Happy Reformation Day!

Who Gave Himself for Our Sins

An excerpt from Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians
Who gave himself for our sins. - Galatians 1:4

Paul sticks to his theme. He never loses sight of the purpose of his epistle. He does not say, "Who received our works," but "who gave." Gave what? Not gold, or silver, or paschal lambs, or an angel, but Himself. What for? Not for a crown, or a kingdom, or our goodness, but for our sins. These words are like so many thunderclaps of protest from heaven against every kind and type of self-merit. Underscore these words, for they are full of comfort for sore consciences.

How may we obtain remission of our sins? Paul answers: "The man who is named Jesus Christ and the Son of God gave himself for our sins." The heavy artillery of these words explodes papacy, works, merits, superstitions. For if our sins could be removed by our own efforts, what need was there for the Son of God to be given for them? Since Christ was given for our sins it stands to reason that they cannot be put away by our own efforts.

This sentence also defines our sins as great, so great, in fact, that the whole world could not make amends for a single sin. The greatness of the ransom, Christ, the Son of God, indicates this. The vicious character of sin is brought out by the words "who gave himself for our sins." So vicious is sin that only the sacrifice of Christ could atone for sin. When we reflect that the one little word "sin" embraces the whole kingdom of Satan, and that it includes everything that is horrible, we have reason to tremble. But we are careless. We make light of sin. We think that by some little work or merit we can dismiss sin.

This passage, then, bears out the fact that all men are sold under sin. Sin is an exacting despot who can be vanquished by no created power, but by the sovereign power of Jesus Christ alone.
All this is of wonderful comfort to a conscience troubled by the enormity of sin. Sin cannot harm those who believe in Christ, because He has overcome sin by His death. Armed with this conviction, we are enlightened and may pass judgment upon the papists, monks, nuns, priests, Mohammedans, (Arminian) Anabaptists, and all who trust in their own (will &) merits, as wicked and destructive sects that rob God and Christ of the honor that belongs to them alone.

Note especially the pronoun "our" and its significance. You will readily grant that Christ gave Himself for the sins of Peter, Paul, and others who were worthy of such grace. But feeling low, you find it hard to believe that Christ gave Himself for your sins. Our feelings shy at a personal application of the pronoun "our," and we refuse to have anything to do with God until we have made ourselves worthy by good deeds.

This attitude springs from a false conception of sin, the conception that sin is a small matter, easily taken care of by good works; that we must present ourselves unto God with a good conscience; that we must feel no sin before we may feel that Christ was given for our sins.

This attitude is universal and particularly developed in those who consider themselves better than others. Such readily confess that they are frequent sinners, but they regard their sins as of no such importance that they cannot easily be dissolved by some good action, or that they may not appear before the tribunal of Christ and demand the reward of eternal life for their righteousness. Meantime they pretend great humility and acknowledge a certain degree of sinfulness for which they soulfully join in the publican's prayer, "God be merciful to me a sinner." But the real significance and comfort of the words "for our sins" is lost upon them.

The genius of Christianity takes the words of Paul "who gave himself for our sins" as true and efficacious. We are not to look upon our sins as insignificant trifles. On the other hand, we are not to regard them as so terrible that we must despair. Learn to believe that Christ was given, not for picayune and imaginary transgressions, but for mountainous sins; not for one or two, but for all; not for sins that can be discarded, but for sins that are stubbornly ingrained.

Practice this knowledge and fortify yourself against despair, particularly in the last hour, when the memory of past sins assails the conscience. Say with confidence: "Christ, the Son of God, was given not for the righteous, but for sinners. If I had no sin I should not need Christ. No, Satan, you cannot delude me into thinking I am holy. The truth is, I am all sin. My sins are not imaginary transgressions, but sins against the first table, unbelief, doubt, despair, contempt, hatred, ignorance of God, ingratitude towards Him, misuse of His name, neglect of His Word, etc.; and sins against the second table, dishonor of parents, disobedience of government, coveting of another's possessions, etc. Granted that I have not committed murder, adultery, theft, and similar sins in deed, nevertheless I have committed them in the heart, and therefore I am a transgressor of all the commandments of God.
"Because my transgressions are multiplied and my own efforts at self-justification rather a hindrance than a furtherance, therefore Christ the Son of God gave Himself into death for my sins." To believe this is to have eternal life.

Let us equip ourselves against the accusations of Satan with this and similar passages of Holy Scripture. If he says, "Thou shalt be damned," you tell him: "No, for I fly to Christ who gave Himself for my sins. In accusing me of being a damnable sinner, you are cutting your own throat, Satan. You are reminding me of God's fatherly goodness toward me, that He so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In calling me a sinner, Satan, you really comfort me above measure." With such heavenly cunning we are to meet the devil's craft and put from us the memory of sin.

St. Paul also presents a true picture of Christ as the virgin-born Son of God, delivered into death for our sins. To entertain a true conception of Christ is important, for the devil describes Christ as an exacting and cruel judge who condemns and punishes men. Tell him that his definition of Christ is wrong, that Christ has given Himself for our sins, that by His sacrifice He has taken away the sins of the whole world.

Make ample use of this pronoun "our." Be assured that Christ has canceled the sins, not of certain persons only, but your sins. Do not permit yourself to be robbed of this lovely conception of Christ. Christ is no Moses, no law-giver, no tyrant, but the Mediator for sins, the Giver of grace and life.
We know this. Yet in the actual conflict with the devil, when he scares us with the Law, when he frightens us with the very person of the Mediator, when he misquotes the words of Christ, and distorts for us our Savior, we so easily lose sight of our sweet High-Priest.

For this reason I am so anxious for you to gain a true picture of Christ out of the words of Paul "who gave himself for our sins." Obviously, Christ is no judge to condemn us, for He gave Himself for our sins. He does not trample the fallen but raises them. He comforts the broken-hearted. Otherwise Paul should lie when he writes "who gave himself for our sins."

I do not bother my head with speculations about the nature of God. I simply attach myself to the human Christ, and I find joy and peace, and the wisdom of God in Him. These are not new truths. I am repeating what the apostles and all teachers of God have taught long ago. Would to God we could impregnate our hearts with these truths.
---
Martin Luther's entire commentary on Galatians is free for Kindle! You can download it by clicking here.

mmm...bacon!

Oh Martin! thou should'st be living at this hour: Evangelicalism hath need of thee.

9.5 Theses on Martin Luther Against the Self-Indulgences of the Modern Church

 

This is what it sounds like when a classy Brit (Trueman) and a well studied Church History Prof. rips the Seeker-worshiping movement a new bunghole.

