Thursday, January 31, 2002
A meeting was arranged with three elders at 4:00 pm. The elders in attendance would be Bob Hamm, Jim Kelsoe, and Pat Holder. I asked two fellow members of the congregation to attend as my witnesses. The meeting would take place in the elders conference room at RHCC.
In addition, my wife, Barbara, and another wife came along with us to the church. Since one of the stated reasons for doing away with deacons was to be able to recognize the role of women in the church, these ladies were quite interested to see what the elders had to say in this matter. The elders in attendance refused to allow these ladies to attend this meeting. How amazing. The very men who said they wanted to be able to recognize women as "special servants" were refusing to allow two ladies to sit in on a discussion of this very matter. And let me assure yoiu, there are no two servants any more "special" than these two women. The Christian work these two women have done for RHCC is immeasurable. But yet they are not allowed to attend a meeting to discuss the scriptural basis for the position of "special servant." How appalling!! How hypocritical!
We brought along tape recorders so we could have an accurate record of exactly what was said at the meeting. The elders refused to allow the meeting to be tape recorded. If these men are absolutely confident of their decision and actions in this matter, why are they reluctant to have a tape recording made of their statements? The services at RHCC are tape recorded every time someone is in the pulpit. This is done with complete approval of the elders. If the decisions the elders have made and the statements and actions they are taking are scripturally sound, why in the world would they object to their words being tape recored?
The meeting started with Bob Hamm asking Jim Kelsoe to lead a prayer. After the prayer, Bob Hamm presented a list of scriptures about unity in the church. He said God has always hated division and we should all work for unity. He read three of the scriptures and handed me the list. He also handed me another paper that had the following statement:
"I want to communicate with you in regard to a decision yoiu have made that puts my eternal soul in jeopardy."
He said that any further correspondence I had with the elders must start with this statement. He then stated that the mailout my wife and I had sent was divisive and was the source of all the current upheaval at the church. He was critical because he said the mailout was not signed by me personally. All of this criticism and condemning was leveled against me in this meeting but not once did any elder there ask about my motives, intentions, feelings, concerns, spiritual situation--NOTHING. It was obvious that they were there to condemn me but yet not one of these Christian men had come to me or corresponded with me on a one on one basis to discuss this situation. I'm almost certain that the scripture still says that if you have "naught with your brother you go to your brother." Have the elders decided that we can ignore that part of the scripture also?
Finally, after silently listening to about 15 minutes of Mr. Hamm's condemnation, I was allowed to speak. I ssaid that his statement about God hating division was not true. Was it not God's only Son that said "brother will turn against brother because of me!" God's relationship with mankind has always been characterized with division. On judgment day, the ultilmate division will occur!! The question is which side are you going to be on? Personally, I plan to be on God's side and my Bible tells me the way to do that is to follow the scripture. Don't add to it, don't take away from it--just obey God's Word!
I reminded Mr. Hamm and the other elders there that I had personally written each of them a letter(shown under Letters to the Elders) expressing my concerns about their decision and their actions. I sent the letter to each of their homes and I sent a copy to the church to their attention. I had a copy of the letter with me and read it to them emphasizing my request for further guidance and open discussins with the congregation. Not one of them - I repeat - not one single elder bothered to respond to my correspondence! Is this the scriptual actins of an elder?
I provided the group with a copy of the mailout my wife and I had done. I asked how is it divisive to ask people to come to church. Is it divisive to encourage people to study their Bible, pray to God, and come to church to hear what their preacher had to say about this matter? Is it divisive to wonder if the foundation of the church is on the Rock or in the sand when our elders have just made a decision that changed what RHCC had done for 45 years? And a good part of this 45 years was under the leadership of most of these elders. It seems only reasonable and logical to me that the members of the congregatin are going to be confused and deserve some sort of explanation and guidance. After all, some elders said that they had been studying this matter for up to a year and a half. Gee, shouldn't some of this divine wisdom they have acquired over that period of time be shared with the congregation?
As far as the mailout not being signed by me personally, I pointed out to the elders that there were many "Concerned Members," not just my wife and me. We had discussed this matter with numerous Christian friends, especially at our care group and after Sunday school. Everyone was concerned as to what was going on. The major concern was that the elders were taking this action and not being open and candid with the flock. Numerous times the elders have sent out letters simply signed "the elders." Is it divisive that these mailouts were not signed by each and every elder? So am I to assume that it is okay for the elders to mail out correspondence with a group signature but it is divisive if members of the congregation do exactly the same thing?
The simple fact is there was nothing divisive about our mailout. Our intentions were pure and holy. The elders should be rejoicing when members are so dedicated to their church that they go to the trouble and expense that my wife and I went to to get people to come to church. This is an extremely important matter and all the congregation needs to know what is going on. The division is not being caused by a simple mailout. The division is being caused the the decision and actions of the elders.
There is no doubt in my mind that the office of deacon is required by scripture. My opinion is shared by many Christians at RHCC because we have been taught that for years. I am equally confident that the elders have erred by eliminating this position. But I, like most people, am willing to listen to their reasoning and study the scripture to see what God said about the matter. Unfortuntely, the elders had no intentions of bringing this matter before the congregation. I can't speak to their motives but their actions in this deception are absolutely wrong!! The elders should go before the congregation and repent of these actions, confess their transgressins, and beg the forgiveness of the congregation. There should be open forum discussions about this matter with the entire church body. But Mr. Hamm emphatically stated, " This is not going to happen."
