Northwest and M&M

About the tithe issue, although i personaly never saw anything wrong the new way of tithing, i do see how it could come off as an issue of...oooohhhh more money!!! To be blunt i liked the old way of titheing, although personaly never felt the pressure of the new tithe, and going up front. I know how people will feel and it just makes it "look" really bad, the big deal we make it esp. with the give God money add we put in every week. Titheing is just about obedience and so no matter how its done, its all about the heart behind the giving that matters....

(Now, i really like online tithing. I never have to go up, and i do it from the couch. The great thing is i only have a debt card, never carry cash, and i dont have a check book so tithing from online is great.)

Forgiveness_101:

You seem to be attempting to stifle criticism and comment here through your observations about "gossiping."

Please avoid any more pronouncements on this topic.

The topic here is RLC, its leaders and behavior, not labeling "gossips."

I was looking at the RLC forum and was shocked about how many family had left RL, but then got to thinking. How many families have left TPC over the last 2 years. I know of at least 25 families which comes to about 100 people or more. Just go through one of the old directories. And does anyone know whay they have not purchased a building? They say they bought that property on 8th street with the PTL Monies, but if they did how could they still have money left in it? I am very confused and wondering where does all the money go? And where did all the families go? I still attend but I am very concerned about what is happening here.

Where from Here,

Welcome to the forum. Thank you for taking time to post. You ask valid questions. Ask your elders these questions. Their response will be telling in terms of how open and transparent they wish to be. They should be able to show where these funds have gone and how they have been used.

If TPC is authoritarian and following some of the same practices of RLC then you should be ready for a less than favorable response; anywhere from dismissive to outright rejection and being labeled "rebellious" and a "trouble maker, gossip etc".

There are many reasons why families leave churches. Most who post here and on the RLC threads have left because they have seen behavior from leaders in their churches that is cause for concern, at the very least, and destructive and dangerous at the very worst. My prayers continue for you Turning Point Church and for you.

Again, Welcome.

TPR

The following was posted recently on the RLC thread. I think it is informative and relevant to the discussion here, as well. I encourage you to take the time to read the article which can be found by clicking on the washington post link. You comments as to how this relates to TPC are welcomed.

Quote:
Worship_Big
Lest we be deceived that the Hired hand and his band of merry 'yes' men are alone in their deceptive, manipulative and spiritually abusive ways... I found an article about a so called 'pastor' in Virginia and another trail of destruction.
The headline reads:
"In Va., a Powerful and Polarizing Pastor
A Loudoun Minister Inspires Loyalty From Followers, Anger From Ex-Members With Torn Lives and Moral Pain"

Here is the link. It's a five page article but mirrors so much what is happening at rlc even down to the arogance of the leadership!

[www.washingtonpost.com]

Hope this will open some eyes to the depth of deception being thrust upon the church today.

here is the working link:

[www.washingtonpost.com]

Quote
rrmoderator
Forgiveness_101:

You seem to be attempting to stifle criticism and comment here through your observations about "gossiping."

Please avoid any more pronouncements on this topic.

The topic here is RLC, its leaders and behavior, not labeling "gossips."

Actually with all due respect, the topic here is Turning Point Church World Outreach Center.

I would like to follow up on another idea that is taught that is a little out of balance. This has to do with blessing people because of their office or gift.

The teaching is based on Matthew 10:40-42. “He who receives you receives me and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will not lose his reward.”


This is more challenging because the question here isn't truth or untruth but the degree or the twisting of truth. In other words I am sure if Cyndi read John 12 the day after the service and she read vs 32-33 she would immediately recognize that the text she quoted meant nothing that she said. I am sure that is obvious to all of you.

The way TP teaches Matthew here isn't a question of totally being false as it is inflating the meaning and drawing an extreme application.

As an example before hand that we would all agree on. Paul speaks in I Corinthians 15 about the ressurection. At one point he argues if there is no ressurection why are people baptized for the dead?

This is in verse 29. When I was in college I read every commentary in the school on this text. It is one isolated text. I still have no idea what Paul intended to say. I do know the Mormon practice of being baptised for the dead is not what he meant. The Mormons making an elaborate doctrine from this text is like a Ford Ranger trying to carry the weight of a cement mixer. That is the issue I have with TP's emphasis on the text in Matthew 12.

