|
Post by StationAdministration on Apr 8, 2006 12:12:03 GMT
"Rice Broocks is the co-founder of the Every Nation family of churches and ministries, which currently has over 400 churches and outreaches in 50 nations. He is also the senior minister of Bethel World Outreach Center in Nashville, Tennessee, where he provides oversight for this multi-congregational church currently meeting in five different locations. Rice is a graduate of Mississippi State University, with a degree in Business Administration, and he holds a Masters Degree from Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Mississippi. He also serves as an adjunct instructor for Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Every Nation’s passion for uniting the “fire” of the Holy Spirit within the theological “fireplace” of the historic Christian faith has produced a two-year Bible School, Every Nation Leadership Institute, which is also available online. " Source: The Rice Broocks Websitewww.ricebroocks.com/index22e4.htmlBooks Published By Rice Broockswww.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-0164624-9407814?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rice+broocks
|
|
|
Post by ulyankee on Apr 9, 2006 13:53:35 GMT
CORRECTION: Broocks is no longer an adjunct at Fuller Theological Seminary. He was listed in the 2002 catalog as an adjunct, but not in their more recent catalogs. Same is true about E. Leo Lawson. This can be verified at www.fuller.edu.
|
|
|
Post by StationAdministration on Apr 9, 2006 13:58:01 GMT
Perhaps Pastor Broock's website is in need of an update? Do you know why he is no longer an adjunct there? What has happened with Leo Lawson? Didn't one of the communiques mention his dismissal?
|
|
|
Post by ulyankee on Apr 9, 2006 14:15:14 GMT
Yes, I would say the bio might need to be updated, but that's not for me to say. No, I don't know why either person is not still listed as an adjunct. No, the communique did not specifically name Leo Lawson's dismissal, just that the School for Campus Ministry was moving to Nashville - also, it seems that the SCM courses are no longer specifically joint courses with Fuller - see the most recent description on Every Nation's website, which no longer mentions Fuller. I guess Leo Lawson could be discussed under a new thread if needed, or under the "other leaders" thread.
|
|
|
Post by maranatha84 on Apr 9, 2006 14:35:32 GMT
I will cover Leo Lawson in my blog He is a thug a wolf in wolf's clothing
|
|
|
Post by upcase20 on Apr 20, 2006 3:59:02 GMT
How come the senior pastor quoted him as "the closest thing to Jesus there is ?"
|
|
|
Post by ulyankee on Apr 20, 2006 13:04:05 GMT
upcase, who said that? Was that back in Maranatha times or more recent? Was that about Rice Broocks or Leo Lawson?
This was in a 1987 MCM church bulletin announcing Rice Broocks' speaking at George Washington University though - "If you want to see and hear the Kingdom of God demonstrated in power, then you have to come."
Was he considered an apostle then - accompanied by signs and wonders?
|
|
|
Post by helpfulcommentary on Apr 21, 2006 3:03:16 GMT
You know EN never talks about the "signs and wonders" part of the qualification for apostles. I'm not aware of any signs or wonders associated with any of the apostolic team members, excepting perhaps Jim Lafoon depending on how you are counting.
It was always explained to me that Rice was the "key evangelist" in the same way his protege Steve Hollander is now.
|
|
|
Post by upcase20 on Apr 21, 2006 4:42:06 GMT
Ulyankee: That was from one of the new pastors at a recent meeting in Bethel.
|
|
|
Post by StationAdministration on Apr 21, 2006 7:57:25 GMT
Helpfulcommentary,
I am not too hung up on the signs thing either. It is sorely lacking in the church broadly speaking. Can you see the anointing on Rice when he does step into evangelism?
|
|
|
Post by StationAdministration on Apr 21, 2006 7:59:11 GMT
Please note that marantha84's commment above is his opinion and he will be asked to back it up as he has indicated. He is currently on vacation.
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Apr 25, 2006 9:03:52 GMT
With regard to the topic title, "Don't just blame Rice Broocks", I would say this is half true. The problem is not just with Rice Broocks, but with the system in which he operates, which he supports and helped create. Anyone operating in a position of almost absolute power within such a system is going to make serious mistakes because of the fallenness of human nature.
We must be careful criticising his performance, because we might also make a mess of things in a similar position. But the point is that nobody should accept a position in which they should have such absolute power. If they were offered it, they should refuse or immediately set about re-distributing the power in the organisation on a more sensible basis. But Rice has not done this. He has just tried to consolidate more and more power.
The position is more powerful than the Pope. Nobody should have so much power. We don't need a better 'Super-apostle/Pope' etc. We need to reform the system.
|
|
|
Post by ulyankee on Apr 25, 2006 11:47:58 GMT
Philip, good point. Hence my comments elsewhere in this forum and on FACTNet regarding the required bylaw, which at least in the US has given top Every Nation leaders nearly unlimited power down to the local church level. Once enacted, only ENC's Board of Directors have the authority to remove or change the bylaw. It in essence signs the church over to Every Nation and there are very few legal restrictions on EN's authority once enacted, and several attorneys that I know of have looked at it and have agreed with this, including one I brought it to myself, so I'm not just guessing at this here. There are no real checks on this authority and no way to ensure that top EN leaders stay within certain boundaries except by trusting that they will hold themselves accountable, which obviously has not worked very well for the last fifteen years. This is despite the most recent changes, which are a step in the right direction especially in keeping Biblical limits on leaders. If they truly want to place these limits on EN leaders, then place limits as codified in the bylaw.