I also brought to this meeting a copy of a World Bible Study pamphlet called "How to Become a Christian and start a Church of Christ." Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these pamphlets have been mailed out over the years by the RHCC. They have been mailed to new converts all over the world. My wife, as well as many other "special servants" have sent them out for years. This pamphlet and their mailing has had the full support of the elders at RHCC. On page 8 of this publication it plainly states that when there are qualified men, a church should have elders and deacons. How in the world can we expect the "new" in Christ to persevere when the more mature (RHCC) is not abiding by the instructions we are distributing. Does the scripture not say that it is better for you to have a heavy millstone tied around yoiur neck and thrown into the sea than to cause a babe in Christ to stumble? I asked the elders at this meeting how we could possibly explain our lack of compliance in this matter to anyone "new" in Christ. The elders had no reply.
Mr. Hamm and Mr. Kelsoe indicated that they were confident in their decisions and it was obvious that they were correct because of the growth that God was giving the RHCC. They also stated that all 17 elders were in agreement on this matter. Surely it isn't possible for all the elders to be wrong. They said they had to make these changes because other churches were doing it and changes had to be made to insure continued church growth.
I pointed out that RHCC had exceptional growth to the point that we had gone to three Sunday morning services. And we had enjoyed this phenominal growth while still following the scriptural requirement of having deacons. One of the other members attending the meeting, who has served as an elder at another church, pointed out that mere numerical growth does ot mean that God is pleased with what a church is doing. He stated that there are numerous churches in the DFW area whose attendance and financial position is quite superior to RHCC. He is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, if you are looking strictly at numbers, the Muslim religion is vastly out pacing anyone else in growth. I certainly doubt that their blessings are coming from God.
I also pointed out that throughout the history of mankind there have been numerous situations when the leadership of entire cities, countries, and kingdoms were wrong as far as obeying God's commands. I reminded them that God was displeased with the entire leadership of the earth that he destroyed every living thing except for those on the ark. So, yes, it is possible for 17 men who agree to be wrong. My real question is just how much do they agree?
I again asked the elders there why it was ot a good idea to have open meetings with the congregation. Hillcrest C of C in Abilene has had such meetings and they were quite successful. Mr. Hamm replied that that is why every C of C us autonomous. They do what they want to and we do what we want to. He emphatically reiterated that there would be no open meetings.
I asked the elders about the scriptures that states that overseers are to first be servants. Wouldn't a good and faithful servant make certain that his master knew exactly what was going on? Mr. Holder replied that the elders were shepherds. And shepherds don't ask the sheep what they want. A shepherd leads the sheep to water and they drink!! How sad!! I'm quite certain that Jesus as a shepherd had a totally different attitude about His flock.
Mr. Hamm asked me if I was familiar with the 13th chapter of Hebrews, specifically verse 17. I said I was. He asked what it said. I opened my Bible and read, "Obey your leaders!" he said they were the leaders and I was to obey them. He then stated that the elders as a group had discussed this situation at the men's retreat over the weekend and their instructions to me were to be quiet!! I was stunned. I asked him to repeat what he just said so everyone there knew they did not misinterpret what had just come out of his mouth. Mr. Hamm repeated that it was the instructions of the entire eldership that I was to be quiet. I could not believe what I was hearing.
I told Mr. Hamm that the ultimate leaders of the church were God, his son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. I said that the inspired Word of God as recorded by the Apostle Paul specifically refers to deacons and their qualifications. So if the instructions of the elders conflict with the scripture, then who am I to obey. His reply was that I must obey the elders. Once again Mr. Hamm is absolutely wrong!!
Another one of the members who attended with me voiced his concern about the decision of the elders as well as their deceptive actions in not discussing this matter with the congregation. He also brought up the problem of an increase in a charismatic movement in RHCC as well as other churches. He reminded the elders that he had corresponded with them in the past about his concerns. He also mentioned that he had never received any reply to any of his correspondence other than. Mr. Hamm referred to him as an "annoyance." This Christian is a good and godly man who loves the Lord and wants to live by the Word. He has been a faithful member at RHCC for over twenty years. He leads a Sunday School class and he and his lovely wife sponsor one of the most successful care groups at RHCC. I have never met a couple more supportive of the Lord's church. It is absolutely heartbreaking to sit and listen to an elder at RHCC refer to such a faithful Christian man as an annoyance. How shameful.
Mr. Hamm finally stated that the elders had made their decision in this matter. There would no longer be deacons!! Their decision was final and irrevocable. He said they had announced their decision to the entire congregation on Wednesday night and everyone knew what was going on. (This statement is absolutely not true.) He further stated that the majority of the congregation was in agreement with the elders and that this entire controversy was being caused by less than 20 people that had always been troublemakers. These few people represented less than 1/4 of one percent of the congregation.
I looked Mr. Hamm straight in the eye and said, "Bob, what you just said is not true." There were more than 20 people at our last care group meeting that had no idea of the decision of the elders. When informed of the decision, everyone disagreed with it. I personally know more than 20 people who have already left RHCC because of this controversial plan and the deceptive actions of the elders. I reminded Mr. Hamm that the attendance on any Wednesday night represents only about 1/3 of the congregation. In addition, the person making the announcement never once stated the fact that there would no longer be deacons at RHCC. As a matter of fact, approximately 1/2 of the current deacons had not even been notified that they were being replaced. How in the world do you treat your fellow man much less fellow Christians in such a manner. This entire fiasco is absolutely unbelievable.
