ECC pastor's profiles, summed up

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[blonde]

I guess the thread of Mark and Jeff made me think about how do really these pastors prepare for ministry?

Mark, a high school pass-out, no college, but selling autoparts.

Jeff, a master's in geology.

Brent, he studied Chemistry at Iowa State University.

SPENCER BERNARD: Spencer Bernard has worked as a professional musician and songwriter for over twenty years

Ken Johnson, M.S. degree in Botany in 1978 and worked at 3M.

Is there a theme here?  No seminary, no training. 

-Blonde

[EverAStudent]

It does seem that you have identified a trend.

Perhaps the trend is due to a lack of proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 8:1.  Those who eschew the disciplined study of Scriptures often fail to grasp how to interpret 1 Corinthians 8:1 (they end up thinking it is a condemnation of earnestly studying in the Word).  Since, being untrained, they misread the passage as condemning deep training, the passage becomes a Catch-22 for them.  They now think the Word is telling them not to become deely trained in the Word, as if that would make them too arrogant to humbly serve as teachers of the Word.

If they had been formally trained on how to study the Bible, they would likely know that 1 Corinthians 8:1 does not disparage Bible education at all.  Being able to properly read this verse removes the improper rationale behind dismissing formal Bible study.  In fact, not being able to correctly interpret 1 Corinthians 8:1 is a warning signal that someone desperately needs formal Bible training, perhaps even seminary classes.

[Linda]

On the one hand, I don't so much mind that the elders had various non-Biblical backgrounds prior to their becoming pastors. Oddly, I also would never say that seminary is a must.

On the other hand, the GC system of "raising up" and "recognizing leaders" is a closed system. All in leadership study under the mentorship of other elders and the GCLI program--and who knows how theologically accurate that system is. Only the chosen can see it. There are no checks and balances since it is a closed system.

To top it off, the big point made in considering leaders is "character" over "knowledge". Sounds good on the surface (or, at least I am embarrassed to say it sounded good to me at first), but what kind of nonsense it that? If a person has great character, but is unable to teach (and to teach you not only need to be able to communicate, you need to have sound knowledge of what you are teaching), they are not qualified for leadership.

[Huldah]

From my sermon notes (tidied up a bit for grammar & precision) of a session taught by Herschel Martindale at conference in New York, in December, 1977:

"The disciples of Jesus learned in contact with the real world and real problems, not in a classroom. In a secular business, you go to school and when you get into a business, you start on the bottom. But in the average Christian church, you go from seminary straight into the pastorate. Jesus, by contrast, called his disciples and put them immediately into the real world, thus immediately exposing their weaknesses. The emphasis of Christ was on the whole person not simply the mastery of classroom knowledge. The goal was the application of truth... not merely the [intellectual grasp of it]."

In other words, seminary was not the New Testament pattern for training church leaders, therefore its value was dubious at best. The best way to know and understand God's word was to obey it (or, rather, to obey it as it was taught by the elders). In teaching sessions earlier that year, other elders from the Columbus fellowship had said, "If we determine to obey whatever we see or whatever we read [in the Bible], we'll have understanding," and "Loving each other is more important than any doctrine you could learn." (The latter was just plain sloppy thinking, in my opinion. If it's an attribute of God, if it's something we're supposed to emulate, and if it's an idea that can potentially be misunderstood or misapplied, then it is doctrine.)

[Linda]

How interesting you still have your notes. Where to begin? Here are my random thoughts:

But in the average Christian church, you go from seminary straight into the pastorate.

In a sense, this may be true, but generally pastors fresh out of seminary don't "start at the top". Often they start as an assistant pastor, or a youth pastor, or pastor a small church. Also, why do GC leaders often make generalizations about other churches and then cut down those churches based on their assumptions? I wish they would stop slandering other churches/denominations.

The emphasis of Christ was on the whole person not simply the mastery of classroom knowledge. The goal was the application of truth... not merely the [intellectual grasp of it].

I pretty much agree with this...with the emphasis on the words "not simply" and "merely". My problem with GC teaching in recent years is that they pretty much say it's "character" over "knowledge". Not character AND knowledge. Big difference.

The best way to know and understand God's word was to obey it (or, rather, to obey it as it was taught by the elders).

This idea got me to thinking about the educational background of most GC leaders. Lot's of them have science backgrounds. Science (and music for that matter) involves following precise laws. Do you think this is why they gravitate to the "do" books, Paul's lists of things, etc? Just a thought.

[EverAStudent]

The disciples of Jesus learned in contact with the real world and real problems, not in a classroom.

Erroneous statements like this make me laugh and cry, both at the same time.  Jesus taught these men for three years non-stop.  He did not teach them "life experiences" alone but He taught them all the doctrine and theology they would ever need in order to write all the New Testament Scriptures.  Jesus taught them the Old Testament and New Covenant theology.  That is an oil-tanker load of doctrine and theology!!!!

Not a classroom?  Just what else is it when you have twleve guys who have committed themselves to your instruction for 24 hours a day for more than three years?  Where did these guys get their theology which they wrote into the New Testament and which we now call "theology" and spend lifetimes trying to learn ourselves?  They got all this theology from Jesus!  That is a classroom.  That is what qualified them to be teach and lead the first church ever in Jerusalem. 

Theology did not just jump into the minds of the Twelve.  Nor did theology just jump fully developed from an inkwell onto parchment.  These men were more fully and formally trained than anyone gives them credit for.  I only wish GC leadership were so dedicated to learning theology.

