Monday, February 8, 2010

Ed Young Responds to WFAA News Story

Ed Young has responded to allegations that surfaced in a recent news story about Fellowship Church in Grapevine. Above is the video including statements by Young and by two members of the church's "board of trustees."

I linked the WFAA story and am honor-bound to provide this response to you as well. Any questions?


Jack Maddox said...

Bart -

I am very slow to immediately believe those stories that come form media and agencies who sensationalize stories to propagate their own agenda, and media on any level certainly does that. However, media plays a role in society in reporting issues that become gist for the public mill. Generally speaking, if there is nothing to this and the reports from the church board members are true,( These guys were far from objective by their own admission) then this story will fade away pretty quick and life will go on as usual. I am not sure that this kind of response from EYJ and the board members, which was ripe with sarcasm and a "WHAT? WHO? ME?!!! kind of a tone, was the best way to address the issue, but it is not my issue and I think they believe it was the best way to address it.

I do want to say however that part of the problem is that the world that these guys live in, minister in and operate is so far removed from the reality of the thousands and thousands of pastors and church ministries and the millions of people who congregate and serve in said churches. It is in my opinion very u indicative as ministry in the vast majority of churches really functions. It is a ROCK STAR mentality that leads to this kind of self promotion and what they fail to understand is that the 2 or 3 thousand that they addressed may get it, they want to get it and they will accept it because it is that very mindset and aura that draws them to be a part of that kind of ministry and church in the first place. I know that FC has been a blessing to many and a lot of folks have got saved there, but I must tell you the same can be said of Lakewood in Houston and yet the majority of us would be very slow to be supportive of that model. When EYJ says his house is not 10,000 square feet, why it is only 8000 square foot...he does not get it. That is so far removed from the reality of most of us that there is no way that it will be accepted by most people. The real question is not what do I or the people who listen to WFAA think about Ed Young and his lifestyle or that of the mega church where he preaches...the real question is what does God think. I will leave that between Ed and God.

By the way - there are a lot of 'mega church' pastors who are far and removed from the kind of excess you see at FC and Ed Young.



peter lumpkins said...


My naivete knows no bounds concerning this. About as troubling to me as the appearance of something foul behind the curtains is the open corruption of free church ecclesiology on full parade.

Board of directors for the local church? Even more, the board of directors for the local church composed of pastors elsewhere? Even in other states? And at least one of those pastors president of a large state convention? The unmitigated spiritual snobbery and religious elitism indicative of such nonsense fits no where in Baptist life.

Indeed there remains no redemption for such ecclesial rot--at least so far as salvaging our historic descriptor goes; that is, of churches being of 'like faith and order.' The ills we face as Southern Baptists may be far more advanced than some of us realized.

With that, I am...

Tim G said...

How do you really feel? :)

You are correct. I know some great MEGA Pastors who would never go the road that a few have gone. They are servants and their ministries are vast and effective. Peter actually hits on a key concern for me in the whole deal. How can a local church be governed by another Pastor who Pastors in another state and that be called Biblical?

Baptist Theology said...


Please help me understand the implications for the church revealed in this video from Brother Young. I pray that I am just not understanding the situation correctly.

1. There is a board of directors imposed over the church that is composed of pastors who are not members of that church?

2. The director's claim is that this is the highest form of accountability?

3. Finally, this is the key question: If this is the church's governmental structure, exactly how does such an organization fit with the polity of congregational governance established by the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament, as affirmed generally among Baptists and specifically in our denominational confession?

Again, I pray that I have just misunderstood what these men said.

In Christ,

Stuart said...

I know it's not what he meant, but I found it both ironic and humorous that his first sentence was, "I can't thank you enough for your generosity..." Truer words were never spoken!

Anonymous said...

At the beginning of his "setting the record straight", Ed Young made a point to say he didn't see/read the article about him. Yet, he goes on to address each issue presented in the article. If he didn't see the piece about him, how can he know so much about it? Right there shows me that there is dishonesty. If he can be dishonest about that, what's to say he won't be dishonest about other things?

I agree with the other blogger about the size of EY's house. He's acting as if having a 7800 sf house is normal. How far removed he is from the poverty of Christ!

bapticus hereticus said...

Trustees do not rubber stamp nor allow the hiddeness of anything, we are told, but what was actually revealed and was there an expectation the congregation would accept the rhetoric without evidence? The message: trust us, but don't expect details. I would guess there will be legs to this story.