After pouring my heart out for an hour and a half, it became suddenly obvious to me that I was wasting my time. These men had no concern whatsoever about my spiritual well-being. Not once did one of them ask about my feelings or motives. Their intentions were obvious. They were there to tell me to be quiet. Just as they gave absolutely no consideration to the letter I had written each of them, they gave absolutely no consideration to what I had to say. The problem was that they had made a very controversial and unscriptural decision to do away with deacons at RHCC. They knew that if the truth got out about what they were doing then there would be much concern and confusion. So they made a conscious decision to not inform the congregation. Their problem with me was that I was spreading the truth. Somehow, I think that is what all Christians are supposed to do. I definitely beleived my fellow Christians at RHCC had a right to know. So often around RHCC I have seen the letters WWJD. I wonder exactly what would Jesus do in this situation.
Kevin, I know Bob Hamm. His both a good and honest man--a man anyone would be happy to call brother or a relative.
But, he is misguided. The RHCC elders are misguided and deceieved at this point. He remains a good and upright man, but a fallible like the rest of us.
The RHCC elders are now in a difficult situtation in regard to the Scriptural organization of the church.
Kevin, please pray for their enlightenment--but please, do not cast any aspirations to their sincerity.
I will continue to call for their repentence. I will offer to meet personally with the elders as a group or each elder individually.
This is a matter of sharing the Truth in Love, not merely hammering someone with Truth alone.
I did receive a response from one of the ministers on behalf of the elders requesting an opporunity to meet with me. However, since it was nearly four weeks from the time of the letter until a response, my family and I have already left and began visiting other congregations.
At this point, I am will to meet with the entire group of elders or I will meet with them one on one. Because I have clearly heard their point. I would request at this time that I "have the floor" and discuss the point of view that we have upheld in the 45 year history of RHCC.
RHCC elders now have an opportunity to subdue their pride, repent, recend their decision and make a clear statement that RHCC will deny "universalism" and uphold the principles of doctrine that distinguish the churches of Christ from denomations.
Today, I visited an neaby congregation and was invited to attend a new members class by an old friend of mine. There were at least 11 other RHCC members in the class, in addition to my wife and myself.
Your postive energy in both thoughts and prayers are coveted. We need to be in daily prayer for the Lord's church worldwide.
I could be considered a young Christian in that I was baptized in 1988 at the age of 22 (I was raised in a devout Roman-Catholic family), so please accept my humble thoughts in that light. In my studies of the Bible, "what we've done for ___ years" was not used by Jesus or by the early (N.T.) church. Shouldn't this type of argument be avoided? Because in truth, the fact that something has been done for years and years does not make it right. God's Word is the rule which sheds light on our practices. Please be ever so careful that you only speak God's truth, and not dilute it with man's type of debate.
My sister in Christ, you statement above is generally correct. But please, allow me to state the exception: in a matter of congregational practice, you point has some validity, but in regards to a doctrine, or teachings, I believe we need to be slow to break with long-upheld doctrine.
Churches of Christ, have long taught and upheld very similar teachings in regards to I Timothy 3:11. The women mentioned here have long be held to be wives or either the elders and deacons or a least wives of the deacons.
RHCC elders and ministers have broken from this "doctrine." My point would clearly be, they have have basically chosen to separate from the mainstream restoration movement with their new understanding of this passage. I say "new" because the topic has been around for quite a long time, but has not been widely accepted or received by other godly elders and preachers.
Therefore, even if they found a correct understanding of this passage to the exclusion of most others, then they still erred in the way in which this teaching was put into practice.
Rather, they should have been willing to lead RHCC members and even our brotherhood of believers in a fresh study of this new approach.
Taking no thought of your members and the brotherhood violates the most basic principle of the spirit of unity and the bond of peace.
I truly hope that this separates in your mind, at least somewhat the difference in tradition and doctrine.
May God richly bless you on your spiritual journey.
(I apolozize for any misspellings, I was in a hurry!)
It's March 13th now...you failed to mention that last Wednesday night, Ken Phelps (one of the elders) read a statement from the elders, apologizing for the way the elders had handled the whole issue. He did not say that the decision had changed - rather, the elders were apologizing for the way the message was delivered, which I think needed to be done.
I am almost 100% certain we got a very one-sided view of that meeting that is completely skewed to his perspective. I know the elders, I've discussed this issue in depth with one of them, and the situation is not as Mr. McAlister paints it to be. Anyone who knows those three elders knows that they would not and did not behave in the way he makes it seem.
This message has been edited by KevinHamm from IP address 205.172.62.1 on Mar 27, 2002 12:43 PM
I am absolutely 100% certain you were not at the meeting. I was, and what I have relayed is exactly what occurred. At best you have heard two sides of the story. The only way you would be almost 100% certain about what was or was not said is if you were in fact there. I did take two witnesses with me who will vouch for what occurred.
One way to definitely know what transpired at this meeting would have been to tape record it. That is exactly what a fellow Christian and I proposed to do. We even brought tape recorders so we could do exactly that. The elders refused. In addition, my wife and another wife attempted to attend so they could witness what occurred. The elders refused. Why?
If you only knew how many times this sort of scenario has played out in churches around the country. I can believe it because virtually the same thing happened to members of my family and former church. When this sort of behavior is repeated cross-denominationally there is something seriously wrong afoot. I had challenged two elders and the pastor about the use of one verse of scripture and their only response was to verify that I thought it was misused. Not even the hint of an attempt to answer the challenge. As for leadership not following their own guidance, this is necessary to keep the people in check and to root out the "trouble makers". You know, the ones that have been paying attention and the ones that have believed what they have been taught throughout the years
People don't always behave with others as they do with their friends or colleagues. I have no reason to believe (nor do you) that Mac would lie about what happened. That is what you are asserting (in more vague terms, but the same nonetheless). It would be naive of you, or anyone else, to believe the face that people show you is the same face they show others. I have been around people that behave completely different in the workplace than they do around members of the church. Likewise, I have seen an elder puff up and turn red when their authority was questioned.
