Jim,
I was reading your update about Jon Courson and his sons. This will probably always be one of those issues we disagree on. But for the sake of discussion, I haven't understood exactly why you have a problem with the fact that his sons are also teaching. Aside from the from the Calvary chapel's view of leadership are there other reasons?
Personally, I feel as though the best people Jon or the church could have chosen were his sons. If you are an elder, pastor what better person to replace you than your father? Not to say we should ignore the Holy Spirit, but when you have spent time seeking the where it is or who it is I think having your sons take your place would be not only and honor but wise. Mainly because you know your sons character better than anyone else if you raised your sons the right way.
I have personally listened to almost all Jon Coursons teaching through the bible, and although I disagree with the example and how far Chuck Smith take the Moses leadership thing too far, I still think many of the Calvary chapel pastors do not practice that type of leadership.
there were over 160 elders that had to agree to accept all three as pastors. As for experience, on the teaching side of things, Ben Courson is more faithful in teaching the Word than many of the pastors in our area. I personally don't see why there is a problem with their church or the three of the teaching.
Thanks again Jim for this place to discuss things.
Jon Courson
-
jimbaum
- Site Admin
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
- Contact:
A New Testament Assembly
Zach, I appreciate that you appreciate that we can discuss important things! Yes, and even if we continue to disagree about some things, I think it is very important that believers in the Lord Jesus Christ discuss such matters.
I rejoice when Christ is preached and I do believe that the Coursons preach the Gospel. And yet I believe that there are many things about the organization they have built that it is reasonable to discuss.
First of all, that no one, no matter how popular, should be exempt from criticism. Secondly, that criticism is not the same as division. Being an Acts 17:11 Berean REQUIRES that we be free to disagree.
Most of the issues come down to what does the New Testament say that a local assembly should be, how should we relate to one another, how should leaders lead.
I believe that we should discuss how a modern mega church relates to what a local assembly should be. Also, how should a local gathering of believers be different from a franchise business? Should a local assembly be treated as if it were a family business to be handed down to a son? Should a local assembly aspire to be a multi-million dollar mega-business?
These are all questions for which I believe the Applegate organization is a good example for discussion.
Jim
I rejoice when Christ is preached and I do believe that the Coursons preach the Gospel. And yet I believe that there are many things about the organization they have built that it is reasonable to discuss.
First of all, that no one, no matter how popular, should be exempt from criticism. Secondly, that criticism is not the same as division. Being an Acts 17:11 Berean REQUIRES that we be free to disagree.
Most of the issues come down to what does the New Testament say that a local assembly should be, how should we relate to one another, how should leaders lead.
I believe that we should discuss how a modern mega church relates to what a local assembly should be. Also, how should a local gathering of believers be different from a franchise business? Should a local assembly be treated as if it were a family business to be handed down to a son? Should a local assembly aspire to be a multi-million dollar mega-business?
These are all questions for which I believe the Applegate organization is a good example for discussion.
Jim
I completely agree. No one should be exempt from criticism. I don't think Jon Courson is and in the case of me its not about him being exempt from criticism but its a matter of defending him against criticism which I think is just as biblical. When someone criticizes someone who is a fellow Christian, if we believe they are not doing anything unbiblical I think we need to stand with them and defend. In this case, I have been listening to Jon Courson for about 5 years now and atleast from his teachings and what I have seen he has always seemed to not only preach the gospel, but has always given God the glory for any growth that has taken place in the Applegate Fellowship. He has always told people that he doesn't believe in programs, music concerts, etc. to grow the church. He has always said the secret is preach the word and where the word increases so do the number of disciples. One think that has been a testimony to me of his commitment is that as long as I've been listening to him, all I really know about him is he always point to Jesus as the key to everything in life and to understanding scripture. Another thing is his Searchlight Radio program. I email them last week about their non profit status and asked if Jon Courson receives any money at all from the sales or donations of any of his teaching and products found on the search light radio program. According to the response Jon receives no money at all from his teaching and products sold. If that is true it's just confims to me personally that his intention is not about making money or becomming popular. If being popular was his intentions than he would be writing books and speaking all over the place. As far as I know he only speak occasionaly at their own church camps and retreats and at a few other calavary chapel's once in a while.First of all, that no one, no matter how popular, should be exempt from criticism. Secondly, that criticism is not the same as division. Being an Acts 17:11 Berean REQUIRES that we be free to disagree.
Most of the issues come down to what does the New Testament say that a local assembly should be, how should we relate to one another, how should leaders lead.
I agree that a church should not be treated as a business and so many churches today believe it should be. They believe that education is all that matters; If you have a degree in theology than you can be on staff at almost any large church with enough money to pay you.