Jack Maddox said...

I was asked once to serve on the 'board' of a new church start by a dear friend who was working with an association and a state convention to plant the church. I refused to serve in such a capacity due to my understanding of a biblical and baptist ecclesiology. There was no plan at all to include leadership from within the church. He was somewhat offended that I would not be a part of 'what God was doing' (This before there was even a place to meet) and to this day the 'board' is simply himself as pastor and a few men from other churches. I do not question his sincerity and desire, but I did question his theology. I would have parted ways with him when he stated that HIS church did not need 'any deacons'. I did him a favor by not 'serving' He is still my friend and he is still wrong.


Jack Maddox said...


I would still contend that even those 'Mega" ministries are not indicative of ministry as most know it. I struggle with the Mega" model as a biblical norm. I am not saying it is bad, just the exception to the rule.


bapticus hereticus said...

Baptist Theology: 2. The director's claim is that this is the highest form of accountability?

bapticus hereticus: The claim by Cross was that attorneys and accountants were counseled prior to making decisions, to which thankfully, the other trustee stated decisions were also bathed in prayer. Absent, still, however, is "the thing" that is decidedly baptist: the congregation.

Tim G said...

I agree with you completely!

Joe Blackmon said...

Here's the deal--people with nothing to hide don't mind being open to their stakeholders (in this case, the congregation). If they donate their money, they deserve financial accountability not to a board of directors or God but to themselves as the donors.

Now, maybe this church does that. If not, they should. An annual audit would be a good thing too. None of that info has to leave the church but the church should have it.

Grosey's Messages said...

Is he still team teaching with TD Jakes?

John M. Yeats said...

Here's the deal. As Dr. White and I mused in Franchising McChurch, many of these larger churches begin functioning more like an evangelistic society or a mini-denomination. At that level, the type of accountability Ed Young has surrounded himself with is very appropriate.

What this comes down to is the very pointed question of what constitutes a church? Is it just a large gathering of Christians? Is it people attending a meeting? Is it something more? Most of us would say yes.

That said, and not to muddy the waters, but is there a limit to the size a congregation can reach and still function "congregationally"? Our Emerging friends say yes. Many Emerging leaders (See Gibbs and Bolger on the Emerging Church) actually argue that when a congregation/community moves past 40 individuals, it can no longer operate "flatly" - that is, a congregation with Christ alone as the head and shared responsibility with all. Any more than 40, and you automatically begin to shift into a hierarchy. While this may be extreme, should the question be asked about size of congregations and the type of congregationalism that some advocate for?

jonwhitehead said...

While the Fellowship Church situation may be an acceptable level of accountability for an entrepreneur using the money of investors, tar and feathers would be in short supply in a town with that kind of mayor.

As others have noted, this really highlights the different views of the purpose of the church. If we spent 20 years defining "what is the bible," and are now spending time talking about "what is the relationship of the local church and the denomination," I think the next issue coming must be "what is the church?"

Because the happy calvinist in me agrees that the local church is ordained as the national denomination is not. But, as Dr. Yeats seems to note, we're seeing the rise of "local denominations" that are no more a "city on a hill" than a national denomination. It occurs to me that it is dangerous to assume that all "local" ministry is really "church" ministry.

Paul S said...

I have noted concerns that have already been mentioned, but I was also a little concerned with some of the psychology.

At the end, they claim that the attack is not just on EYJ, but FC as a whole. To me, that is some good psychology. If I were sitting there I might say to myself, "If that's the case, when do I get to use the jet?" Or if I was a student, "Awesome! Do we get to take the jet to youth camp this year?" To me the attacks ARE coming against EYJ, not the church. He's the one using the jet, etc. Honestly though, I do want to give EYJ the benefit of the doubt, it is just a little hard right now...

Also interesting how much time was taken away from a worship service to discuss Ed. I know that the church wants a response, but that was a long time to toot Ed's horn. I even fast forwarded a little through the 25 min non-answers.

Plus, from what I saw, they never addressed the staff who had been on a jet denying that there was a jet. That was an interesting charge to me.

Anywho, that whole situation is just weird. As a pastor I would love to have a board made up of people not in my church - Hey, who wants to give Paul a raise again? Great - its unanimous! Who wants to make my salary $100 and my housing allowance 1.25 million? Great! Good work...board of people not in the church. We would get a LOT more done if that was the case!