I would rather you not assume things about Mac unless you know him and know for a fact that he is completely skewing things to his perspective.
I am sorry that you went through what you did also. As I read your article I thought about 1 Timothy 3..."temperate, selfcontrolled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...". If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, the question of this elders qualifications are in serious doubt...especially if he aluded that people must blindly follow the elders. No thanks...I will do what the people in Acts 11 did and go home and read my Bible to make sure what I am being taught is true.
Regardless of what the elders say about this, the appointing of "special servants" was not well known. I found out while eating dinner at care group at my home. No-one at the table knew anything about this until it was brought up by someone who is a family member of one of our new "special servants".
I hope their only motive for their decision was because they believed that this is scriptural. Make no mistake, elders will have to answer for their actions in the same way that the rest of us will.
Rich,
I have always understood that elders will be held to a higher accounting of their actions when our Lord comes. Whatever, they and the members of Richland Hills deserve our prayers. I logged on to the internet to get the time of Richland Hills' services as my husband and I will be in Ft. Worth soon and I remember visiting them many years ago and feeling uplifted. Now I've decided to look for another church to attend while we are there - I definitely won't feel uplifted with women being considered in a leadership role of any kind over men in the congregation.
I think you are right on track and should be commended
for the strong stance you and other fellow christians are doing to call attention to how a lot of elders are lording over the Churches of Christ today. I certainly can feel for all who are going through this. I along with hundreds of members at the once Great Madison Church of Christ,who have left because of division in the church at Madison. My prayers are with you and others who are facing these and other problems that are creeping into the Lords Church. May God bless you to let others know!!!
This encounter, and the Elders conduct does not surprize me in the least, it is common. I'm sorry it has to be this way, but it's not called a "Remnant" for nothing. LOve ya Brother!
Dear brother Mac
I would like to give you words of comfort after engaging in such a battle. I do not know if this was a first for you or not, but every such battle cause wounds that need to be nursed. I take courage knowing that today’s soldiers of Christ are in great company; the Prophets of old, Jesus, the Apostles, first century Christian, and the more recent forefathers of the Faith, we all have one thing in common: We fight the Good Fight. Let me show you something that I saw recently that I great heart in.
Ezekiel 9
HE cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man his destroying weapon in his hand. 2 And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them clothed with linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar, 3 And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon He was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which the writer’s inkhorn by his side; 4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. 5 And to the others He said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, either have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old, young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
Ezekiel is an End Times Prophet, this is an End Time vision, and we live in the End Times so I take great heart in this vision. The Angel with the inkhorn is going through Jerusalem and the city with an inkhorn marking the people crying out about the abominations. Although we seem not to be making headway here, in the spirit we are collecting Gems for our Crowns and are delivered from the tribulations of the End Times. Take Heart, be Courageous, and fight the Good Fight. Keep one thing in mind: ALWAYS STAY SCRIPTURAL, EVEN WHEN THEY AREN’T.
I just hate two things: First, I just hate to offend those floating through life believing that being Biblically literate is a hate crime.
Second of all, I just hate it (not) when Joe McKnight opens up the Word to which the doctors of the law had "taken away the keys" and were fired by Jesus, and I get to jump on his bandwagon. I know, but any metaphor worthy of its salt is worthy of scrambling.
Flashing forward, remember that Ezekiel 40 begins discussion of the Idealized Temple to which the Levites were excluded from "clergy roles" because they had led the nation into destruction. Josephus warns the musical Levites of this nation destruction and that they were again up to their old self-seeking ways claiming to "give glory to the king" by wearing linen garments and performing music.
Then flashing backward, because of the musical idolatry (play) at Mount Sinai, God turned Israel over to worship the starry host: the sun, moon and planets. The kings were permitted by God to help carry out their sentence when they never ceased musical idolatry right there in the temple. (Sounding 120 trumpets in unison for the burning is not music). That proclamation got Stephen murdered by the clergy.
In Ezekiel 8 the total eldership was in deep paganism. Ezekiel describes how the men bowed to the sun images honoring Ishtar in the east and the women lamented for Tammuz. All of this began in literal Babylon and will end in spiritual Babylon. You can actually see how these images looked at a new RE-IMAGING the church workshop:
http://www.piney.com/RSReImaging.html
From the following paper you can see that this was musical worship which was always the PUNISHMENT for or the MARK of pagan religions:
http://www.piney.com/MuTammuz.html
Tammuz worshipers had the sign marked with water or wore a headband or other symbol of their god. However, the faithful were unmarked. The INKED mark for the faithful is the Hebrew TAU which is the sign of Tammuz. If this fits the pattern then the TAU would be like a temporary passover sign to the executioners ready to save Tammuz/Ishtar worshipers but getting fooled. If you add the SUN symbol to the Tammuz cross you define the worship in Jerusalem. Prophecy works: the end time executioners are destroying their own flock while God hustles the faithful out so that the elders wake up and half of their flock has evaporated into thin air.
If Joe is right and Ezekiel 9 speaks of the end-times then the total eldership, priests and women will be in the midst of musical worship of the S.U.N. god rather than the S.O.N. God and this spiritual "marking" is not a good sign. Better right now to mark the meaning of Babylon Harlot worship on your mind just in case Joe and I aren't insane.
Where, in all of scripture, does it tell us that if you go to the elders with an issue, and you don't like their answer, that it is your DUTY to send out a mailer imploring an entire congregation to rise up and fight back?? Your mailer, as well as this website, have done nothing to solve what you see as the problem...maybe it has just made you feel better about your holiness...I dunno.