However, I don't see how the courson family has treated it like a franchise business. I personally have heard Peter Jon's teachings and Ben's and see no reason why they should not be teaching. They at leastly know the Word enough and unless there is personal sin or other things we don't know about than I don't see any reason why there is a problem there.
What I do understand, although I disagree partly is the position of church leadership. I understand and partially agree that one man should not be the sole leader but rather a group of people. In this case it just happens to be 3 people who are related. I think they are taking a much more biblical position than most churches.
Anyways, I look forward to hearing back from you.
In Christ
zach wingo
-
jimbaum
- Site Admin
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
- Contact:
A megachurch has to be run like a business. Once a megachurch builder decides to turn a local assembly into a megachurch, there is, logistically speaking, no other choice.
As evidence that Applegate is being run like a business, the organization was turned over from father to son, just like a family business. This pattern of leadership is not found in the New Testament.
Now, as in many businesses we see nepotism. The only people listed as "Teaching Pastors" are named Courson.
This is out of a congregation of thousands and as you say 160 "elders".
The other illustration of Applegate being other than what is taught in the New Testament is that of a dynasty over a kingdom. A New Testament local assembly is not to be run like a dynasty over a kingdom. Rather a local assembly should be led by multiple Biblical elders.
Leadership decisions in modern churches are often made from the point of view of needing a figure head that can unite the people, keep the numbers increasing, and keep the numbers from decreasing.
Again this is not the pattern of the New Testament assembly.
As evidence that Applegate is being run like a business, the organization was turned over from father to son, just like a family business. This pattern of leadership is not found in the New Testament.
Now, as in many businesses we see nepotism. The only people listed as "Teaching Pastors" are named Courson.
This is out of a congregation of thousands and as you say 160 "elders".
The other illustration of Applegate being other than what is taught in the New Testament is that of a dynasty over a kingdom. A New Testament local assembly is not to be run like a dynasty over a kingdom. Rather a local assembly should be led by multiple Biblical elders.
Leadership decisions in modern churches are often made from the point of view of needing a figure head that can unite the people, keep the numbers increasing, and keep the numbers from decreasing.
Again this is not the pattern of the New Testament assembly.
I agree that it is hard if not impossible to keep a mega church from being run like a business.
Let me throw out a different perspective about the New Testament church. Right from the beginning of the church when Jesus left, the Christians went through a huge persecution. Every single place on earth where Christians are persecuted, home churches and small gathering of believers without pastors are always the result, there are no other options. Also, every single place where Christians are persecuted, the number of Christians believers in that area increase.
I believe that this model of home churches, small gatherings of believers fellowshipping together, worshiping God together and studying the scriptures together is the image portrayed in the new testament. But so is the persecuted church.
In China the church has grown rapidly in the past, all while under persecution. They followed the example of New Testament church that was under persecution.
However, in America, Christians are not under persecution the way they were in China and in the early church. Meeting the same way is not needed to avoid persecution.
Not to say that these home fellowships should or only happen under persecution. But I also hesitate to say that all churches that follow the traditional “one pastor/teacher” is also wrong. I tend to believe that these two views are kind of like Paul’s comment that if you get married you do good, but if you remain single you do even better.
And again, I’m not talking about those churches where the pastor is clearly abusing his leadership position for his own gain. But I think that there are many churches, with one or two pastors, who teach the word and don’t abuse their position but are humble and open to criticism. But than again, until I read the stuff on your website I never really thought about these issues either. So I guess i'll have to think about it a little more.
zach
Let me throw out a different perspective about the New Testament church. Right from the beginning of the church when Jesus left, the Christians went through a huge persecution. Every single place on earth where Christians are persecuted, home churches and small gathering of believers without pastors are always the result, there are no other options. Also, every single place where Christians are persecuted, the number of Christians believers in that area increase.
I believe that this model of home churches, small gatherings of believers fellowshipping together, worshiping God together and studying the scriptures together is the image portrayed in the new testament. But so is the persecuted church.
In China the church has grown rapidly in the past, all while under persecution. They followed the example of New Testament church that was under persecution.
However, in America, Christians are not under persecution the way they were in China and in the early church. Meeting the same way is not needed to avoid persecution.
Not to say that these home fellowships should or only happen under persecution. But I also hesitate to say that all churches that follow the traditional “one pastor/teacher” is also wrong. I tend to believe that these two views are kind of like Paul’s comment that if you get married you do good, but if you remain single you do even better.
And again, I’m not talking about those churches where the pastor is clearly abusing his leadership position for his own gain. But I think that there are many churches, with one or two pastors, who teach the word and don’t abuse their position but are humble and open to criticism. But than again, until I read the stuff on your website I never really thought about these issues either. So I guess i'll have to think about it a little more.
zach
-
jimbaum
- Site Admin
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
- Contact:
The Teaching of the Apostles
Zach,
I do appreciate examining these things together.