Rich S said...

I think EYJ had a few options of how he could respond.

#1 The Joel Osteen way - "I have all this stuff because God has prospered me. I have been faithful and look at all the blessings I have. You can have your best life now, too."

#2 The Rick Warren Way - "I will give all my salary back to the church."

#3 - The Vague/Sarcastic Way - this is the one he chose. No real details, no full disclosure. The congregation still doesn't know his salary. He hopes to get to a million dollars.

Baptist Theology said...

Well, let us test the idea that the size of the church allows for innovation in governance.

First, according to Acts 15:12, "all the people" listened to what the various leaders had to say. Then, in verse 22, it was judged by the apostles and elders "with the whole church" to take a particular action. The Jerusalem church thus demonstrated both pastoral leadership and congregational governance.

Second, this same church, the church of Jerusalem, was a very large church. You will remember that they added 3,000 souls on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). This demonstrates that even a large church, like the church of Jerusalem, may function congregationally.

When we have an apostolic practice established in the Bible, humility demands that our churches submit to their practices. The arguments from post-New Testament political and organizational theories are simply not germaine in the face of New Testament precedent. Indeed, if we were to follow such cultural pliability, we might as well join the Presbyterians or the Episcopalians or the Roman Catholics, all of whom similarly argued from expediency before the culture rather than fidelity to the text.

Bart Barber said...


I have so much to say that I despair of getting it all said. I'll be succinct.

1. If my church provided a Ferrari for my use, and I stood in front of my church declaring that the church does not own a Ferrari, and if the basis for my offering that statement as truth was the highly technical dodge that the church has the Ferrari on a lease rather than a purchase, then I would conclude that I was being dishonest with my church. If I lease a car, I still consider it to be "my" car. Would this be different for an airplane?

2. It seems strange to me to criticize other people's eschatology for being, in your estimation, not biblical enough (as Young has criticized congregationalism) and then go on to ignore biblical ecclesiology altogether—not even to attempt a biblical ecclesiology—in the organization of one's own church.

3. The argument, "This can't be wrong because these are good people," is a theologically naïve and historically refuted sentiment.

4. If large churches can't function biblically then large churches shouldn't exist. I do not accept the premise, but if I did, I would find the conclusion inescapable.

John M. Yeats said...

Dr. Yarnell,

Right you are. Size doen't necessarily remove the congregational aspect in practicing NT polity. The argument frequently espoused by Young, et al is simply that the NT is unclear, therefore, whatever pragmatic solution available will work.

Young chose a business model long before they were popular and has remained consistent with that use. He is the CEO. He dictates what the pastoral staff will do (and has even publicaly talked about changing their ministry roles without consultation with either the church or the staff member). Many of his church's employees have never even met him or shook hands with him. For many, Young's track record of salvations and baptisms is enough to justify whatever ecclesiastical choices he made.

What Ed and other mega leaders will point out is that there is a greater difficulty maintaining congregationalism as a polity the larger a congregation grows - unless "congregational" simply means assent to what the leadership is vocalizing (which is standard articulated interpretation for Acts 15:22 by this camp).

Having served at Fellowship Church during the early days, the idea of assent is fully operational in their polity. If you assent, you stay. If you don't you vote with your feet and leave. In that way, a sizable congregation can have more "efficient" leadership structures that allows it to adapt and shift quickly to changes.

To me, the ideas of the Free Church are being applied in ways we have not seen historically. The case for misapplication (or lack) of Scriptural warrant can certainly be made. While Ed may not be at "fault" in this particular instance (relating to the accusations), the ecclesiology being embraced by many congregations are sowing the seeds for another generation to abuse.

Baptist Theology said...

Well said, Dr. Yeats.

Let us all strive to interpret the text correctly.

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Malcolm brings up an important point.

The church that was forming in Jerusalem is an excellent display of the clear form and function of the ekklesia, whether 40 or 3000, which is modeled without the lure of hierarchical design (seen in all denominations, Baptist included). In other words, the overseers selfish tendency within the ekklesia is to quickly forget they are simply another one of the sheep in the flock of God, and with that slight selfish deviation in the churches original formation,… the naïve overseer begins to act in a manner foreign to tending the flock of God. Peter listened to this model early and often during the extended ministry of Christ and then poignantly and crystallized from the resurrected Christ in John 21:8ff,…. a lesson not well understood by those men huddled around the breakfast of fish as they struggled to learn how to follow Christ with the congregation that the Father was providing for them to tend. A lesson not well understood by many overseers being convinced through poor teaching that they are called to rule the congregation instead of ruling well in the congregation.