 

Article by Carl Trueman  October 2012

 

October is the month in which we typically remember and celebrate the Reformation. While some Protestants have described the Reformation as a tragedy, it would have been a far greater tragedy if it had never happened. Nevertheless, there is in the contemporary evangelical world a tendency to romanticize Luther, to remake him as a modern evangelical. Yes, it is hard for some of us to imagine, but I am sure there are some out there who see Doc Martin as the kind of precursor to those who would think the secret of a successful ministry lies in wearing torn jeans, paying regular visits to the tanning booth and launching an international campaign against librarian-led fashion trends and British dentistry. 

  

So, in honour of the good Doctor and in the cause of saving him from the domesticated historiography of the Beautiful Young Things, here are a series of theses about  the Wittenberger, the cumulative force of which is to prove that in today's evangelical world he would have made a most excellent taxi driver.

Thesis One:  Martin Luther saw church leadership as primarily marked by servanthood. 

 

For Luther, the servant nature of the ministerial calling was not some abstract principle but was part of his everyday practice, linking his understanding of the God who is revealed primarily in the crucified flesh of Christ to the necessary attitude, outlook and expectation of Christ's ministers.The minister, like his Saviour, was to serve the poor and despised and the things that are not. This is why, when his barber, Peter, expressed concern over how difficult he found prayer, Luther went home and wrote him a treatise on prayer. Nor did he forget Peter thereafter.  When the tragic barber killed his brother-in-law in a drunken dare and was sentenced to death, Luther intervened to have the sentence commuted to banishment for life. As busy as he was, Luther never forget whom it was he was meant to be serving.

Thesis Two: Martin Luther understood worship as rooted in repentance.  

Luther did not understand the law-gospel dialectic as providing the basis for antinomianism or as the conceptual underpinnings of a gutless and lopsided view of God as exclusively father.  Rather it expressed the deep, terrifying tragedy of humanity's fallen condition and how only God himself in Christ is the only one strong enough to stand for us; and worship was therefore not some sappy and sentimental emotional response to how God deals with our 'hurting'. In fact, he did not consider the primary problem of sinners that they were hurting. Quite the contrary. Their primary problem was that they were in deliberate rebellion against God and actually enjoying it.   They needed not to be comforted but to be hurt by the law. True life was therefore to be found in a constant death to self and resurrection to God. 

Thus, worship was a constant dramatic reminder of how terrifyingly close we stand to God's judgment and how Christ is the only person who can protect us from the wrath of the storm.   Worship is not thus a frothy celebration; it is much more serious than that, as one can see by its liturgical fruits. Less Kendrick's 'Shine, Jesus, Shine!' and more Bach's 'Saint Matthew's Passion'.

Thesis Three: Martin Luther did not care for the myth of cultural influence nor for the prerequisite cultural swagger necessary to catch the attention of the great and good.  

Luther certainly did catch the attention of the great and the good. But this was not because of his liking for craft brews (though like them he did), his tattoos (no record of those), his love of the arts and music (about which he was privately passionate) or his ability to nuance his way to a place at the mainstream media's table. Rather, it was because he called things as he saw them. He knew that the world really cares nothing for nuance nor for the friendship of the church and that attempts by the church to befriend the world are always disastrous for the former. As those currently attempting to nuance their way through the debate about homosexuality will soon discover, it is only those in positions of social and political weakness who are interested in nuance; those who hold power always live in a black-and-white world where they alone set the rules of the game and they alone enforce them. Luther came to attention not because he mastered the rules of the establishment's game but because he refused to play by them.

Thesis Four: Luther saw suffering as a mark of the true church.  

For Luther, the true church would be culturally despised by the great and good. Indeed, his concept of the theologian of the cross gave theological ballast to a theology that eschewed the methods and criteria of success as the world saw them. In his 1539 work, On the Councils of the Church, Luther saw the cross as one of the seven marks of the healthy church. Suffering and being regarded as scum by the world around were to go with the territory. One wonders today how full many of the megachurches would be if the government added 10 per cent income tax on to those who professed Christianity. Indeed, when some of the flagship behemoths of the new evangelical wave did not even have services last year on Sunday, December 25, because it coincided with Christmas, one wonders what commitment, suffering and sacrifice in such contexts mean, if anything at all.  

Thesis Five: Martin Luther was pastorally sensitive to the cherished practices of older Christians. 

It took Luther five years from advocating for a vernacular liturgy to actually implementing one in Wittenberg. Then, when he wrote his catechisms, he self-consciously used pre-Reformation language to express his new theology. Why? Simply this: he was pastorally sensitive. He knew that his task as servant (see Thesis One) meant that he could not simply impose his will upon the people in a manner which would hurt, damage and distress them. The contemporary cult of youth and innovation would have struck him as utterly wrong-headed and insensitive, a capitulation to the tastes and demands of the very category of people least likely to have anything useful or wise to contribute to how the church should go about her business.  And to those who say that such an attitude would never produce an invitation to appear on television or would alienate the Beautiful Young Things, he would simply have referred them to Thesis Three above.  His first priority was to care for all God's people, not some narrowly defined age group; and, indeed, he deeply feared the harnessing of the energy and enthusiasm of young people to a violently iconoclastic cause. Thus, he returned to Wittenberg in 1522 to put to flight those who were seeking to bring in sweeping reformation.  

Thesis Six: Luther did not agree to differ on matters of importance and thus to make them into practical trivia.  

In 1529, Luther effectively torpedoed an alliance between the Lutheran princes and the Swiss Protestant cantons because of his belief of the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.  To modern evangelical minds that probably seems like lunacy; but as Machen pointed out, it was surely better that he held passionately to a wrong position on a very important topic than that he simply set the Lord's Supper to one side on the grounds that it really did not matter.   Luther did not allow the tastes of his own day nor the urgent need of a broad confederation to lead him to set aside what he was convinced was the teaching of scripture.

Thesis Seven: Luther saw the existence of the ordained ministry as a mark of the church.  

Early in the Reformation, the papal writer Prierias wrote a work attacking Luther's theology. So stupid was Luther, Prierias claimed, that he had written his refutation of him in just three days.  In response, Luther republished the work with a preface written by himself in which he said that he had written his refutation of Prierias in two days. In so doing, Luther demonstrated an instinctive grasp of how the technological innovation of cheap print had changed the rules of the polemical game: burning books was hopeless as a means of controlling knowledge; subversion was so much better. Yet for all his understanding of how important technology was and how crucial it was to be able to use it, he refused to make technocrats a mark of the church.  After the catastrophe of 1525, Luther quickly came to see that ordained ministers, those chosen by the church as exhibiting the moral and pedagogical abilities described by Paul, were the ones to whom the church was entrusted. There is a lesson here for a world like ours, where the Beautiful Young Things with computer savvy can aspire to set the churches' agenda by sheer strength of technological ability. Luther was no Luddite; but he knew that mere media savvy did not mean one should be put in a position of influence.