My hunch is that several more churches might have left Every Nation in recent months if it weren't for the bylaw, and imho for good reason. Some might say that this is proof that the bylaw worked the way it was designed, by holding off a Maranatha-style implosion, but to what end? If unchecked power and control weren't contractually instituted in the first place, perhaps we wouldn't have even gotten to the place where we could even compare what is going on today with what happened in 1989-1990.
Scapegoating does nothing. Change the system, and in a real way. If one compares the reorganized Every Nation with that of a year ago, one would find that there are a lot of similarities, other than the fact that there are a lot more people in a lot more positions - a good move for sure, but more can be done. Where we had the IAT, we now have the IMT. Where we once had the Advisory Board, which was a subset of the IAT, we now have the IPC, a subset of the IMT. And the unit with the most legal power today is the same unit with the most legal power a year ago - the only difference is who is on that board. The system that Bob Weiner instituted helped create what Weiner and Maranatha became. The same with Broocks, Bonasso and Morning Star/Every Nation, which in many ways reflected that of their "spiritual father," whether they want to acknowledge him or not.
Until the bylaw is changed or revoked, it is very possible for someone or a group of people to have the same type of power and control as before. Technically, Steve Murrell and the current Board of Directors hold that power right now... whether he would choose to exercise it and how he would exercise it is another story, but if he wanted to, he could.
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Apr 25, 2006 11:58:21 GMT
Ulyankee
Any issue which would be helpful if someone could answer is what powers the people in all these new positions actually have. I have seen in His People and EveryNation and in His People's previous denomination various 'Advisory boards' which have no teeth. Basically all they do is to give the illusion of accountability, while not actually being able to do anything. They sometimes have value, but are often just smokescreens for the absolute power they hide.
I have heard several sermons mentioning how unspiritual it is for leaders to vote on an issue. Problem though is that what tends to happen is worse - everyone just goes along with the top leader. If the new EveryNation system works like this - then it isn't real reform. These guys need the right to be able to out-vote Rice Broocks if they feel he is wrong. Do you know anything about this aspect of the new system.
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Apr 25, 2006 12:01:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ulyankee on Apr 25, 2006 12:12:37 GMT
Philip, without changes to the bylaw, there is a very great possibility that there is the illusion of accountability. The structure is very similar to before, more things are delegated, more positions have been generated, but the structure is similar. The sub-boards serve at the pleasure of the ENC Board of Directors. Nearly all these people are based in a local church somewhere. Part of the deal with the bylaw is that someone removed from their local church position can be removed from all their EN positions. Unless and until the bylaw is changed or revoked, only the ENC Board of Directors have this power to remove or replace them for any or no reason.
|
|
|
Post by helpusall on Apr 26, 2006 12:38:02 GMT
philiprosenthal i am wonderfully encouraged by your approach here, not simply one of posting criticism, but for actually taking the effort to formulate a proposal in response to something that you perceive to be wrong. I congratuate you.
it breaks my heart that websites like FACTNET even exists, in the name of Christianity! Claiming to be acting in the interest of the church and christianity. i could not help but get the idea that FACTNET owes it existence to some brother or sister (a brother likely) who got hurt and needed revenge. The other possibility is that it was the idea of a non-believer out to slander the church and christianity.
So many of the postings there are sickening! And no person called after the name of Christ should even look at that site. It is sickening, i say again, and brings that father no honour.
Am I saying that as Christians we should not air those issues that troubles us? NO!
I am saying that until you are able to raise your concerns in a spirit of love, keep it to yourself! Let's not bring each other down, let's build one another. Raise your trouble in such a way, that it would lead to repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation!
Lets all repent of our gossip and slander, and return to Christ. In these times that we are living, let's live for the glory of God.
I do not personally agree with everything that happened in the His People congregation, but I refuse to dishonour my fellow christians by slandering and back-biting the church in such a public forum, and above all by hurting God in such a way.
Let's reconsider our motives and our methods.
|
|
|
Post by philiprosenthal on Apr 27, 2006 15:46:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonmoseley on Oct 17, 2006 16:40:45 GMT
One of the logical errors in the church, and criticism of the church, is generalizing inappropriate. I was astonished when I discovered as a new member of Maranatha that I was asking advice about God and the church from people in the next row whom -- I later discovered -- were only 6 months older in the Lord than I was, and did not know what they were talking about. Had I listened to them in the end, I would have believed all sorts of crazy things under Maranatha. When I listened instead to Mark Caulk I learned common sense, balanced, reasonable principles about Christianity.