What is more stunning in the case of these men at FC, not that their audience loves them (by way of applause, money, etc.). Which I hope they really do love these men. But moreover that they continue to defend the system that allows them to rule in the way they model. That is probably the saddest commentary of all, when you compare the scene we have just witnessed on the video, with the three year culmination of Christ speaking to Peter having fish for breakfast with His resurrected Savior. Quite a contrast in truth begetting freedom!


rnp said...

Underlying this entire sorry episode is the pervasive philosophy of pragmatism within our congregations. The idea that if a church is perceived as growing numerically, influential in the community, and/or the pastor is nationally known, then God must be blessing and who are we to question God. Further, if a pastor is perceived to be particularly charismatic, photogenic or empathetic, he is often given a free pass on his personal life until some bombshell hits. This is not unique to church life, but is carried over from the culture. The same could be said for athletes, politicians, and entertainers. No doubt, this is why we must practice the spiritual discipline of humbling ourselves under the mighty hand of God. This discipline begins with our attitude but must also include our compensation, our vacations, and our lifestyle.

Joe Blackmon said...

A lesson not well understood by many overseers being convinced through poor teaching that they are called to rule the congregation instead of ruling well in the congregation.


Do you really think there are guys like that out there? (wink) Haa

bapticus hereticus said...

John Yeats: ... is there a limit to the size a congregation can reach and still function "congregationally"? Our Emerging friends say yes. Many Emerging leaders (See Gibbs and Bolger on the Emerging Church) actually argue that when a congregation/community moves past 40 individuals, it can no longer operate "flatly" - that is, a congregation with Christ alone as the head and shared responsibility with all. Any more than 40, and you automatically begin to shift into a hierarchy. While this may be extreme, should the question be asked about size of congregations and the type of congregationalism that some advocate for?

bapticus hereticus: Not having read Gibbs and Bolger, I can’t speak directly to their comments; nonetheless, if such a number was asserted, I would question the degree to which it can be generalized, although I would not in general question the tendency of size to be moderately, linearly related to formality, e.g., rules, policies, and procedures. Socialization processes and personal qualities of individuals may moderate the relationship of size and formality and facilitate dynamic relationships and practices, but regardless, over time even small, dynamic entities tend toward formalization and unnecessary centralization. It seems that for some that satisfaction in and commitment to a community is attenuated absent an ability to manifest a high degree of influence and control. If these individuals have been instrumental in the development of the community, power tends to coalesce (e.g., by assertion and community abdication) and the seeds of communal inertia may begin to sprout. Having said that, however, at some point, due to increasing size, a community will need to decentralize authority if it wishes to respond effectively to changes in the greater environment; but as it (typically) must decentralize, it must also generate new coordinating, integrative mechanisms to coordinate the increased differentiation. The two processes (i.e., decentralization and integration) will not be without some degree of tension and conflict, but said outcomes may help the organization maintain its dynamic character. Thus size is not necessarily something that congregations should avoid, but obviously, leading and managing such a complex community is usually beyond the background and experience of most charged with such responsibility. For some reason in the world of baptists, it appears quite often that competency in the pulpit equates with competency in organizational leadership. From what I have gleaned from comments about this church, and I am opened to being corrected, it appears this congregation is quite large but the authority structure is very centralized and removed from the congregants, thus it would not be surprising for such a organization to be more about the pastor than the people (for those that would provide creative tension, those, that is, that would not fit nor find friendly quarter, will likely, over time, leave). Given this, is it really surprising that there is a publishing company, EY Ministries in which the good news is sold for $10 a pop, and goodness knows how many other financial enterprises that to an important degree depend on the congregation knowing little and/or caring less? If one were to ask about the emphasis of this church, would a congregation in which the saints primarily provide support, at a great cost (note: what are the opportunity costs of financing this pastor’s mode of operation?), for the pastor to lead and financially benefit from multiple enterprises (thereby attenuating focus on the role, Pastor, Grapevine Fellowship Church) come to mind? This person (i.e., my person) is not convinced of the recent prideful assertion of being called to an “audience of one.”

