|
Post by philiprosenthal on Apr 25, 2006 12:34:32 GMT
I was told by an EveryNation pastor that much of the criticism of EveryNation is dismissed on the basis that all Christian groups get a lot of criticism. So the question is what is the difference between criticism of for example EveryNation and Focus on the Family?
I argue there is a big difference. Focus on the Family is criticised by outsiders for what it teaches. EveryNation is criticised mostly by insiders (those who have been part of the organisation for a long time) for not practicing what it teaches. There is a big difference here. Therefore I think the EveryNation leadership needs to listen and reform.
Also, the allegation of gross hypocrisy defended by a sociological cult of top leaders is much more serious than anything thrown at most mainstream Christian groups.
|
|
|
Post by reconciliator on May 5, 2007 12:40:49 GMT
Phillip I think that your example chosen to explain the difference in criticism between EN and other groups are flawed firstly because EN and FOTF are two vary different organisations you should choose and organisation much like EN for e.g. NCMI secondly are you still an insider (speaking from the inside out or have you become an outsider criticising from the outside in?) you are assuming that allegations of gross hypocrisy defended by top leaders are not happening in "mainstream Christian groups" it appears as if your vendetta is aimed at one group an a particular leader. Are you still dealing with hurts/ bitterness because I do not understand why you would want to reform something that you consider to be led by cultic leaders
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on May 16, 2007 10:34:01 GMT
Reconciliator
Thanks for posting your contribution.
1) With regards comparison NCMI etc, I think there have been broad criticisms of the New Apostolic Reformation system of church governance leading to abuse of power in many apostolic networks. Nevertheless, I don't know of this happening in any other movement which approaches the issues in EveryNation-His People. I was told by someone in NCMI that for example his church has quarterly Congregational accountability meetings where questions can be asked and answered. That would be a good reform for His People to copy and may eliminate a lot of problems.
2) With regard to insiders and outsiders. Unfortunately, the tolerance levels in the organisation are such that those insiders who are vocal for reform quickly become outsiders. They are then either silenced or they speak up on the internet with more freedom than before. If one imposed a rule of 'only insiders talking' then their would be no free discussion, given this behaviour.
3) With regard to only targeting one group and one leader. No. Actually, I have been vocal about religious hypocrisy in several different groups I have been associated with and made myself very unpopular as a result. I hope others will follow my example.
4) With regard to why I wish to reform it if it is cultic - no - not all cultic. Some leaders have sociologically cultic behaviour - but not all. It is a system that needs reform. People behave differently according to the system they are in. Some of the leaders I think would need to quit ministry for at least a few years to get rid of their cultic tendencies, but others I think would change with just reform of governance checks and balances.
|
|
|
Post by Jason_Coates on May 16, 2007 14:49:34 GMT
Philip
I think also for a person who is or was a member as I was, there was a certain amount of difficulty coming to terms with the fact that one's time in the church is up or that the church has serious problems that will not be resolved with a few candid observations or by bouncing off one's suspicions off an elder or two.
The fact that secrecy was practiced around the Paul Daniel cover-up (the famous need-to-know management strategy perhaps going too far) was confirmation to me that HP and EN had serious problems that go deeper than just the issue of PD's disgrace. For me PD's disgrace, as announced from the pulpit, was HP's disgrace/shame and I think the Argus reporter at the time head the nail on the head with his headline:"His People-His Shame".
I for one did not buy it. I knew straight away that the "whole story" had not been told and that there was more behind it. Sadly, many others did not reach that conclusion and see things differently.
People like you have exposed the procedural and moral weaknesses of the ministry to its ultimate benefit. If only EN would open itself the authentic change!
This is why the Reformation Station exists: To encourage responsible leaders to continue with and press for Godly reform.
|
|
|
Post by erichero on Jun 8, 2007 13:15:47 GMT
This website sickens me.
One thing that becomes very apparent through Jesus' teaching and the New Testament is that focus is critical. What you focus on is what you become. If you try desparately not to be like your parents, you become exactly like them. If you spend your whole lifetime trying to fight a problem with sin, what's amazing is that it never goes away, simply because you're focusing on it all the time.
Our instruction in Hebrews 12:1-3 is to fix our eyes on Jesus, and yet in this forum I'm finding people fixing their eyes on men and having an expectation that is not always justified. Face it: you are going to be disappointed by men. Do you at that point raise a finger, become critical and adopt a holier-than-thou attitude, or do you fulfill the challenge of the Bible to 1) pray, 2) make their work a pleasure and not a burden, 3) respect and honour and 4) mind your own business lest you fall into the same trap.
There's a wonderful saying I heard: a church that's inward-focused struggles with internal problems, and this forum is full of that. The real challenge is how we reach a lost world, more than whether you agree with HP's revelation teaching or how quickly Paul Daniel's adultery was exposed. Be a role model and let the Holy Spirit do the convicting. As the saying about leading a horse to water goes, you can point out error, but you can't change or convict a person - only the Holy Spirit can.
This is a gossip website however you try to label it, and I recommend you turn it into a website on how we can reach the lost and pray better. Of course only the Holy Spirit can convict you of that, and I offer a prayer that He will.
Your less than worthy friend, Eric.
|
|
ageeh
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by ageeh on Aug 1, 2007 21:43:40 GMT
Well interesting discussion over here. Jesus Christ my Lord & Saviour died on that cross so I may receive forgiveness of my sins, that I may preach His Word, disciple and minister in the Spiritual gift He's given to me as the Spirit wills.
Now that I am no longer a baby in Christ I feed of solid material, and debating HP/EN is for mature people in Christ as Apostle Paul discussed the church of Philipians, Thesolonians, Colosians and even pointing out names of leader who had gone astray from the grace of God as a result of their sins or doctrines. If Philip, Jason and others debate these issues about Reformation, why is it wrong, do we want to see a scripture in the bible written Phili Rosenthal 1 verse 19 Reformation of HP/EN before interogating the weaknesses of EN/HP.
When Apostle Paul, James, Peter and other Apostles gathered at Jerusalem debating the issue of circumscission of gentiles, how come none of them stood up and said "let us go and disciple every nation as Jesus commaded us" Rather they engaged fiercely until a revelation came by James to instruct every preacher what they were to teach gentiles who were receiving the gospel.
Please may be Philip Rosenthal should have placed a maturity restriction to exclude the babes in Christ who are still feeding on milk.
There you go, let the grown ups engage and the converts go read their bible and pray.
Cheers
Ageeh( former campus cell leader&leader of campus ministry HP) wdo@webmail.co.za if you want to touch base with me.
|
|