On a practical level I can see your theory as cause and effect: Under persecution the local assemblies must be small and intimate in order to be low profile. In times of relative freedom and comfort, groups and leaders have the luxury to go beyond small, intimate assemblies and build large organizations.
And yet, consider the example of the Believers in Acts 2:42:
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles ' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Our calling as New Testament believers is to continue in the teaching of the Apostles.
Also, consider how God shows us the pattern He desires.
See Hebrews 8:5:
"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."
The shadow was shown to Moses, the true pattern is Jesus Christ.
So, the Apostle Paul says: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1
I recommend learning the commandments and teachings and patterns of the New Testament and seeking wisdom as to how to apply these things, knowing our Lord gives us great freedom. And as we use our freedom we trust the Lord to help us avoid the traditions of men that distract and obscure our calling rather than help us follow the pattern of Christ.
Jim
I do appreciate examining these things together.
On a practical level I can see your theory as cause and effect: Under persecution the local assemblies must be small and intimate in order to be low profile. In times of relative freedom and comfort, groups and leaders have the luxury to go beyond small, intimate assemblies and build large organizations.
And yet, consider the example of the Believers in Acts 2:42:
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles ' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Our calling as New Testament believers is to continue in the teaching of the Apostles.
Also, consider how God shows us the pattern He desires.
See Hebrews 8:5:
"Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."
The shadow was shown to Moses, the true pattern is Jesus Christ.
So, the Apostle Paul says: "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:1
I recommend learning the commandments and teachings and patterns of the New Testament and seeking wisdom as to how to apply these things, knowing our Lord gives us great freedom. And as we use our freedom we trust the Lord to help us avoid the traditions of men that distract and obscure our calling rather than help us follow the pattern of Christ.
Jim
Jim,
Do you think the traditional with one or two pastors is unbiblical or is it what almost always happens as a result of having one pastor?
A lot of large churches will devote themselves to either the apostles teachings or to fellowship, but few devote themselves to the breaking of bread in addition to one or both of the others. I love how CBF takes communion every week. I think it's unbiblical not to.
Do you think the traditional with one or two pastors is unbiblical or is it what almost always happens as a result of having one pastor?
A lot of large churches will devote themselves to either the apostles teachings or to fellowship, but few devote themselves to the breaking of bread in addition to one or both of the others. I love how CBF takes communion every week. I think it's unbiblical not to.
-
jimbaum
- Site Admin
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
- Contact:
As I've examined the New Testament on these things, I observe that it teaches that a local assembly of believers should be led by multiple elders who are called to pastor the believers in that fellowship. Each elder should be capable of teaching and some elders labor in the word.
The Lord's Supper has become more important in my understanding in recent years. The Bible does not say how often to partake of it, but I also appreciate partaking at every Sunday morning meeting. I actually see the Lord's Supper as being in the context of an actual meal we take together, but I am content to partake together with the passing of the little cups of juice and the loaf of bread during the main morning meeting on Sunday. Perhaps those who meet in home fellowships could partake as a full meal like many house churches do. And as often as we do this we remember the Lord's death until He returns.
The Lord's Supper has become more important in my understanding in recent years. The Bible does not say how often to partake of it, but I also appreciate partaking at every Sunday morning meeting. I actually see the Lord's Supper as being in the context of an actual meal we take together, but I am content to partake together with the passing of the little cups of juice and the loaf of bread during the main morning meeting on Sunday. Perhaps those who meet in home fellowships could partake as a full meal like many house churches do. And as often as we do this we remember the Lord's death until He returns.
Jim,
As for the lords supper, I should have worded that differently. It seems to me in the context of Acts 2, it mentions that the believers met together and broke bread although it doesn't say how often. The bible isn't very clear on how often but because of Acts 2 I think that we need to take communion with the whole body of believers not just family, friends, as often as we can. I don't think it's a sin not to just better if we do.
The Nazarene church only takes communion on the 5th Sunday of the month which is only 6 times a year.
But getting back to the Courson, I don't see how their situation is in opposition to what is stated above as the New Testament example of church. There are three pastors doing the teaching, and several others that are ministers.
How do you do you believe these elders are to be chosen?
What is it that causes you to believe that Jon's sons don't meet or weren't chosen according to those standards besides the simple fact that they are his sons?
Is it possible that even though they are his sons, and they were the churches first considerations, that the church elders didn't still hold them to biblical standards before approving them?
I just don't see how the fact that they are sons of a pastor should disqualify them from ever being considered as a fellow elder along with their dad.