You have to remember that the elders may have responded hostily because of what you have done - a very divisive, vindictive, thing - no matter what you think of them, if you have an issue with them you can't solve, then that's between you and them...NOT the rest of the body.
I normally do not respond in forums such as this, but feel strongly compelled in this case since you used several words that bothered me.
You apparently did not see the flyer that Mac sent out. It did not in any stretch of the imagination urge anyone to "rise up and fight back." It was not,in my opinion , divisive or vindictive. The primary message was as Mac stated "Read your Bibles, pray about this, and come to church on Wednesday night to hear what the preacher is going to say about this decision that the elders have made." I fail to see how anyone can see that as divisive or vindictive.Your point is well taken that the matter was between Mac and the elders. Mac was very frustrated after writing letters to each elder and to the eldership as a group and not receiving even one phone call or letter. In my opinion, the only phrase that could be questioned was the one about whether the church was on solid ground or on the sand. I can understand the resentment of the elders of that phrase. No elder has told me that he was resentful--that is strictly my interpretation of their response.
The most significant thing to me is that I suspect that the elders do not fully realize the depth of confusion and dismay that their decision and actions have caused. Communication with the congregation appears to have been grossly inadequate considering the magnitude of their decision and the rushed appearance of their actions.
At the risk of being labeled devisive, I urge you and all readers of this e-mail to pray for the elders and our congregational members for patience and guidance.
I hope that in a year that this will have been settled and appear to be no larger that a pimple on a whale's tail. It seems to me that we need to communicate better and to, as much as possible , remove the heat and emotion from this matter so that conflict resolution may be accomplished. Perhaps we should remember that by rearranging "heat" it can become "hate." We are brothers, aren't we? We need to act that way and remember that we are God's children and He can't be pleased when we squabble and present a less than loveable picture to the world.
Hey Mac,
I read about your meeting. Nomi and I are now under the eldership of the Keller CofC and feel so much better. The main reason I had to make a change was the "hidden agenda" that kept coming up over the years. For me to follow a leadership, I have to feel they keep the congregation not only informed on possible changes but the overall objective they are trying to achieve and if it is something that we are presently doing that is unscriptual that change should be immediate. If the change in deaconship to "special servants" was so scriptual, how can you say it needs to be done one day and change your mind the next? Waiting for a better climate to test it out I guess. I questioned the motive and concluded the motive is to "make everyone happy" so that RHCC can grow? I don't think that has much to do about "truth". Thank you for addressing the issue directly with the elders, I probably should have done the same but lost confidence in them over the years and just felt I needed new people I could trust to me informed when it had a impact on my walk with God. You will always be an inspiration to me and hope you and yours find peace in the Lord.
I have just come across this website and I think it is great! I am a memeber of the Lords church in Texas and am very concerned about what is going on in the church. It is so good and comforting to know that there are MEN who will stand up for the truth. I applaud you and I will be praying that GOD will bless and keep you. I am proud of you and I know that GOD is also!!! Keep Fighting the Good Fight!!!
Things had calmed down at my church (Hillcrest Church of Christ, Abilene) for awhile, but it looks like they are gearing up again after a leadership conference and another trip to Saddleback.
It was very good to find your web site and to learn that there are those at RHCC that are in disagreement with the changes regarding "special servants". Even though I am not a member there I am also concerned for more than one reason. You see, my oldest son recently got married to a girl that is not a member of the Lords Church. They have started going to worship at RHCC. (I am a member at the N. Beach St. congregation, which is just a few minutes from RHCC.) When I found out about the changes there I was concerned not only for my son and his new wife and their souls but also for the thousands of other souls at RHCC.
So I contacted Irvin Bishop and together with our minister, Robbie Gabhart, we vistited him to discuss these changes.
Our position is that you have to look at 1Timothy 2:9-15 as well as 3:1-13. If you do that it is pretty certain that the Lords will is only men can be the special servants talked about in 3:8-13.
After our meeting was concluded I felt so strongly that there were those at RHCC that I knew in my heart did not feel the same way as Irvin, that I asked our elders if we could send out a mailer to members of RHCC to let our feelings be know so that we could let them know that there is a church home that they could be among those of like belief. I would like to meet or talk to some of you to see if there is a way we could work together for the glory of God. PLEASE RESPOND
Do you really think that a mailer to the members of RHCC is the right answer??? You are directly SOWING DISCORD as Kenny Sublett and Don would say. Why do you feel the need to do this? Do you think that you have the Bible interpreted 100% correctly. There were WOMEN special servants in the early christian community. In fact the entire word "deacon" is not a direct translation it is a TRANSLITERATION.
Your letter will do NOTHING but CREATE PROBLEMS. It will not CREATE SOLUTIONS. The people at RHCC are there because they want to be. Any who do not agree HAVE ALREADY LEFT. If you are worried about your son, then talk to HIM.
Don't let the SWARM OF LOCUSTS let loose by Apollo (Abaddon, Apollyon) the owner of the Seeker Center in Delphi BITE YOUR TIRES.
These LOCUSTS have scorpion TAILS which give you the sting of death. In John's world around Patmos the Locusts or Grasshopper was known as the "god's" MUSICAL PERFORMER.
Off and on trials of the name DEACONESS always failed because the TITLE gave the women reason to DOMINATE rather than SERVE. Even so, the term deaconess was applied to widows over 60 like Paul's "widow in deed" and in need. She must pledge to remain unmarried and if she did she was EXCOMMUNICATED. In the same PROOF PERIOD, if a married man became an ELDER he had to send his wife off as a NUN to serve in some Bishops house.