Thesis Eight: Luther saw the problem of a leadership accountable only to itself

Part of the problem Luther faced at the Reformation was the sheer lack of accountability of the Top Men. The Pope and Cardinals policed themselves and voluntarily answered to no-one. The only means therefore whereby Luther could sometimes make himself heard was by using every rhetorical tool in the box, from satire to hard-hitting polemic. He was fortunate, of course: in those days, there was no aesthetic of personal "pain" and "hurt" which allowed contemporary Christians to sidestep criticism and indeed turn the moral tables on those who criticize them.   The problem of unaccountable and influential leadership in evangelicalism is alive and well.  Oh Martin! thou should'st be living at this hour: Evangelicalism hath need of thee.

Thesis Nine: Luther thought very little of his own literary contribution to Christianity.

Shortly before he died, Luther declared that only his 1525 response to Erasmus, On Bound Choice, and his catechisms were worthy of preservation. If he were alive today, it is very doubtful that he would be running a website devoted primarily to promoting his own books and pamphlets. He would thus be unlikely to make the grade in the modern American evangelical world. Nor would he indulge in such shameless self-promotion by calling it explicitly 'shameless self-promotion', as if the labored attempt at postmodern irony somehow makes the self-serving nature of such venal vanity acceptable. I suspect he would think that it actually makes it worse, adding the sin of 'insulting the reader's intelligence' to the obvious one of 'shameless self-promotion.'   (That last point is probably only worth half a thesis though.  Hence the 9.5.)

The overall impact of these theses: were Doc Martin with us today, he would find no easy place in the evangelical church. In fact, taxi driving might well have been a much better fit.

 

Visit REFORMATION 21 or Search iTunes for more of Carl Trueman

Oh no, say it ain't so! Can I withdraw from the SBC now, please?

"Saint" Rick Warren?!?

We had no idea that Baptists venerated saints. Come to think of it, we had no idea that a Bible twister and false teacher like Rick Warren was considered worthy of such an honor by any self respecting orthodox Christian. But, someone at Southwestern Baptist Seminary apparently thinks "Saint" Rick Warren worthy of a stained glass veneration.

Robbing God's Flock

Heresy is Lucrative Racket for David and Nicole Crank

While the folks attending Faith Church, St. Louis are told to tithe and give sacrificially, David and Nicole Crank are living like royalty with multiple million dollar homes, expensive cars, a yacht, and a Lear jet.

These are the temporal fruits of religious racketeering. The eternal consequence of such theft in the name of God against God's Flock is an eternity in hell. 

(Makes me sick to say I was born in St. Louis- BPH)

    Home #1



Home #2 which is reported as a guest house.

For more information visit I want to be a Billionaire Pastor - LINK!

Thanks Protestant Reformation!

Thanks Protestant Reformation! -  
Roman Catholic Errors Corrected

Salvation by our will and our work

Priest's forced celibacy 

Priest's made mediators between God in Man (instead of Christ)

Worship of Idols, relics, saints, popes and Mary

Prayer to saints instead of to God through Christ

Purgatory

Idea that the Bishop of Rome was somehow more authoritative than other Bishops

Idea that Papal Decrees (Bulls) or Church council were more authoritative than the Bible 

Apocrypha was formally apart of the Bible (and shouldn't have been)

Pilgrimages and Crusades and superstition and penance

Transubstantiation 

The Re-murder of God at every mass (Eucharist)

Communion was weekly medicine (like drugs) for your soul and your priest was the only dealer in town, monopolizing power and authority for themselves instead of serving others

Simony and nepotism

Popes became known for mass adultery and bastard children from whores and concubines

The Roman church became a political and military force instead of a spiritual and religious force

Allowed and encouraged theft, torture, rape and murder of not just Muslims, but also Jews and other Christians (Inquisition, 4th Crusade and execution of Protestants during the Reformation)

Indulgences - buying your way (or your dead friends' and family's way) out of the fires of imaginary Purgatory and straight on into heaven 

And this -
as beautiful as St Peter's is its funded and built on the lies and heresies of Indulgences and Purgatory and was merely a way for the Pope to Steal from the Poor and Biblically ignorant peasants throughout Roman Europe and collect it and use it himself

Deconstructing the Deconstructionist tactics

Deconstructing the Deconstructionist tactics of the Heretical Emergent Church

With this gem of from NY Beat poet (Emergent’s love artsy fartsy stuff) Taylor Mali

Poem – “Totally like whatever, you know?”

In case you hadn't noticed,
it has somehow become uncool
to sound like you know what you're talking about?
Or believe strongly in what you're saying?
Invisible question marks and parenthetical (you know?)'s
have been attaching themselves to the ends of our sentences?
Even when those sentences aren't, like, questions? You know?

Declarative sentences — so-called
because they used to, like, DECLARE things to be True
as opposed to other things which were, like, not -
have been infected by a totally hip
and tragically cool interrogative tone? You know?
Like, don't think I'm uncool just because I've noticed this;
this is just like the word on the street, you know?
It's like what I've heard?
I have nothing personally invested in my own opinions, okay?
I'm just inviting you to join me in my uncertainty?

(This line defines the Emergent Church movement)

What has happened to our conviction?
Where are the limbs out on which we once walked?
Have they been, like, chopped down
with the rest of the rain forest?
Or do we have, like, nothing to say?
Has society become so, like, totally...
I mean absolutely... You know?
That we've just gotten to the point where it's just, like...
whatever! (This is the Theology of the Emergent Church)

And so actually our disarticulation... ness
is just a clever sort of... thing
to disguise the fact that we've become
the most aggressively inarticulate generation
to come along since...
you know, a long, long time ago!

I entreat you, I implore you, I exhort you,
I challenge you: To speak with conviction.
To say what you believe in a manner that bespeaks
the determination with which you believe it.
Because contrary to the wisdom of the bumper sticker,
it is not enough these days to simply QUESTION AUTHORITY.
You have to speak with it, too.

© Taylor Mali 2005

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN ITS TIME TO LEAVE?

VIDEO LINK!