Thanks again for discussing these things with me
Zach
I completely agree with that.As I've examined the New Testament on these things, I observe that it teaches that a local assembly of believers should be led by multiple elders who are called to pastor the believers in that fellowship. Each elder should be capable of teaching and some elders labor in the word.
As for the lords supper, I should have worded that differently. It seems to me in the context of Acts 2, it mentions that the believers met together and broke bread although it doesn't say how often. The bible isn't very clear on how often but because of Acts 2 I think that we need to take communion with the whole body of believers not just family, friends, as often as we can. I don't think it's a sin not to just better if we do.
The Nazarene church only takes communion on the 5th Sunday of the month which is only 6 times a year.
But getting back to the Courson, I don't see how their situation is in opposition to what is stated above as the New Testament example of church. There are three pastors doing the teaching, and several others that are ministers.
How do you do you believe these elders are to be chosen?
What is it that causes you to believe that Jon's sons don't meet or weren't chosen according to those standards besides the simple fact that they are his sons?
Is it possible that even though they are his sons, and they were the churches first considerations, that the church elders didn't still hold them to biblical standards before approving them?
I just don't see how the fact that they are sons of a pastor should disqualify them from ever being considered as a fellow elder along with their dad.
Thanks again for discussing these things with me
Zach
-
jimbaum
- Site Admin
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
- Contact:
I think we should look at the New Testament and see what roles are called for providing leadership in the local assembly and then we should follow that pattern.
If we create a pattern different than the New Testament, then we may be distracting and obscuring what the local assembly should be.
Part of my concern for what has happened to the professing church is that we have built organizations around an elite; around figureheads; around a professional clergy system; rather than coming together as brethren with Jesus as our Head.
If we create a pattern different than the New Testament, then we may be distracting and obscuring what the local assembly should be.
Part of my concern for what has happened to the professing church is that we have built organizations around an elite; around figureheads; around a professional clergy system; rather than coming together as brethren with Jesus as our Head.
I completely agree again.
I just don't think Jon Courson or his sons were selected simply because they were his sons. I think they were qualified. I think it's going a little too far to say they are treating the church like a business or family heirloom. I don't think Jon is leading the church in an authoritarian way. As with all churches I believe they have problems and sometimes allow things of the world to creep in, but I still think it's taking things too far to say they are running their church like a business.
Zach
I just don't think Jon Courson or his sons were selected simply because they were his sons. I think they were qualified. I think it's going a little too far to say they are treating the church like a business or family heirloom. I don't think Jon is leading the church in an authoritarian way. As with all churches I believe they have problems and sometimes allow things of the world to creep in, but I still think it's taking things too far to say they are running their church like a business.
Zach
-
jimbaum
- Site Admin
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
- Contact:
Applegate at its height numbered about 5000 people, I understand. That qualifies for a Megachurch, I would think. I don't see how a Megachurch can function with the intent of the New Testament.
It is impossible for a Megachurch to function, in my view, without operating like a big business.
A Megachurch is always built around the personality of a figurehead leader. Take away the figurehead leader and most the attendees will leave.
When a figurehead leader gathers around himself a following and he calls it a church, he has turned the local assembly into his own franchise. It is evidence of such a franchise when the "church" is handed down from one figure head leader to his son.
Out of 160 "elders" you would think more than just three named Courson would be gifted as teachers.
If not, then that proves one of my points: That modern churchianity stunts the growth of believers. A Megachurch is a worst-case example of modern churchianity.
I pray that our Lord will continue to work in peoples lives in spite of the churchianity we find ourselves in. But, how much better to be a New Testament assembly in the pattern our Lord has laid out for us, pressing on to maturity!
It is impossible for a Megachurch to function, in my view, without operating like a big business.
A Megachurch is always built around the personality of a figurehead leader. Take away the figurehead leader and most the attendees will leave.
When a figurehead leader gathers around himself a following and he calls it a church, he has turned the local assembly into his own franchise. It is evidence of such a franchise when the "church" is handed down from one figure head leader to his son.
Out of 160 "elders" you would think more than just three named Courson would be gifted as teachers.
If not, then that proves one of my points: That modern churchianity stunts the growth of believers. A Megachurch is a worst-case example of modern churchianity.
I pray that our Lord will continue to work in peoples lives in spite of the churchianity we find ourselves in. But, how much better to be a New Testament assembly in the pattern our Lord has laid out for us, pressing on to maturity!
-
jimbaum
- Site Admin
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Port Orchard, WA, USA
- Contact:
I've rewritten the following article to look at some additional aspects of Applegate Christian Fellowship.
Jon Courson
Applegate Christian Fellowship
http://procinwarn.com/courson.htm
Jon Courson
Applegate Christian Fellowship
http://procinwarn.com/courson.htm