Finally, what seminary student today is not in contact with the real world?  Do they not have wives, children, jobs, and neighbors?  Really!!!!!

[Huldah]

Linda, I don't have all my notes, but I still have one notebook of approximately 25 sermons taught in late 1977 & January 1978, primarily by the Columbus elders. I also have a number of personal letters from a friend and former roommate, one of "the three sisters" mentioned in Marching to Zion, giving her side of the events as they unfolded.

The emphasis of Christ was on the whole person not simply the mastery of classroom knowledge. The goal was the application of truth... not merely the [intellectual grasp of it].

I pretty much agree with this...with the emphasis on the words "not simply" and "merely".

I agree with it, too, as an isolated statement. I don't agree with the way it was used in this context, to devalue systematic study of doctrine. But I think you and I are saying pretty much the same thing.

This idea got me to thinking about the educational background of most GC leaders. Lot's of them have science backgrounds. Science (and music for that matter) involves following precise laws. Do you think this is why they gravitate to the "do" books, Paul's lists of things, etc? Just a thought.

An interesting thought. It brings to mind that of one of the former Columbus deacons (now an elder with national scope) graduated from law school, and I think he actually practiced law for a year or two before going into ministry full time. The general attitude at GC was certainly one of legalism over grace, and following the letter of the law over the spirit. Sometimes I've wondered if I saw this particular man's hand in the Weaknesses Statement, in the careful hedging of responsibility: "[We] may have treated a scriptural principle as a command," "pastors acted in some cases in an authoritarian and insensitive manner," "...our mistakes contributed to career decisions that caused problems," and so forth. The apology seems carefully crafted not to give any ammunition to potential litigants, but that, of course, is a different topic for a different thread.

(Edit: To change "before going into law school full time" to "before going into ministry full time".

[MidnightRider]

I doubt there is any discipline - pastoring, business, etc. - where you go to school and learn everything you need to know to do a job. There is always some real-world experience that is necessary after the degree is earned.

There are some special considerations that make seminary education important. Pastors-to-be today need to learn a lot of stuff that Jesus didn't have to teach the disciples. Jesus did not need to teach His disciples Greek or Hebrew so that they could read the Scriptures in the original languages. He did not have to teach them Aramaic so that they could understand Him. He did not have to teach them about Jewish culture or the Jewish worldview. He didn't have to teach them the content of the OT. They already knew all that. And He didn't have to un-teach them a lot of really awful ideas that have grown into our culture over the past 20 centuries. And He didn't have to explain the "Four Christian Views" of nearly every topic in theology. 

Now, if you want to say that the typical seminary education leaves out some important stuff (e.g., how to make a church budget and keep the books, or how to evangelize), I won't disagree with you. If you think there is a more efficient way of teaching these young men what they need to know than several years of classroom instruction, I am all ears. But to think that you can have a guy learn everything he needs from being apprenticed to a GCx elder is just not right.

[EverAStudent]

He didn't have to teach them the content of the OT. They already knew all that.

There is a surprising amount of material in the Gospels where Jesus teaches the Old Testament to the disciples.  On the road to Emmaus Jesus spent many hours explaining the Messiah from the OT.  The Sermon on the Mount is virtually an entire textbook on how to interpret the intent of the OT Law.  Numerous times people asked Jesus to explain the meaning of certain OT passages.

Everyone to whom Jesus explained the OT were already Jews.  How much more do we need to be taught the OT since we are not of that heritage? 

Seminary can be very valuable, though I will admit, not all are worth the time or the money as they do more harm than good.

[MidnightRider]

There is a surprising amount of material in the Gospels where Jesus teaches the Old Testament to the disciples. 

Right. I just meant that the disciples would have known what the OT said. Of course there were lots of times where they did not understand what the OT meant. In fact, that seems to be most of the NT - explaining what the OT really meant.

[EverAStudent]

I agree.  Sadly, GC leadership rarely seemed to know how to read and interpret the OT.  Hom many times did I hear GC leaders say that the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall was an allegory (and even a blueprint!) for world evangelism?  And how many times did I listen to how "wisely shrewd" Jacob was in his accumulation of wealth from his unbelieving family members?  arrgghhhhh

How good it is to be away from such "teachers" of the Word who do not understand what they are reading.

[blonde]

Finally, what seminary student today is not in contact with the real world?  Do they not have wives, children, jobs, and neighbors?  Really!!!!!

This is very honest.  Like a seminary student does not know the real world.  That is very very sad that the leadership at ECC and GCx in general don't trust this fine institution.

[blonde]

MIKE OLMSTEAD

Mike Olmstead was a probation officer at the Hennepin County Bureau of Community Corrections, before becoming a pastor. As a Christian, Mike enjoyed having a hand in this “rough culture” that desperately needed people committed to Christ. In 1990, he graduated from Bethel Seminary with the idea of doing some sort of “ministry.” In the fall of 1991, Mike and his wife, Janice, attended their very first Evergreen service. After that service, Mike shared with Janice that he wanted to be a pastor here.

 

citation: http://www.evergreenccbloomington.com/aboutus/bios-bloom.shtml
his email: molmstead@evergreencc.com

Blonde says how strange they mock Bethel University.  Very sad.  There is some very good teaching out of there at BU.  Bill Hybels is even an extenion leader in BU in California.  I don't expect very much from ECC anymore. 

I like Linda's comments to the fact that the leaders don't handle Mark the right way.  Let the wild horse run wild and HIS OWN WAY.