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN ITS TIME TO LEAVE YOUR PURPOSE-DRIVEN,
SEEKER-WORSHIPING MEGACHURCH ? CLICK THE LINK ABOVE.

"Culps Money Medley

Stevens Creek "Church" needs money money money and more money so the Culps made a special appearance to prime the pumps and help get the money flowing."

I watched SNL (back when it was good or better at least) so I get the skit.

But the fact is the model for these (Reich Warren) churches is based off of living and spending outside of your means, they don't just need your $$$$ for their next building, they will always be in campaign mode and always need your $$$$ for their next whatever.

Remember when Roman Catholics were strong on the issue of murder?

No Communion for Biden in Colorado Springs

I am often critical of the lack of discipline exerted by the Roman Catholic church on it's members who advocate for abortion.

Credit must be given for the consistent leadership of Bishop (of Colorado Springs) Michael Sheridan who, in a recent interview with columnist Daniel Cole, expressed his opposition to pro-abortion Vice President Biden, a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Here's a snippet-

Cole asked Bishop Sheridan: “If Vice President Joe Biden, who is Catholic, were to swing through Colorado Springs on a campaign tour and attend your Mass, would you deny him Communion?” 

Replied Sheridan, “He should know, and I would do everything I could do to make sure that he knows, he ought not to be receiving Communion.”

Sheridan has been a strong, consistent, Bishop on the matter of life.  A few years back he wrote publicly in his diocese-

Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

(Remember these are Roman Catholic comments - Christians on the other hand know Salvation is a gift of God and not the results of your works including your stance for or against the murder of very short Americans)

3rd Reich Warren steals his ideals from Communism!

 +

=

Purpose Driven Life 

@@@@

The brashness of Godless Heretic Rick Warren Amazes me!

On the 10th anniversary of the Apostasy of the American Church (aka the Publication of The Purpose Driven Life) Rick Warren says THE ultimate reason why Saddleback was launched into the spotlight and stardom of mega church success (and THE way to explode your church) was due to 1 thing. 

What do you think Rick Warren said? 

Yahweh? Nope. 

The Holy Spirit? Nope.

Jesus? Nope. 

Biblical Preaching? Nope.

Calling Sinners to repentance and proclaiming the forgiveness of sins on 

account of Christ's work on the cross? Nope. 

So what was it? Annual Campaigns 

(you know like 40 days of this blasphemy, or 40 days of that false teaching) 

And where does Rick Warren himself admit the idea for these Annual Campaigns come from?  

Scripture? Nope.

April 2011 - Rick Warren, "I actually learned the idea of the campaign from the Communists." 

He stole the idea that reshaped the American Evangelical landscape (for the worst) by stealing the idea from the Book Dedication & Leadership - from the head of the 50's Communist Party in England!

From AMAZON -

In Dedication and Leadership, Hyde advances the theory that although the goals and aims of Communism are antithetical to human dignity and the rights of the individual, there is much to be learned from communist methods, cadres and psychological motivation. Hyde describes the Communist mechanics of instilling dedication, the first prerequisite for leadership. Here is the complete rationale of party technique: how to stimulate the willingness to sacrifice; the advisibility of making big demands to insure a big response; the inspirational indoctrination; and the subtle conversion methods. (If you know Rick Warren or read Rick Warren then you'll know this describes his Bible-twisting methods to a tee.)

So if you think that your church just isn't Communist enough then push your pastor to follow Rick Warren's 40 days to Deconstructing the Church process.

also read my earlier post from

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Reich Warren says Don't Shepard - Fuhrer!

Debunking Seeker Driven Apostacy

For Whom Do Pastors Exist?

If I had ten dollars for every time I've heard a seeker-driven pastor justify the crazy antics that happen in their churches by claiming that "the church doesn't exist for believers", I'd be able to purchase James MacDonald's home with cash. These seeker-driven antics include such things as playing AC/DC's Highway to Hell to open their Easter service, refusing to preach the Bible with any depth or accuracy, performing Michael Jackson's Thriller, recreating the famous kiss scene from the Spiderman movie and a whole host of other crazy worldly stunts.
When you call these pastors out on their antics their responses are predictable and consistent and usually go something like this:

Example 1 Church Attender: Hey pastor, why don't you ever preach exegetical sermons? I feel like I'm not being fed here because your sermons usually only contain 3 or 4 verses taken out of context in order to teach some relevant life principle.

Pastor: Why are you so selfish? The church doesn't exist for you. It's not about you.

Example 2 Church Attender: Hey pastor, why did you have the worship team begin our Easter service with AC/DC's Highway to Hell rather than a song proclaiming Jesus' victorious resurrection from the grave? AC/DC is worldly at best and satanic at worst and that blasphemous song should not be brought into God's house.
Pastor: Why are you so selfish? The church doesn't exist for you. It's not about you. Church isn't for the already convinced its for the not yet convinced.

Example 3 Church Attender: Hey pastor, why are you preaching about movies rather than preaching God's Word like 2 Tim 4:1-3 commands?
Pastor: Why are you so selfish? The church doesn't exist for you. It's not about you. Our church exists for people who are not yet believers.

Notice that each time the pastor answers using the standard seeker-driven talking point and doesn't answer the question but makes a blanket claim that the church doesn't exist for believers and therefore the person asking the question is guilty of selfishly believing that the church exists for them.
Anyone who's been railroaded by these tactics knows that something is way off about these claims being made by seeker-driven pastors but don't exactly know how to put their finger on the problem or know how to put it into words. This post will help you do that.
Notice that every time the word pastor has appeared, thus far, in this post that I've bolded it and underlined it. That is to help you spot the irony of the statements being made by seeker-driven pastors and that irony will help you identify the underlying error in their tactics and methodologies.
Here's the irony...No where in scripture does it say that the church exists for unbelievers. BUT, there are clear passages that state that pastors and elders are to serve the church. Therefore, it is ironic and foolish for a pastor, whose job is to serve the church to justify methods that don't serve Christians by claiming that the church doesn't exist for believers.
Here are the key passages that address this topic. We'll begin by first looking at the passages that discuss spiritual gifts. The reason for this is that the ability to teach God's word is a gift given by the Holy Spirit to certain people within the body of Christ.
The Purpose of Spiritual Gifts is to Build Up the Church Not The World
The Bible teaches that God, The Holy Spirit gives different gifts to different believers for the building up of the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:4–7). Teaching is one of the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to pastors and this gift is to be used specifically for believers.
Ephesians 4:8–13 states this very clearly:

“(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,”

In clear and unambiguous language God states that shepherds (pastors) and teachers in the church exist to equip the saints (not unbelievers) and to build up the body of Christ (not the world). This is clear and irrefutable.