The term was also applied to NUNS or unmarried "sisters" who pledged to remain unmarried and celibate.
The term was NEVER used to define Paul's married male. The DEACON word carries the elder's authority as a TEACHER. He is different from the ELDER in that the elders were OLDERS and not hotshot business men. The Deacons could GO PREACH. Elder's FIRING Deacons has the same arrogant authority as a DEACON firing the elders.
In the Restoration Movement the term was at times applied to the SEWING CIRCLE.
Mr/Mrs/Miss/It "whiney piney heart" doesn't have a clue and could care less for TRUTHFULNESS.
I invite you to my index on the Deaconess and invite Mr/Mrs/Miss/It tire biter to "go on to perfection" and NOW take up the letter "D" so that you can contribute:
http://www.piney.com/DeaconessIndex.html
Without fear of contradiciton it can easily be shown that the new DEFINITION of Deaconess so that the PASTOR can get rid of the deacons and hire their own friends as STAFF; as well as the Farmer's Branch "White Paper" (quite soiled) is deliberately perverting the clear Words of God.
I have a very strong feeling that as men like Rubel Shelly has promoted the idea that the "ministers"(slaves) are best equipped to be THE LEADERS, the elders at Richland Hills have become ROAD KILL. So the new SERVANTS use unbearable psychological skill to SILENCE the elders and become the DOMINANT PASTOR to go along with their new marriage with the Baptists or with Richland Hills the Disciples.
Rubel Shelly at:
http://www.piney.com/RSReImaging.html
"Elders must be able to be both spontaneous and intentional (?) in the shepherding, mentoring, equipping, and encouraging they provide
--------"TO THE LEADERS OF THE CHURCH."
So! The elders are NOT the leaders but they SHEPHERD the LEADERS who have usurped the authority over the flock and no wonder statistics show that they are 85% FEMININE ORIENTED and many protestant "priesthoods" have about the same rate of messing with the flock as Catholics. It is well recognized that the HOSTILE TAKEOVER is a FEMINIST or EFFEMINIST usurping the authority of the elders and deacons as the ONLY Pastor- Teachers of the local flock.
Shelly continues to SET THE ELDERS STRAIGHT:
"Ministers are the GREATEST RESOURCE of the local church in terms of KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, and INVESTMENT in human resources."
-----"Shepherds and ministers must work as partners in anticipating and meeting the needs of the church family.
That is Highland's Authority to FIRE the deacons so that the ministers can dominate, USE the elders as an advisory board just as they would in the lusted-after Disciples, and FREEZE OUT the deacons who have the nasty habit of questioning the NEW STYLE WORSHIP.
If you read Shelly Sermonics or many others you discover that the MINISTERS- BECOME- MASTERS may be the LEAST equipped to be BILLY GOAT (Bacchus or Buck) of the hill.
I hope and pray that the things being done at RHCC can indeed be corrected. I applaud those who have taken a stand for the truth. Having been raised in the church, and that church being the RHCC, I know where the church came from and I have watched from the outside as it has began to crumble from within. When men of God,(at least I thought they were, and hope that some are) fail to uphold Godly truths, any church will have the failings that RHCC is indeed suffering.
David Bragg
it is incredible to me that any member of rhcc would post any such thing about our church or its leadership. i am stunned and appalled by this action against the church body and its elders.
First, i believe that you are entirely wrong on your opinion that God WANTS division or likes it in any way. as far as the judgement day being the "ultimate division", God would LOVE it if there was NO divison on that day! for that would mean that all had accepted Christ and repented. it is only ABSOLUTELY neccesary that there is divison because God can not be in the pressence of sin.
Second, the word deacon means servant, so the replacement of them with special servants is really no replacement at all. they are essentially the same thing. there name is changed only in order to allow women to be involved without offending those who think women cannot be "deacons" and be in accordance with the scriptures.
Third, i believe that it is ok for you to think what you want, but not to cause problems and controversy in the church body because of your beliefs. it is good that you went to the elders, but meeting with them does not entitle you to now send letters to the church land blasting there decision.
Finally, do you really think that your soul is being put into jeopardy by the essential renaming of deacons? it is Jesus' blood that has secured your soul, not elders decisions! i am truly sorry if you believe that this decision could keep you or others out of heaven, even if it is wrong.
i will continue to pray for our church, its leaders, and its members.
P.S. Jesus would not have asked the sheep what they wanted. is a parent going to ask their child what they want, or are they going to do what is right for them regardless. in the same way sheep are some of the stupidest animals on the planet, and there is NO WAY that a shephard is going to listen while they tell him what they want. if left to themselves they would walk in a circle eating until all the grass is gone and then die of starvaton. i do not believe Jesus would have treated his sheep any differently.
I thought this was about the position of women in the church
April 4 2005, 12:28 PM
Why don't people just stick to the reason for this thread? It seems to have deteriorated to name calling and such.
Just a few observations:
1. Why would Paul give qualifications for deacon's wives and not elder's wives in 1 Timothy 3?
2. Therefore doesn't 1 Timothy 3:11 suggest that "women" should be women and not "wives?"
3. Women were allowed to pray and prophesy in public in Paul's time 1 Corinthians 11:5.
4. Phoebe was presented as a deacon Romans 16:1. If that means simply servant, then why not say so for all the referrences to "deacon?"
5. What was Paul meaning when he said "there is no male or female" Galatians 3:28?
6. The references for women to remain silent must have been referrences to specific problems in specific congregations where the women were being disruptive by speaking out of place. This must be the interpretation because of number 3 above.
