart as the others and were willing to share their possessions they had. So it's difficult to accuse them of selling their property for any reason other than generosity. So we know they are generous, they just lied about the sale price (according to Peter). And the punishment for this is death before the church? yeesh.

We are all members of the body of Christ. I'm not sure this is where I'd apply literal meaning though. While I can be of the same body, that doesn't mean I'm in the same condition as everyone else in the body. All we know is their actions were different than everyone else's. We don't know why. We also know that God wasn't happy with them. We can only guess why.

 

[Jayrok]

All we know is their actions were different than everyone else's. We don't know why. We also know that God wasn't happy with them. We can only guess why.

The man sold his land and gave a portion of the proceeds to the disciples to give to the poor. Isn't that what "sharing" means? They shared their things, he shared his money. If he had given 100% of his proceeds then he wouldn't be "sharing" the money from the sale. He'd be giving it all away. When you share a sandwich with your wife you give her maybe half of it. If you give her all of it then you are no longer sharing the sandwich (maybe the meal from which the sandwich is just a part) because you no longer have any of it.

He sold his land and shared a portion of the proceeds. It appears the major crime came about when the wife lied to Peter about the sale price. Maybe Peter brought down the shebears on them as a warning to the others. Just a guess.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Megas oftentimes (inherently maybe?) overprioritize butts in seats, and in so decide that God isn't doing a good enough job of building his church, and they take that responsibility on themselves. When they do that, they use different means than God has given us. Nowhere in Acts does it say "marketing campaign" or "youth group" or "record label" or "concerts in our 30 million dollar building."

FWIW, I agree with what has been said, that "prioritizing butts in seats" isn't inherently a function of church size. The (relatively) small congregation I attend has plenty of people that believe that attendance at Sunday morning worship service is directly proportional to church "health". I think that's a bad way to look at church size/numbers (I'm including the concept of "growth" in that) for many reasons, including some of the things you mention, proninja.

It behooves me to remember that even Jesus himself had "problems" with getting "butts in the seats". There were people that heard Jesus speak and saw him serve others, including performing miracles, and yet they still rejected who he was and what he ultimately had to offer. It seems to me that if we are truly living and behaving like Christ, we should expect nothing less (more?).

 

[proninja]

Megas oftentimes (inherently maybe?) overprioritize butts in seats, and in so decide that God isn't doing a good enough job of building his church, and they take that responsibility on themselves. When they do that, they use different means than God has given us. Nowhere in Acts does it say "marketing campaign" or "youth group" or "record label" or "concerts in our 30 million dollar building."

FWIW, I agree with what has been said, that "prioritizing butts in seats" isn't inherently a function of church size. The (relatively) small congregation I attend has plenty of people that believe that attendance at Sunday morning worship service is directly proportional to church "health". I think that's a bad way to look at church size/numbers (I'm including the concept of "growth" in that) for many reasons, including some of the things you mention, proninja.

It behooves me to remember that even Jesus himself had "problems" with getting "butts in the seats". There were people that heard Jesus speak and saw him serve others, including performing miracles, and yet they still rejected who he was and what he ultimately had to offer. It seems to me that if we are truly living and behaving like Christ, we should expect nothing less (more?).

Whenever Jesus' following got too big, he either just left or started saying stuff that would make people leave, like this. Jesus clearly didn't have what it took to pastor a megachurch.

Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish.’ Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:25-33 ESV)

Certainly, to be clear, the issues that I have with meagchurches do not in any way mean to say that smaller churches are imperfect or some manner of panacea. Certainly, there are many pastors of small churches who would love to be glorified by being the pastor of a big church. I believe I have said earlier in the thread that if you gave me that level of resources and authority I'm pretty sure I'd screw it up royally.

As far as Ananias and Sapphira, I think that's a pretty harsh warning against people who do good things for their own glory, and what we look at as good can be very bad if done with the wrong attitude or for the wrong reason. Which, tying it back to this subject, should be a shot across the bow to leadership of a megachurch more concerned with attendance and giving numbers than shepherding their people well.