Toward the end of our time at TP this text was emphasized over and over. One of the ideas presented was that as you recognized that person you then received the benefits of that ministry. The elders believed God told them they needed to recognize Mike as an apostle. So they gave him a special globe. This was to symbolize his apostleship and his worldwide ministry. It was only then that healings started taking place regularly through Mike. It was said that because they recognized him that set in motion him acting in his office. This led some people giving money to Pastor Mike just out of gratitude for what he has done for them, and in discipleship it was taught the importance of giving to the apostle. This text was the launching point to emphasize giving Mike and Cyndi things.

Is this text emphasizing the importance of constantly giving material things to spiritual leadership? The parallel verse in Mark 9:41 Jesus says that if you give a cup of water to an apostle you will not lose your reward.

I would argue TP's interpretation of this verse and constant application isn't a major salvation threatening sin but it is a twisting and it has the predictable result of benefitting the teacher.

I suspect it means what it says and no more. We are to care for all Christians, we are to make sure that our spiritual leaders are taken care of as they seek to minister to us. But I think any conflation of the text to push people to constantly do things for the apostle, to exalt the apostle and prophetess is self serving. It is drawing a meaning beyond what the text taken on its own can endure.

What was odd to me is that I have joked about this text for years. I would buy someone a pop or something and then I'd say something like “I sure hope you turn out to be a prophet” because then I get your reward too.” Of course I was just being silly. But I believe this has led to an atmosphere of Mike worship.

The sad thing is that in the end it isn't good for Mike and Cyndi or those who seek to give to them. When someone thinks they are an apostle or prophetess it inevitably isolates them. Mike and Cyndi are genuinely good people but they are just people. When you live a surreal existence not only do you become dishonest with others you become dishonest with yourself. You have to pose and set up a pretend self. Then you aren't able to be loved for who you are you are only loved for who you pretend to be.

In the Corinthian letters we have a perfect example of what a healthy relationship with an apostle is supposed to be. Clearly they didn't worship Paul. Clearly they felt free to question Paul. It is ironic that one could argue that Paul was the most powerful, brilliant and gifted men who ever lived yet he carried himself as just another follower of Christ. Did their disrespect of him keep him from being an apostle?

I believe pastors should be taken care. Scripture clearly teaches that but this use of Matthew 10:41 is self serving. Again, if I am mistaken please correct me.

M & M,

I have a serious question about the reverse application of this "doctrine". First, I see nothing in the text that mentions anything about "giving". I see the word "receiving" but not "giving". Receiving might be in regards to "receiving" the prophet's words or could be applied to welcoming the prophet when he comes. In the first, the prophet is the one responsible for the giving of something. In the second the hearer is responsible for practicing the common courtesy of extending hospitality. It is a far stretch to teach this text as being the act of bestowing gifts upon someone in order to reap rewards for yourself. But lets put all this aside. Lets just say, for a moment, that you reap a reward for giving to the prophet.

Then what is the reward you reap when you give to a false prophet? God will not be mocked. The reward of the false prophet is a devastating reward. Those who practice this doctrine as it is taught at Turning Point will reap a reward of death and destruction for following a false prophet. All the while Mike and Cyndi are reaping the gifts and monies that are being given to them as they teach false and perverse doctrine.

People of Turning Point your reward for bowing down and worshiping at the feet of Mike and Cyndi will be destruction. God will not be mocked.

All of this sounds very much like what has happened at RLC. The more I hear the more I fear that Turning Point is, at the very least, a destructive church, or worse, a cult.

Mike I have but one question for you as you prepare to return from your sabbatical. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world (that was a fancy globe they gave you, was it not) but lose your soul?

This will probably be the last post I write before Mike and Cyndi return from their Sabbatical. At this point they have communicated in their brief message when they visited TP a few weeks ago their inclination to see themselves as apostle and prophetess still. He mentioned some of the places they have visited and some people they are going to have come speak at the church.

