Suriken:

So you are against democratically elected church government and financial transparency?

And you are in favor of totalitarian church government without meaningful financial transparency?

Chuck Colson wouldn't agree with you and his ministry Prison Fellowship isn't run that way.

Despite your personal choice of biblical interpretation, Protestant churches today overwhelmingly have both democratically elected church government and meaningful financial transparency and the bible does not prohibit that.

. Excuse Me?
when did I say any of these things?

I would appreciate it if you were to answer my questions rather than just the slew of accusations that seemed to come back.

Chuck Colson's Prison Ministries is a non-profit PARA-church organisation. It is not a church thus does conform to the same standards.

Read the book before you decide who Chuck Colson would agree with. Then also will you understand my reasonings.

I ask again, is the method you described scripturally sound/verified?
Is this the way that every church should run?

I don't disagree with the majority of the methods you have described, there is nothing wrong at all with a church practicing these methods.

The fact is though, you define a set of rules (such as the ones you copy-pasted above) that a church must conform to in order avoid being labeled a cult by some self-elected authority of individuals that think they have some sort of power because they joined a website.

(Sure, freedom of speech and all that, you have the right to your opinions - but I do not like the fact that you badmouth many bible-believing spirit-filled churches doing Christ's work on this earth while doing so.)

Frankly the set of rules defined to conform to is much more of a cult-like practice (probably even by your own rules) than those that many of these churches have purportedly exhibited.

Oh, and on the case of financial transparency, financial transparency is totally fine, and a church can be as financially transparent as they wish. But do not force it on them. Also, to be releasing an annual report of expenditures etc in a booklet for each of the congregation to read over is rather over the top.

Easy enough to freely give the information should someone ask so, though I believe that there wouldn't be too many congregation members so prying anyway.

Also to take into account is the fact that a Church, like many businesses, must keep the privacy of their employees a higher priority than the whims of any old churchgoer who believes he/she has a right to see everything that happens within the church, because they are a tithing member.

I hope this clears up my view on your case here. And please do not make any more accusations of me, I will assert my own opinions, if you please.

Suriken:

You said,

Quote

I don't disagree with the majority of the methods you have described, there is nothing wrong at all with a church practicing these methods.

The point is does your chuch follow the methods described, such as democratically elected church government?

This is a simple yes or no answer.

You say,

Quote

that a church must conform to in order avoid being labeled a cult by some self-elected authority

I never said that, nor did I say that your church is a "cult." I asked specific questions about how is it run, which you have still not answered.

What is the problem with answering these simple questions?

You say,

Quote

financial transparency is totally fine, and a church can be as financially transparent as they wish.

Fine. But is your church financially transparent through a detailed audited report that publishes all salaries, compensation and expenses?

Again, this is a simple yes or no answer.

If you don't answer these questions it must be because your church has not implemented either democratically a elected church government or meaningful financial transparency.

[...]

[b:094b7610b3]* in reference to democratically elected governance.[/b:094b7610b3]

[...]

God appoints the leader, and also the leaders under him/her. Thus the decisions are left (in part - not exclusively) to the leaders appointed. This is not relying on the leaders' human ability but rather on God's promise that he has the leaders' (kings') hearts within his own hands and directs them as he wishes[...]

[...]we do not vote on who should be our leader - rather the leaders choose who shall be raised up as new leaders (as a business CEO would choose the most able of his employees and train him to take the reins one day)

This is based then on efficiency of business[...]

[...]how many - especially in a larger church - would know the potential leader personally and closely enough to accurately judge their character and ability to do the job at hand[...] mankind is (after the fall) corrupt by nature - and many voters will fall back on that corrupt, selfish nature (looking to what would benefit themselves rather than the church - maybe subconsciously - but it would still happen)

[...]King of Kings, Lord of Lords. These names are not just time-based monarchical references but are indications on how God's Kingdom runs. That including the Church - God's reflection of His Kingdom on earth.) [...]

[b:094b7610b3][Moderator Note: Remarks have been edited specifically to the answers of the question previously asked. Repetitive remarks, circular comments, preaching etc. has been cut] [/b:094b7610b3]

Suriken:

It was necessary to edit down your long rant to the few answers you provided embedded within your long speech, which was repetitious and filled with preaching.

Thanks for providing some conclusions though.

Please understand that even though you have accepted having your church run like a monarchy with a king, most people would simply call it a totalitarian regime.

"God appoints"?

Please explain exactly how that is done. Was there an audible voice that appointed the head of Impact Church witnessed by all the members?

I don't think so.

The monarchs of Europe were once described as "annointed rulers" and supposedly appointed to rule over a country by God.

Fortunately, as history moved forward people saw this as tyranny and there were a few revolutions. Today, though we have a few monarchs left (mostly constitutional monarchies), democracy is considered a better and safer idea.

But of course if you wish to worship under a "king" that's your choice.

However, the overwhelming majority of Protestants don't and even the pope is elected.

FYI--a "CEO" is also typically elected and the stockholders of a publicly held company vote and have power according to their investment.

Your church sounds more like a family run business than a tax-exempted religious nonprofit supported by tithes.

Apparently those who invest in the church through their tithes, are treated less like stockholders and more like serfs in a feudel kingdom.

BTW--It may be that in every democracy it is difficult to "know the potential leader personally and closely enough to accurately judge their character and ability to do the job at hand."

But thankfully we still vote.

It is interesting that many people who live in democratic countries, nevertheless choose to worship under a church dictatorship.

Thanks for helping me to better understand how Impact Church is run.

I do not attend, affiliate myself with or represent City Impact Church in any way.

Thus the views presented are not those of City Impact Church or it's leaders/members but rather my own personal beliefs.

Suriken:

Then why post on this thread?

It is titled [b:5628a3ee53]"City Impact Church, New Zealand"[/b:5628a3ee53]

Didn't you see that?

According to City Impact leadership Parachurch organisations are really bad. I got slammed for working with YFC. Why? I suspect because it was an organisation outside of church control

We were told that we shouldn’t go to any Para-church meetings.
For example: Parachute, Women's Aglow, Get Smart youth conference, just to name a few. I was at a leadership meeting where we were told that we "lose" our young people when they go to the likes of Lifeway, or Bible collage.
When I asked what Women’s Aglow was (I had heard of it but never attended a meeting) I was told it was a group for women whose own churches didn’t meet their needs and that we shouldn’t go because we need to be meeting those needs within our own Impact church.
When a local church ran 40 Days of Purpose a few years back and some people at Impact were interested in going along I was told that If God had wanted those individuals to do 40 Days then He would have bought it to the church they were in and there is no way they should be going.
Anything not under the control of CIC and their leadership is frowned upon. They have a very select group of people they will “work” with.

Hi, this is my first post here. I found this thread as I have left City Impact Church and as I was unsure about the legitimacy of my concerns regarding the church and its leadership structure and some of the teaching that I was getting. I googled City Impact Church cult and came across this thread.

rrmoderator, i was very grateful to read your posts, as they confirmed very strongly in my mind where this church sits, which makes me sad, very sad!

Since leaving the church I have been put in isolation as it were and so have not really been able to discuss it with anyone other than my other half.

I am not here to cause any trouble, am just struggling with knowing how to deal with the consequences of standing up to the pastor and walking away from the church, leaving those I considered my family.