Those Who Have the Gift To Teach Are Commanded to Feed Christ's Sheep by Teaching the Word of God
The duties of shepherds and teachers within the church are governed by the instructions given by Jesus Christ.

“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:15–17)

Notice that in this passage Jesus doesn't tell Peter to entertain goats or dazzle the world. Instead, Christ soberly and firmly reinstates Peter after he'd denied Jesus three times. And Peter was reinstated into ministry and that ministry was to shepherd and feed Christ's sheep. These commands by Jesus to Peter stuck with him his entire life. Peter himself would later exhort elders (pastors) with these words:

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.” (1 Peter 5:1–4)

It's clear from these passages that pastors are not literal shepherds and that Christians are not literal sheep. All of these images are metaphors that help create a mental picture of the difficult and sacrificial work of pastors. So, when Jesus told Peter to "feed my sheep" what was Jesus referring to? What does a Pastor feed Christ's sheep with?
The answer is simple, the Word of God, and two passages will suffice in demonstrating this fact:

“[Jesus] answered, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 3:14–4:4)

No commentary is needed for these verses because they clearly teach that God's Word is 'sheep food' and that pastors are to be feeding it to Christ's sheep.

The Bottom Line
The next time you hear a seeker-driven pastor attempt justify his shallow sermons and entertainment driven stunts by claiming that "the church doesn't exist for believers", kindly inform him that regardless of who the church exists for, his job exists to serve believers and Christ's sheep and that if he won't do his job that he's rebelling against Jesus Christ Himself.

Dont be so easily pleased with the things of this world

The opening lines of C. S. Lewis’s address, “The Weight of Glory,” have been, I suppose, quoted and repeated and discussed many times since they were first spoken and then published.  It seems to me that they are worth repeating again, since there are those who have never encountered them, and therefore have not considered what is being said in them.  Without further ado, here they are:

If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness.  But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love.  You see what has happened?  A negative term has been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance.  The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point.  I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love.  The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself.  We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire.
If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith.  Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak.  We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea.  We are far too easily pleased.

A Vote for a Democrat is more than 3 times worst than voting to keep Hitler in office!

How many people did the Nazis kill?

Answer:

The Nazis wiped out over 16,315,000 not all of these people were Jews.

The Nazi's killed over 11 million Jews, 'gypsies', disabled, Poles, Soviet civilians, homosexuals, Communists. If you add in the 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war killed in German camps the total is much higher.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_did_the_Nazis_kill#ixzz29kuF7Zmq

 

How many abortions have been performed in the US since Roe v Wade?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Over 55 million. (That includes residual cost). I think in 2007 the number of actual abortions in the US were around 34 million. And with several million performed per year the number would be higher today.

The residual cost of abortion includes those lives that would exist if the babies had not been aborted. Because those lives would have gone on to have children of their own. Abortion has been legal for so long now that we are into the next generation of lives. Those lives are often not accounted for by pro-abortionists. Nor is there cost and effect on society or even the economy.

 

@@@@

Answer:

Abortion statistics are never specific, as the procedure is protected under the right to privacy laws.

However, it has been estimated that 3,000 are done daily. If you multiply that by the number of years that abortion has been legal, you get a large number. If you're curious, I guess you could multiply 3,000 x (years abortions has been legal) x 365 (to show the days in those years) + 3,000 x a few days (for Leap Days).

If you're not satisfied with this answer (I'm not), check this out. The Alan Gutmacher Institute, a leading proponent of abortion on demand, claims that there have been more than 50 million abortions in the U.S. since Roe Vs. Wade.

 

@@@

Answer:

Around 45 million.

 

A Vote for a Democrat is more than 3 times worst than voting to keep Hitler in office!

UWE SIEMON-NETTO vs. Intrinsic Evil

Trivializing Evil is a GOP Mistake

By UWE SIEMON-NETTO

It is disconcerting that probably the most compelling statement made in this year’s disagreeable U.S. election campaign has received virtually no public attention.

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield in Illinois warned Catholic voters of planks in the Democratic Party Platform “that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils.” He meant abortion and same-sex marriage.

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois

Bishop Paprocki went on, “[A] vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your soul in serious jeopardy.”

This reference to the intrinsic and thus genuine nature of these evils should be a terrifying warning to every Christian and all people affirming the universal moral code called natural law. It should give pause to Republican strategists and conservative pundits who decided that in this year’s race economic issues trump everything, including the paramount concern over the sanctity of life.

It should pipe down the brash Anne Coulter who in a Fox talk show called Rep. Todd Aikin a “swine” because of his refusal to resign his candidacy for the Senate after breaking a 2012 GOP taboo with a clumsy statement; the taboo was abortion, a topic not to be mentioned lest even the last single woman vote for Barack Obama on Nov. 6.

The moral flaw of the stereotypical dictum that the economy supersedes the destruction of 55 million unborn babies since Roe v. Wade in 1973 becomes even clearer when I use an analogy which I know will get me into trouble: the reasoning of these GOP strategists reminds me of Germans who said after World War II: “Well, it was of course wrong of Hitler to kill all those Jews, gypsies and handicapped, but he did do good things, too, didn’t he? He was good for the German economy. He built autobahns and created jobs.” (Thanks to Hitler we now have the auto company VW,)

To be clear: I am not questioning the importance of the state of the economy in this campaign, but to deem it more important than the mindless daily slaughter of the innocent is tantamount to making light of an ongoing genocide.

Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines the adjective, “intrinsic,” as “belonging to the real nature of a thing, not dependent on external circumstances.” Something intrinsically evil will not go away when you attempt to camouflage it with verbal dishonesty. The otherwise laudable Wall Street Journal, the commentators on Fox News, and assorted GOP spokesmen with the notable exception of the brave Sen. Rick Santorum and New Gingrich are consistently trivializing abortion as a “social issue.”

In my old-fashioned understanding, social issues, are the conundrums of whether you wear a dinner jacket or tails to a ball, or whether a worker is given two, three or four weeks of annual vacation. Abortion is something wholly other. In his book, Ethics, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the Lutheran theologian martyred by the Nazis and admired by many American liberals, wrote this about abortion:

“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”

I am not a U.S. citizen and must therefore refrain from opining publicly on political issues of another nation, except when it involves intrinsic evils because these transcend national borders; they must be by definition everybody’s concern, as were the intrinsic evils of the Nazi and Communist regimes. That said, even common sense should tell us how unwise it is to sideline, for the sake of short-lived electoral gain, the annual slaughter of 1.2 million unborn or to elevate deviate sexual behavior to the level of matrimony.