I then went on to watch how, again and again, new believers would come in and -- instead of going up front and asking the leader -- would talk to the person in the next row over and learn BADLY-PRESENTED or even false theology from someone who barely knew any more than they did. People were afraid to go talk to someone in authority who actually knew what they were talking about. But instead they would eagerly discuss God, and what Maranatha believed (all NOT what Maranatha believed) and how to behave (NOT what Maranatha taught) from someone in the next row who was only saved last month.
In the same way, if one pastor introduces Rice Broocks as the closest thing to Jesus that is (a) a stupid statement, and (b) NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of what Every Nation believes as a whole. It is an indiciation of one young pastor's stupid statement. That's all.
ALSO you seem to criticize a Maranatha advertisement at GWU, which said: This was in a 1987 MCM church bulletin announcing Rice Broocks' speaking at George Washington University though - "If you want to see and hear the Kingdom of God demonstrated in power, then you have to come."
Having been in THAT particular church at THAT particular time myself, and even participating in the outreach team to GWU (though I don't remember at all that particular event or that poster) I must assure you that NO ONE would have thought that was any indication that Rice Brooks was anything special, anything more than a MERE CHRISTIAN by those words.
Them's were fightin' words in opposition to the lame, mamby-pamby Christianity all around us which "has a form of godliness, but denying its power." Those types of words were explicitly understood and intended to surprise the non-believer and reveal to them that there was a Christianity out there which they had never heard of before, of power, of destiny, of meaning, and of REALITY.
Your quote is odd, however, because Rice Brooks has NEVER been understood as someone who moves in the miraculous (at least up through my leaving EN). I cannot understand or imagine why anyone in Maranatha would have advertised Rice Broocks as someone who would demonstrate the power of God.
Rice Broocks' standard appeal -- and an extremely effective one so why change it -- was to talk about romance and dating. That appeal was a HUGE winner, and was the #1 theme we consistently used in Maranatha Church on Capitol Hill's outreach to GWU. Remember I was part of that outreach, though perhaps not every event nor every part of it.
So why anyone would have posted a flyer about Rice Broocks in connection with sign and wonders is completely baffling to me.
By contrast, THERE WERE leaders in Maranatha who had demonstrated ministries in healing, words of knowledge, prophetic words, etc.
So I seriously wonder if you have gotten this confused. Any Rice Broocks outreach to GWU in 1987 would have been either (a) an appeal based on sports with someone like A.C. Green or based on Rice's sports background, or (b) an appeal about issues or romance, sex, and love, then talking about God.
In fact, I know remember a HUGE auditorium filled with people who had come to hear Rice Broocks at GWU at about that time, now that I think about it a little more. The topic was ROMANCE, a proven hook for college students. It was not signs and wonders.
|
|
|
Post by jonmoseley on Oct 17, 2006 19:14:11 GMT
Dang, my typing is terrible. Sorry! Anyway, Rice Broocks was always known as an EXTREMELY gifted and VERY EFFECTIVE evangelist. But he was NEVER understood to be among those who were gifted (any more than the average Christian) in miraculous ministries.
BUT... you have to also understand (as probably many reading this do not) THAT *EVERY* CHRISTIAN IS CALLED TO HAVE FAITH ENOUGH TO WORK MIRACLES through prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Some of you are falsely reading this as talking about people who are super-Christians. WRONG!
When we say things like "If you want to see and hear the Kingdom of God demonstrated in power," come, WE understand that EVERY BELIEVER is called upon to manifest the power of the Kingdom of God.
Who should work miracles in the church today? YOU! EVERY ONE OF YOU! (Actually, it is a trick question, because it is GOD who works miracles, when WE MERELY PRAY in faith.)
So, there is no elitism implied.
I remember having a Catholic friend, a very sincere one who actually evangelized as a Catholic (!) who was very upset about Pat Robertson. I couldn't figure out why. Finallly I discovered that she thought that when Pat Robertson said that God talked to him, ROBERTSON WAS IMPLYING THAT ROBERTSON WAS SUPERIOR TO OTHER CHRISTIANS.
Hoo-boy. The exact opposite was true. Christians discuss God talking to them IN THE HOPES OF ENCOURAGING OTHERS THAT GOD CAN TALK TO THEM *AS WELL*. They hope to encourage and stimulate others to seek God and hear from God, too.
Same with this. If Maranatha advertised something as bold as come see miracles, it was ALWAYS our understanding and preaching that "THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU, TOO." It was always understand as DEMONSTRATING what EVERY believer should be experiencing.
Now, clearly, some people have speciality gifts in which one thing or another manifests itself more strongly than other spiritual gifts. But apart from being specially gifted, EVERY believer should be able to move in EVERY gift, to the extent necessary (as when no one is around who has that special gift as a special ministry).
So, you misunderstand the Maranatha advertisement about Rice Brooks in 1987 (although I think you may have mixed it up and have it wrong).
THAT ADVERTISEMENT COULD JUST AS EASILY HAVE SAID "If you want to see and hear the Kingdom of God demonstrated in power, COME AND SEE JON MOSELEY [or any other Maranatha member or pastor who might be preaching that day.]"
Our understanding was that EVERY Maranatha member should be ready to hop up to the microphone and lead such an outreach at the drop of a hat, even though some of us were still developing toward that goal.
|
|