7. In light of all the above, what is the difference between appointing "special servants" and "deacons"?
8. What is proper, right or biblical about speculating publically about the reason that they mentioned Wes working toward a PhD?
Re: I thought this was about the position of women in the church
April 4 2005, 10:27 PM
Puzzled,
As a woman in the Church (and a Deacon's wife) please do NOT speak up for the rest of us. The position of women in the Church is determined in the Bible if one is willing to accept it and stop fighting it.
1. You quote a portion of 1 Timothy 3 but ignore the rest. Let's look at that Chapter:
Paul gives the qualifications for Bishop/Elders - which can only have one wife. We don't seem to have any disagreement over that issue. No one is trying to set up female Elders (yet). However, when Deacons are given the same EXACT qualification of having one wife - you ignore that part.
Undisputable facts: God abhores homesexuality, therefore a woman cannot be married to a woman. Correct? So, If a Deacon can only have one wife, then he cannot be a she. Simple logic.
2. Paul is speaking of Deacons in the use of "their" which is a possessive term. "Their" (the Deacons') wives..... This is NOT discussing women of the church but is specifically addressing the behavior of the wives of the Deacons.
Most likely, as Deacons were the younger men in the Church, Paul was very aware of the issues amongst young wives. As a Deacon's wife, I can assure you I am very aware of what he is speaking of and the competition/back-stabbing that occurs amongst the Deacon's wives (and not as much amongst the Elder's wives).
3. Women were allowed to pray and prophesy in public in Paul's time 1 Corinthians 11:5.
Again, you have only read a portion of the Bible. Paul does NOT stop Christian women from spreading the Word outside the worship service. He in fact, encourages it. Paul does give strict instructions on how women are to learn in quiet DURING worship. If you will note, he tells them to ask questions afterwards. So, he obvioualy expects us to become knowledgeable. He also gives strict instructions to not teach or have authority over man. Does that prohibit her from teaching women and children? Is that not just as important as teaching men?
4. Actually, the word Diakonos was used for both the term "Deacon" which represented the younger male role of servant to the Church and as "servant". The term "servant" was used for all Christians who provided a service for the Church.
We use the same words for different meanings today. For example:
Gay:
He is so lively and gay. (meaning happy and upbeat)
He is so gay. (meaning homesexual)
Politician:
Mr. Bush is a politician. (An actual position voted on by constituants)
Stop being such a politician. (A "yes" man, or a fence sitter)
You are trying hard to twist something simple into a whole new arena just because you do not want to accept Paul's teachings as inspired by God. However, you will note that Paul does note the importance of women and their roles in the Church. He also addresses them as equals in his letters. He does not demean men or women by setting certain roles aside for each sex. The Church must be managed for consistency and clarity. As Christ is the head of the Church, so is the husband the head of the wife.
5. What was Paul meaning when he said "there is no male or female" Galatians 3:28?
Again, we are all equal in God's eyes. Man is no more or less a sinner than women. This does not take away from the roles set aside for each sex.
6. "The references for women to remain silent must have been referrences to specific problems in specific congregations where the women were being disruptive by speaking out of place."
"Must" have been references???? If you read all of Paul's writings, you cannot find inconsistency in how the Church was set up. Women were to be silent in the worship service and to not hold authority over men. Simple...elegant....clear...
Why would this be a reference to only one Church assembly??? How do you come by that decision? He didn't state that it was an issue at that Church, did he? No. He was making a blanket statement about the positions of Bishop/Elder and Deacon.
If Paul was referring to just that Church, why would he be getting onto women only? Are you telling me that only women were speaking out of place? Does that mean the men speak "in place"? If he was getting onto the women for speaking up, why???? If they were allowed to speak up in worship, why address the issue? So, if women were in trouble for speaking "out of place" how could they be Deacon's in the Church?
7. In light of all the above, what is the difference between appointing "special servants" and "deacons"?
Deacon - a position in the Church. Assigned to help the Elders/Bishops. To assist members of the congregation, servants of the Church. Relationship to his position or work.
Servant - one who provides service in the Church.
Greek translation:
"diakonos" views a servant in relationship to his work; "doulos" views him in relationship to his master.
Ok, tired, rambling and unable to type correctly. Sorry.
Re: I thought this was about the position of women in the church
April 9 2005, 10:42 AM
Paul's teachings as a whole must be taken into consideration here. He made a special point of commending Phoebe our sister who was a "diakonos" or deacon of a specific congregation. The same word is used for the office of deacon. We can't cherry pick which words we want to be "servant" and which ones are "deacons." Again the women "praying and prophesying" with their head covered is not evangelizing. You don't pray to evangelize. Prophesying is either miraculous utterance of insight or just someone with the gift of insight into a passage of scripture or a spiritual concept. These are done in the gathering of believers for worship. So you have examples from Paul here of a woman deacon and women speaking in worship. There is no reason to explain these away. So what was he talking about in his letter to the Corinthians? The Corinthian church in the first letter was chock full of problems. A man having sex with his stepmother, the Lord's supper being taken as a drunken meal excluding the poor and chaos in the worship service with people spouting tongues with no interpreter, women speaking up to as questions out of turn. He told the women in the Corinthian church to be quiet since it was disrupting the service. To say it is universal you have to explain away Phoebe being a deacon and call Prayer and prophesy something out of the worship service. In chapter 12 Paul mentions Prophesy as a gift to aspire to with no mention of man or women. Where would a woman prophet prophesy if it wasn't in the assembly? And in chapter 14 he says that when you prophesy you "speak to men" to edify and exhort them. "them" are not unbelievers. He says it "edifies the church." And he says that women do it if they do it with decorum with their head covered which was a custom of the day.