If I read this year’s polls correctly, the Republicans are having problems with Latino voters, even though this predominantly Catholic or evangelical segment of the population holds moral values identical to those of white conservatives. Whether these conservatives have treated Hispanic immigrants wisely and well should be the topic of another story. But to tell a family-oriented people that the nation’s paramount ethical issue is of secondary importance amounts to inviting these voters to join the other side: What qualitative difference is there between affirming the culture of death and remaining indifferent to it? The Republican campaign  appears to confront the immorality inherent in the Democratic Platform with an amoral strategy; I fail to see any blessing in this.

Then there is the matter of the unwed women against whom the GOP is alleged to conduct a “war.” If the GOP had any guts it would challenge the ditsy mindset that seems to be prevalent among these females. I would ask them: “Do you really wish to define yourselves as women by your ‘right’ to kill your children? Don’t you recognize the frightening light the ‘war on women’ rhetoric sheds on all of you? Are you sure you want to take part in a war on babies?”

Punchy questions like these might not persuade the most stubborn devotees of the culture of death but perhaps shock enough unmarried women into enough sense of ethical reality to give Mitt Romney the percentage points he needs to be elected. However, this would presuppose of Republican candidates and strategists that they possess a quality Dietrich Bonhoeffer called civil courage.

Frankly, I don’t see it, and hence I fear that, to paraphrase Bonhoeffer, a “great masquerade of evil” will go on playing “havoc with all our ethical concepts.” Let nobody later say he didn’t know. The Roman Catholic bishop of Springfield has just warned us in the starkest possible terms when he spoke of intrinsic evils.

Uwe Siemon-Netto, the former religious affairs editor of United Press International, has been an international journalist for 55 years, covering North America, Vietnam, the Middle East and Europe for German publications. Dr. Siemon-Netto currently directs the League of Faithful Masks and Center for Lutheran Theology and Public Life in Capistrano Beach, California. 

LINK here at World Tribune! 

List of HBC leaders that headed for the door, many more to come I'm sure

The Void

Are we alone in our concerns regarding the leadership of James MacDonald?  Over the past few years, many long-standing elders and highly influential staff members have departed Harvest Bible Chapel.  While the circumstances of their departures are unique to each of them, each has his own story to tell.
Dave Corning:   For approximately 20 years, Dave Corning served Harvest Bible Chapel as the Chairman of its elder board.  His wife, Betsy Corning, is the published author of Entrusted with a Child’s Heart: A Biblical Study in Family Life.
Dr. Ron Allchin:  For many years, Dr. Allchin faithfully served the congregation of Harvest Bible Chapel as an active member of the elder board.  At present, Dr. Allchin works as the  Executive Director of the Biblical Counseling Center.
Dr. Joseph Stowell, III:   For 18 years, Dr. Stowell served as the President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Illinois.  During his time at Harvest, he was both a Teaching Pastor and a highly visible member of the elder board.  Currently, Dr. Stowell serves as the President of Cornerstone University.
Joe Stowell, IV:   From 1998 to 2008, Joe Stowell served as an elder and as the Executive Pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel, in which capacity he oversaw budgeting and strategic planning.  At present, Joe is the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating officer of ELIC.
Rod Vansolkema:  During the 2000s, Rod Vansolkema was one of four Stowell family members to  be employed by Harvest Bible Chapel.  After serving as the Pastor of Young Adult Ministry, Rod was the first of the Stowells to leave the church.
Matt Stowell:   From 1998 to 2008, Matt served as a pastor of student ministries before eventually rising to become the director of the worship department at Harvest Bible Chapel.  At present, Matt serves as a pastor of church life at Salem Chapel in North Carolina.
Gordon Zwirkoski:  Prior to founding FiveStone Churches, Gordon Zwirkoski invested 20 years at Harvest Bible Chapel.  During his tenure at Harvest, Zwirkoski served on the elder board, before stepping off to co-found and direct the Harvest Bible Fellowship from 2001 to 2010.
W. Bing Hunter:  For many years, Dr. Bing Hunter served “on the Ministry Management Team” of Harvest Bible Chapel.  He also served as the Pastor of Adult Ministries before leaving for Phoenix Seminary.
David Jones:   From 2001 to 2010, David Jones served Harvest Bible Chapel in a variety of capacities.  In addition to his work as the research assistant to James MacDonald, Jones also served as the Director of Training for the Harvest Bible Fellowship.
Sam Jindoyan:   Four four-and-a-half years, Sam Jindoyan served as an Elder at Harvest Bible Chapel.  He and his wife are both NANC certified Biblical counselors, and they are currently ministering at The Orchard Evangelical Free Church.
Jim Jodrey:   From 1995 to 2010, Jim Jodrey served in a variety of capacities.  He was a Campus Pastor charged with overseeing operations, stewardship and benevolence.  At present, Jim is the Associate Pastor of Harvest Community Church, a ministry once associated with the Fellowship.
Rob Green:  From 2003 to 2009, Rob Green served as the Pastor of Assimilation and Counseling at Harvest Bible Chapel.  He is married to Anne Green, formerly a worship leader at HBC.  At present, Rob works with Joe Stowell at ELIC in Colorado.
Ty Gooch:  From 2002 to 2009, Ty Gooch was the Associate Pastor of Adult Discipleship at Harvest Bible Chapel.  He is presently the Senior Pastor of Fellowship Life Bible Church, a FiveStone Church located just outside of Elgin, Illinois.
Josh Caterer:  For most of the first decade of the new millenium, Josh Caterer served as a leader within the worship ministry department of Harvest Bible Chapel.  In that capacity, he authored several songs that were regularly performed at Harvest.
Dan McGhee:  For five years, Dan McGhee served as the Senior Pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel-Detroit West.  In 2012, Dan and his elders became the first church to leave the Harvest Bible Fellowship over their concerns surrounding the Elephant Room 2.
Jonathan Gaus:   In February of 2006, Jon Gaus planted Canyon Bible Church, formerly known as Harvest Bible Chapel – Prescott.  In 2012, Canyon Bible became the second church in the Harvest Bible Fellowship to sever its ties with HBF over its concerns related to the Elephant Room 2.
Arvid Svendsen:  Arvid Svendsen is the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church, formerly known as Harvest Bible Chapel – New Lenox.  In 2012, Cornerstone became the third church to disassociate itself from the Harvest Bible Fellowship due to circumstances surrounding the Elephant Room 2.
Mike Bryant:   Mike Bryant’s service with Harvest Bible Chapel began in the mid-1990′s.  In 2006, he planted Harvest Bible Chapel – Grayslake, and faithfully served within the Fellowship until 2012, when he was removed by the leadership of HBF for privately voicing his concerns over the Elephant Room 2.