One was a guy named Bill Johnson who is part of the apostolic renewal movement led by C. Peter Wagner. It is hard to put into words how discredited these guys have been. To get a flavor of what their ministry has been like you can look up Todd Bentley on youtube. Watch some of his clips, then watch Peter Wagner and these other guys like Johnson where they anoint Bentley in a ceremony called an “Apostolic alignment”. Observe the hyperbole as they pronounce how anointed Bentley is going to be. Then watch the youtube clips where a national news show utterly discredits Bentley. All they did was see if he was telling the truth when he made his claims to healing etc. Then look at Johnson try to come up with a rational for why the Holy Spirit had them fall head over heals for a con man, after news came out about Bentley.

Andrew Strum wrote a book WHY I LEFT THE PROPHETIC MOVEMENT, in it he describes the silliness and pretentiousness of these people. He also wrote an open letter to Wagner and the others. In essence he said what else has to happen for you to acknowledge that your ministry has been totally discredited? Why do you believe in the face of all evidence that your apostolic and prophetic ministry is anything but a self serving sham?

There is one last doctrine I would like the elders at TP and the students at SOMA to consider. That is for lack of a better description the “sent vs. went” doctrine. I think this has mostly been taught in SOMA and in discipleship. I freely acknowledge that this has been described to me by several students and so I may not have TP's teaching down entirely. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this teaching.

The essence is found in Acts 15:39-40 “They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company.Barnabus took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.”

The issue here is that Barnabas wanted to give Mark a second chance after he had deserted them in their first trip. Paul did not. They therefore parted company. The teaching is that Paul was sent but Barnabas went. Paul was commended Barnabas went on his own. Students have said they were taught that it is obvious that Barnabas was out of God's will because we never hear from him again. The application for SOMA students is that they need to get sent by the apostle or other leaders and not just go on their own.

Let me begin by starting with an interpretational challenge. When reading and seeking to apply any of the historical books of the Bible you have to ask: What things are doctrine normative verses what is historically unique? Often the writer will editorialize and give a doctrinal statement as part of the narrative and in that case there is no question the theological intent. But in other cases the writer simply states the story and we are left on our own. For instance should Paul have gone to Jerusalem after he had one person after another prophecy warning what awaited him? I don't think Luke clearly says.

In the case of Barabbas and Paul. Does Luke clearly say that Barnabas was out of the will of God and Paul was in the will of God? Can we say with absolute certitude that the inspired interpretation of this text is that Barnabas was in rebellion and Paul left in the will of God?

Luke does not say so explicitly. I am not a Greek scholar and so I cannot make an argument based on the original language but I do note that the scholars who translated the NIV (quoted above) put Barnabas and Paul's departure and the commendation in the same sentence. Acknowledging my own ignorance of Greek the scholars could have written. “Barnabas left with Mark to Cyprus. Paul chose Silas and left commended by the brothers......”

Or he could have explicitly said Barnabas left in rebellion and sin, Paul left with commendation. The only clear evidence we have is that ultimately Paul came to value Mark highly (2 Timothy 4:11).
What of the argument that Barnabas is never mentioned again? This goes to understanding of the interpretation of historical literature. The assumption is that Acts is an exhaustive history of all that took place throughout the world. Luke pretends no such thing. Virtually NONE of the apostles are mentioned. That does not mean they weren't doing God's will. The obvious reality is that Luke focuses on Paul because he ultimately traveled with Paul (I believe Acts 20:6 is the first occurrence of Luke using the “we” instead of “they”). Luke was not in any way stating that the only things God was doing was what he recorded. He was much closer to a reporter in the modern sense than a historian.

Now I only have two commentaries on Acts (Bruce's and Horton's) neither draws from this text any authoritative biblical doctrine that Barnabas went and Paul was sent.

Why is this important? When I was a young man I attended a preliminary conference for those who wanted to be pastors. One of the speakers said that there are three temptations pastors typically face Power, Sex, and Money. I think superimposing this meaning as being the Biblical interpretation goes to the issue of power and the power one seeks to exercise over others.

It goes to the tendency of authoritarian churches to come up with interpretations that increase the power of the authority. Of course wise people seek input from godly counsel. If several people you trust see red lights flashing on the decision you are making you should hesitate. But in a healthy spiritual environment, just with raising children, the goal should be to encourage not dependence but independence. We want to encourage each person to hear from God on their own. “because those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God (Romans 8:14).”