R. L. Vaughn said...

Dr. Yarnell writes, "When we have an apostolic practice established in the Bible, humility demands that our churches submit to their practices."

To which I say a hearty "Amen", while hanging my head to wonder whether most Baptists even approach believing this in modern times. I realize we have always had some tension here, at least to the extent various Baptists applied "apostolic practice" to their own. But in my discussions with Baptist preachers today, I find that this is not even on the radar of many of them. Sad.

Chris Johnson said...

Brother Joe,

I just saw your post... I think we both have seen the ruling kind my friend.


Dave Miller said...

Nothing is more annoying than having someone snipe at everything you do. I'm guessing that in a mega-church, there is mega-sniping.

But when the pastor solves that by refusing to be accountable to the church and by hiding financial information, there is a problem.

But, shouldn't we put blame where (at least some of the) blame is due. At some point, the people of this church have allowed this to go on.

One of the hardest things for me to realize is that holding me accountable is the act of a friend, not an enemy.

Bart Barber said...

Just in case anyone is still interested in this:

You can look at the FAA's records and see which leasing company owns the plane and leases it to Fellowship Church (click here). If you see N188FJ at your neighborhood airport, that's the one.

The news report said that the jet was manufactured in 2002. That's an error. It is registered as a 1988 model jet. The news report estimated the value of the jet at $8.4 million. I don't know how to confirm or refute that figure—jets in that category are usually listed as "call for price" items.

After you pony up the $8 million to purchase the jet, then you have to operate it. This document estimates the D.O.C (Direct Operating Cost) of a Falcon 50 at just under $8.50 per nautical mile. To put that into perspective, a flight from Dallas to Washington DC and back would cost around $17,000 in fuel and maintenance costs.

This does not include any salary costs for a crew. Nor does it include any of the hangaring costs at your destination until you are ready to come back.

Also not represented are the costs of insurance (considerable) and the costs of associated with providing hangar space for the aircraft at the home airport. As you can see in the document, after you plunk down $8.4 million for the airplane, it costs on average some nearly $700,000 dollars just to keep the thing. And that's before you fly it the first mile.

So, unless this is a fractional lease, this research suggests that the jet is costing Fellowship Church at least $1 million per year.

volfan007 said...

Man, a million dollars per year! And, you get there fast. All my Church gives me is a mule and a wagon. I think I'm getting jipped.


PS. Where's my jet?

volfan007 said...

Oh, and btw, my mule and wagon only cost .23 cents per mile to operate. Sometimes less.

David :)

Joe Blackmon said...

And, if you want to get even more complicated, there are two different types of leases for accounting purposes--captial leases and operating leases. I won't bore you with the details and all the GAAP involved. And unlike certain Baptist preachers, when I say GAAP I actually know what I'm talking about. Haa

Anonymous said...

Dave Miller:

Those are really wise words about accountability being the act of a friend, not an enemy.


Surely this is some sort of fractional lease. Otherwise, the Jet would be sitting on the tarmac most of the time - unused but paid for.

But I am not sure. You would think if the plane were leased on a fraction basis, the church would just say that and explain how it is really not that expensive to do that, if your pastor logs a lot of travel miles etc. with speaking engagements.

Joe, good point. I remember GAAP being brought up as a basis to Bart's nomination, and I did not blow the concern off. However, I didn't think that the pastor who raised the concern really had any expertise in that area. And when no real meaningful or enlightened discussion occurred after that, I voted for Bart.

I also assumed that the Committee on Nominations would have access to the legal counsel in the Executive Committee's office, and that SWBTS would also have access to good legal and accounting counsel and that those folks would keep an eye on things such as this.

But you are the first one to mention this since the convention, and it reminded me of how I felt at the time.


Joe Blackmon said...

Yeah, it was obviously someone making much ado about nothing. Saying things like GAAP sound impressive even if the person doesn't know what they're talking about. If you really want to be the life of the party, you ought to bring up the new SAS Risk Assessment suite or discuss the difference between qualitative and quantitative materiality. Haa

Anonymous said...