Hostle take-over & Power grab by HBC god-king - Pharoh MacDonald

The Power - LINK

From the earliest days of Harvest Bible Chapel, the church was governed by the consensus of the elders.  When a motion was put on the table, it was considered necessary for all members of the board to approve of the motion for it to carry forward.  If one individual dissented, the motion was tabled for future discussion.  When the time came for reconsideration, if the objecting elder had not come around to a place of agreement or a willingness to lay aside their objections, the board would not move forward.  Thus, every decision of the elder board was arrived at by the practice of consensus.

By 2007, as a direct result of the unprecedented debt that had been accumulated under the leadership of James MacDonald, there were significant and routine conflicts occurring between MacDonald and the elder board.  These meetings culminated in a particularly tumultuous confrontation which reportedly functioned as an ultimatum by the elders on MacDonald’s leadership.  At the climax of this meeting, the Senior Pastor of HBC reportedly said something to the effect of:

“If you want to remove me, you’re going to have to sue me to get me out of here.  And gentlemen, I have two things you don’t have: control of the pulpit and the control of the money.  So good luck.”

Following this meeting, further attempts to peaceably govern alongside MacDonald were made internally.  When these attempts failed, in the eyes of some, elders began the arduous process of disentangling themselves from this ministry.

Even as these events were still unfolding, MacDonald was changing his thinking on elders.  At a meeting with Harvest Bible Fellowship pastors in the fall of 2009, James MacDonald unveiled his new thinking on how power ought to be distributed in a church.  What follows is an account of that meeting, which has been verified by four additional men who were present at the “poolside chat.”

In the summer of 2010 [Editor: one account suggests that this meeting may have occurred in the Fall of 2009], every Senior Pastor of an HBF church was invited to come to Chicago and help James story-board his newest book, Vertical Church.  There were approximately 30 HBF pastors in attendance.

The HBF pastors were invited to James’ home for pizza and fellowship one evening. The pastors gathered outside James’ Inverness home around his pool for a Q & A time with James.  The matter of elders and leadership in the church became the topic of conversation.

One of the pastors asked James something along the lines of, “James, you have always taught us to keep a small, nimble elder board that can respond quickly to opportunities as they arise. You have recently told us that you are significantly increasing the size of your Elder board. Would you please explain to us why you have done this, especially since it is seems to be a change from what you’ve been saying all these years?”

James then proceeded to give his explanation.  He said that he had learned many things over the years about elders and leadership in the church, wishing he had learned these lessons years ago.  He went on to reveal his opinions about leadership and power in the church, and in particular, who controls the church.

He continued by saying that the elders and the senior pastor share a pie, representing authority and influence in the church. He explained that the senior pastor, by virtue of his calling, gifting, and role in the church, ought to possess, right off the bat, 50% of this pie.  The pastor controls the pulpit, is the most vocal member of the elder board, and also has the most on the line as the primary leader of the church.  He said that this leaves 50% of the pie to be divided by the remaining elders.

Here is where it became more disturbing.  James said that Harvest had grown so much that he had come to realize a small group of elders can’t handle this responsibility anymore.  James continued, saying that in order to protect Harvest from an elder who goes “sideways,” doing great damage to our body, he needed to lessen the elder’s influence.  He stated that the way he was going to lessen the influence of the Harvest Elder Board was to increase the size of the Elder board, thus giving each member of the board a smaller piece of the pie.

At that point, one pastor decided to brave a question.  Senior Pastor Rob Willey of Harvest Bible Chapel – Davenport, IA, asked a question along these lines, “But James, this is so different than what you’ve always taught us. This is a profound change. Do you realize what you are saying to us here?  Senior pastors need accountability and dividing up the power makes it more difficult for them to hold us accountable.”

James began to dress down Rob in front of all of the HBF pastors in attendance.  He retorted to Rob that he would eventually have an elder go “sideways” on him in the future, and that Rob would come back to James, admitting that James was right.
Rob and James continued to go back and forth for another minute or two.   Eventually, James was quite angry and yelled at Rob, telling him he had no idea what he was saying!  James continued by saying that he had a great relationship with his elders, but they can go “sideways” on you.  Sadly, he never took into account the greater damage that takes place when the main, lead, senior, 50%-of-the-pie-elder goes “sideways.”
Later that same year, during Harvest University, [MacDonald] met with all the senior pastors and their wives during the annual dinner.  At that time, James addressed them regarding a number of issues, but one issue stood out in particular: his vision for the new direction of Harvest and Harvest church plants.  He stated that HBF had been a movement of Pastors and Elders, but HBF was going to change.  Going forward, HBF was to become a movement of senior pastors. He further added that they needed elders, but the elders will never understand “our” role and the tremendous weight that is on pastors.  I wonder if his current elder board is even aware of their “true” role as defined by MacDonald.

These stories, as reported, speak to the issue of power.  In our opinion, it would appear that MacDonald has intentionally structured the current elder board in such a way as to minimize their ability to effectively govern and assert control over the direction of the church, thus further consolidating the control of the congregation into his own hands.  Whereas a group of 8-10 elders used to meet on a weekly basis, the newly constituted elder board of over 30 members meets on a quarterly basis.  Additionally, instead of being involved in the details of ministry life at HBC, the elders are now “flying 35,000 feet” above the ministry, which in our opinion, is too far removed to provide sufficient oversight on MacDonald.  In our opinion, true accountability has been cashed in for a facade, which masks his virtually unchecked, autonomous control over Harvest Bible Chapel.
With the battles for power behind him, the only problem yet to be tackled was the debt facing the church.  How could this be accomplished?

Shane Hipps attacks Christianity again, thanks Rob Bell

Shane Hipps - new book Selling Water by the River into Video on YouTube LINK

please please please watch Rob Bell's hand picked Co-pastor from Mars Hill Bible-Hating Church as he supports the Universalism of Religion (an ancient Heresy in Christianity). And ask yourself did Rob Bell pick Shane Hipps as his Emergent co-prophet because his religion differs wildly from Shane Hipps or because they are like minded in their theology?

then search for Shane Hipps in the top left search box of this blog since I had been warning Christianity of Shane Hipps since 2011

Friday, September 2, 2011

what is worst than a heretic? 