If Paul says a deacon must have one wife, the syntax assumes in that sentance that it is a man and not a lesbian. If he is talking about the "wife" of the deacon, why doesn't he say anything about the elder's wife? That would seem to be more important. If women could be mentioned as a deacon of a specific church and women can prophesy (also in 1 Corinthians) and the prophet "edifies the church (also in 1 Corinthians) then the requirement for them to be silent must be referring to a specific disruption they were causing in a very messed up congregation. Even the call for women to cover their heads was to fix another disruption in the decorum of the woman that was by implication prophesying in the assembly since that is what just about the whole book of 1 Corinthians is about.
You say " Paul is speaking of Deacons in the use of "their" which is a possessive term. "ul is speaking of Deacons in the use of "their" which is a possessive term. " "their" isn't in the greek. It is added. The greek says "women (or wives) likewise honorable, not slanderers, sober, trustworthy and faithful in all things." "likewise" or "in like manner" refers to the previous verses that speak of Deacons. There is nothing in the greek or the syntax that must narrow the word "women" to mean wives. If it did I think Paul would have listed qualifications for the wives of elders.
"This is NOT discussing women of the church but is specifically addressing the behavior of the wives of the Deacons." I wholeheartedly disagree for the reasons above.
"you have only read a portion of the Bible. Paul does NOT stop Christian women from spreading the Word outside the worship service. He in fact, encourages it. Paul does give strict instructions on how women are to learn in quiet DURING worship." Again there is nothing to suggest that the praying and prophesying was outside the assembly because it is imbedded in Paul talking about abuses of the Lord's supper which is in the worship assembly. He talks about the Lord's supper, the women praying and prophesying with uncovered head and then talks more about the Lord's supper.
"Actually, the word Diakonos was used for both the term "Deacon" which represented the younger male role of servant to the Church and as "servant". The term "servant" was used for all Christians who provided a service for the Church." I agree, but why do you "cherry pick" which ones you want to say deacon and which ones you want to say servant? Why must Phoebe be mentioned just as a "servant" and not a deacon.
You said:
"As Christ is the head of the Church, so is the husband the head of the wife." Agreed. But they still spoke prayed and prophesied in worship. The husband can still be the head of the family.
"If you read all of Paul's writings, you cannot find inconsistency in how the Church was set up. Women were to be silent in the worship service and to not hold authority over men. Simple...elegant....clear..." I absolutely agree. Take the whole book of 1 Corinthians into context. Paul says women prophesy. He says it is to men. It is to exhort and edify the church. It is a spiritual gift. In light of all of that how can Paul now say that women cannot speak in worship? It doesn't fit with what he had said in the whole book.
Why would this be a reference to only one Church assembly??? How do you come by that decision? He didn't state that it was an issue at that Church, did he? No. He was making a blanket statement about the positions of Bishop/Elder and Deacon.
"If Paul was referring to just that Church, why would he be getting onto women only? Are you telling me that only women were speaking out of place? Does that mean the men speak "in place"? If he was getting onto the women for speaking up, why???? If they were allowed to speak up in worship, why address the issue? So, if women were in trouble for speaking "out of place" how could they be Deacon's in the Church?"
Not all women were disruptive like Phoebe and the women who prayed and prophesied with their head covered.
Paul was clearly speaking of immature women who were adding to the chaos of the assembly by speaking up out of turn asking questions. Paul was simply telling the women to save the question for after the service. Yes in that congregation it was the women in this example. But it was also the men speaking up in tongues without an interpreter. That was at least but probably more disruptive than the women. He was only laying down guidelines for the congregation to follow to return the assembly to order. It is clearly specific to the Corinthian church at that particular time. It is why Paul wrote the letter.
I believe that the church has stifled the position of women in the church by not considering the whole picture of Paul's teaching on the matter.
Re: I thought this was about the position of women in the church
April 9 2005, 10:36 PM
Puzzled,
It is obvious that you do not want to hear what the Word says. Because you totally dismiss the written Word by ignoring or changing what is written, one cannot debate the Bible with you. Your logic is unsound and faulty in the extreme. You make assumptions, period.
In fact, almost everything you state is based on YOUR assumption of what YOU think Paul REALLY meant. But it is NOT based on WHAT he wrote.
You continue to try and use the "it gives behaviors for Deacon's wives but not Elder's wives, so that must mean that their wives can be Deacons" routine that is so full of holes I can't stand it. You cannot truly believe what you wrote. You cannot believe that just because he gave a list of behaviors for a Deacon's wife that means they can be Deacons? What????
Again, you totally ignore the actual language and explicit intent of Paul's statements. You completely dismiss the statement that a "Deacon must be married to one wife" and act like it wasn't ever written. Then you turn around and try to stretch the "behavior" issue. You can't take part of it away and then add more than was intended. If so, then throw out the entire Book as it is now useless to you. You keep trying to use the "Phebe" connection that isn't even there. Simple understanding of Greek language at the time the NT was written would clarify that sentence for you and help you to understand. But no, you have to try and make it fit your need.
As a woman, please stop insulting us. We are not "stiffled" in the Church. How dare you think that if we can't be Deacons or Ministers that women are less? How dare you limit us in our importance just because we may can't fill a COUPLE of "positions" in the Church. Does that mean men are "stiffled" because they cannot have children? I mean, how powerful is it to be able to carry, nourish and deliver a new "soul"?
Pray and then re-read my initial response. I based my reply on "facts" not "wants". Don't try and twist Paul's simple words out of context. Stop trying to find what you want to see. When you do, you'll find out how clear those passages really are.