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

are you kidding me?!?! 

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Winning! - Shane Hipps

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Emergent Heresy & the death of Osama Bin Laden

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Heretics holding hands with other heritics?

 

 

Just call me TBN, cause I'm a money grubbing whore

The Salary - LINK

In 2009, Pastor James MacDonald received over $500,000 in monetary compensation from Harvest Bible Chapel and Walk in the Word.  This does not include any monies received from Harvest through his access to a staggeringly large personal expense account. It also does not include any possible, additional income he may have derived from other sources including: preaching fees, outside speaking fees, Churches Helping Churches, Harvest Bible Fellowship, book royalties, advances on book sales, 403B employer contributions, health benefits, or any other potential sources of income.

In October 2005, Pastor James MacDonald purchased a home in Inverness, Illinois for $1.9 million.  His original mortgage on the home was for 15 years and $1.4 million dollars, so his down payment was roughly $500,000.  Assuming a fictionally and absurdly low interest rate of 3%, he would have had a mortgage payment of approximately $9,660 per month.  Obviously, as interest rates were higher at that time, his mortgage payment would have been higher as well.  This figure also does not include any property taxes on this home, which in 2011 were $26,961.28 or $2,246.77 per month.  Ultimately, what must be recognized is the simple fact that before any loan can be approved by a bank, the lendee must be able to provide substantial evidence that he or she is capable of making the regular payments.  So, as of 2005, it can reasonably be assumed that MacDonald was already earning enough money to prove that he was capable of making the payments on this home.

Regarding MacDonald’s regular salary as an employee of HBC, it has been reported, that as of 2009, Pastor James MacDonald received a $100,000 raise.  This elevated his HBC base salary from an already robust $250,000 to a staggering $350,000 per year.  What’s more, in addition to the substantial raise he received through the church, Pastor James MacDonald had also received significant yearly raises from Walk in the Word.  In 2006, it was reported to the IRS that MacDonald was earning $124,702 per year from Walk in the Word.  Just three years later, his compensation from WITH had grown by 32%, and he was now receiving $164,511 per year.[1]
Since 2009, it has become far more difficult to track and document MacDonald’s compensation.  Prior to 2010, Walk in the Word was a legally independent non-profit organization that was separate from Harvest Bible Chapel.   But as of 2010, Walk in the Word was brought under the leadership of Harvest Bible Chapel as a ministry of HBC. While this may not seem significant at first, it actually makes tracking salaries far more problematic.  Allow us to explain.  Under the present tax code, non-profit organizations, known as 501(c)(3)s, are tax exempt;  and they are required to file a Form 990 with the IRS.  This form tracks the organization’s revenue streams and major expenditures, including the salaries of top officers and employees.  However, there is one exception to this rule.  As per IRS guidelines, religious, non-profit organizations (e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc…) are not required to disclose the top salaries in the Form 990.  Thus, given the fact that Walk in the Word is now under the umbrella of HBC, which is classified as a religious ministry, it is no longer required report top salaries on the Form 990; and there is no longer any way to determine how much MacDonald is receiving through Walk in the Word.

Setting this brief discussion of tax law aside for a moment, let’s put this salary discussion in a larger context.  According to the Leadership Network’s 2010 Report on large church salaries, senior pastors of churches with 10,000 to 14,999 congregants were paid, on average, $173,000 per year.  At the high end, pastors were paid $270,000.  Therefore, in 2008, MacDonald was already receiving a salary at the high end of what pastors in large churches were reported to make in 2010; and he still insisted upon a $100,000 raise.  Keep in mind, this salary is completely separate from the compensation he receives from Walk in the Word, a ministry of HBC.

So who decides how much James MacDonald should be paid?  In the past, Harvest Bible Chapel subscribed to a commonly used church resource that helped elders determine appropriate compensation for a pastor.  This resource utilized multiple categories such as region, church size, ministry context, experience, etc… to determine appropriate compensation.  In 2008, the elders’ interpretation of this resource suggested that James MacDonald should receive a salary of $250,000.



Unsatisfied with this offer, James MacDonald brought several other external resources into the conversation, primarily leaning upon Jack Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention.  Apparently, he believed his services to be worth far more than that which Harvest was offering.  In the end, the elders consented to give him a salary of $350,000.  But what must be remembered is that this request for a 40% pay increase came during a season that Harvest was in massive financial debt and the broader economic culture at large was on the verge of historic collapse.   Please recall that 2008-2009 was the peak of the financial hardships in America.  Unemployment was hovering between 9 and 10% for the first time in a generation, and millions more were underemployed.  There can be little doubt that in a church the size of Harvest, a number of families were negatively impacted by the economic downturn.  And it is also quite possible that some of these families may have continued to tithe their income, unknowingly subsidizing Pastor MacDonald’s $100,000 raise.

Let’s put this into another context.  The largest two campuses of Harvest Bible Chapel are located in Rolling Meadows and Elgin, Illinois respectively.  A quick survey of the median household incomes in these communities, and even in more affluent suburbs that likely feed into the Harvest system, reveals a staggering inequity between MacDonald’s income and the income of those he serves.  In Elgin, the average median household income, in 2009, was $56,091.  In Rolling Meadows, it was $56,189.  In Palatine, it was $72,521.  And lastly, in Barrington, it was $106,973.  While Scripture calls for “double honor” to be given to elders that preach and teach well (1 Timothy 5), MacDonald’s “honor” seems to be 5 to 10 times greater than the average family who likely tithes to his ministry.
So, to recap.  After leading a church into astronomical debt, James MacDonald pursued a $100,000 dollar raise (or a 40% increase in base salary) all while ministering to a largely middle class community, some of whom were presumably struggling with economic hardship.  What does this reveal, if anything, about the heart of the man?  Why would a pastor who does not love money ask for such a raise during a season such as this?  Were other staff members given raises during this year, as well?  And if so, what were those raises like?  Finally, why would a church offer raises of this magnitude when many within society were taking pay cuts just to stay employed?

What is fascinating to observe is that Pastor James MacDonald is not alone in collecting a large salary from the people of Harvest.  While we have no documents at the present time to show the current salary of the top leadership (Rick Donald, Kent Shaw, Fred Adams, Luke MacDonald, etc.), we do have a recent document regarding the salary of Janine Nelson, Director of Walk in the Word, a ministry of Harvest Bible Chapel.  In 2009, Ms. Nelson collected a compensation in the amount $185,122.  Is it reasonable to assume other more senior members of the organization are paid more?