I went to the Connecticut Secretary of State website and looked up CEF 2002 AIRCRAFT LLC which appears to be the owner of the plane. The business name CEF 2002 AIRCRAFT, LLC is owned by GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION MANAGER which is a Delaware corporation. Wow!! It looks like they are hiding the ownership through multiple layers of shell corporations.

-- Barry B.

Robert said...


If I may comment on what I see in Ed Young's delivery. He does the following non-sequential physical acts while preaching on-and-off topic, employing many verbal non sequiturs. Glorified nonsense, from a Western Enlightenment perspective. In other words, a playwright would see through the act, a true wartime scout or recon man, or a very high intellect, like a rocket scientist or Albert Einstein or whomever. Ed does this while he verbally non sequiturs. He walks left, he walks right, he walks back, he walks to the edge of the stage (will he fall?), he leans on a chest-level stand holding the Bible and places his elbow directly on the Bible, he puts his left hand in his pocket, he puts his right hand in his pocket, he puts both hands in his pockets, he stands and puts his feet at forty-five degree angles, he sits on a step, he holds a mike in left hand and five-finger points with his right, he hold a mike in his right hand and five-finger points with his left, he makes a grimace with his face, he whispers, he lowers his voice, he does this and that continually. (Hamster-Pipe Hypnotism Preaching left-and-right.... Is your soul-defense getting sleepy? GOOD! DONATE!) What is all this? A martial artist might tell you it is loading up the opponent (audience in this case) with so many goings-on that it both entertains and obfuscates. With all this action, it's hard to follow the point of the sermon. First sermon I watched, Ed set up a straw man to knock down. Ka Bam! He knocked it down! Way to go, Ed! As for the jet, he said the church doesn't own it. But he didn't answer who leases it? No answers on cost. No answers on specific use. Just obfuscation. Justification mentioned was that other jet-using televangelists want him in with the in crowd! It's not hard to see through the low-level preaching style. People love such! Only problem is, after being dumbed-down by such shenanigans, they vote for similar politicians with similar hidden-slavery techniques. And that is why we have a straw man fighting POTUS! We have straw man fighting preachers! You think Christian Broadcast technical personnel could help any televangelist see what damage they have done to souls who get taken in by such shenanigans? To witness cogency at a high level without ANY shenanigans, watch a Peter Schiff Youtube video. Here: What a difference plain, high-level truth delivery makes! Would God it return to broadcast Christianity someday.... soon!

By Robert Winkler Burke
Copyright 1/12/10

Oh, congregation,
Please! Let me now repent!
A nightmare I had,
In a dream I was sent!

I was in a large, clear, acrylic, hamster-pipe: preaching!
Walking, as I do, left to right,
A veritable pendulum of Neuro-Linguistic hypnotism,
Creating in your minds: great blight!

Hamster-pipe hidden shenanigans,
Walking, talking, motioning in cadence to and fro!
Talking straw man rapture villains,
Wile-jabber-prophet mystic tyranny, don’t you know!

Like a weak-glued pencil,
The point always breaks,
Only those outside church,
See my feigns and fakes!

A playwright or a director,
Or a person of reasonable firmness,
Would see your brain: I hector,
The point being: I remove souls’ sureness!

And then: don’t touch God’s anointed!
But God’s anointed don’t use witchcraft shenanigans!
Amen? Agree? Clap hands? Give in?
Western Enlightened see thru me! I stop all bragging!

I’ve been a hamster-pipe preacher!
Stuck in a very stupefying, narrow vein!
Trying to make minds: more narrow,
Calling my mind-raping squirrel cage: born again!

God, in my dream, showed me,
How beautiful a mind can be!
Free and creative! Loving!
Not bound up: worshipping dumb me!

In my dream God cut a hole,
In my fear-greed-slouch pipe!
I had to repent to you,
That step out: free, I might!

Anonymous said...

I am not entirely certain that our Lord intended for the EY model of church governance to be at all the standard of church operations. The members of FC, just like the members of Grace Community Church under John MacArthur are followers of and not participants in the grace our Lord offers. At least at GCC one can sit and soak up good expositional preaching. But I have yet to hear EY preach an expository sermon. And this whole selling of sermons...

You can log on to my church's website and download my pastor's sermons for free. The Purpose-Driven/ model has taken 1 Cor. 1, vv. 17 ff. and tossed them aside for one other verse quoted out of context: 1 Cor. 9:22

God forbid!

1 Cor. 13 follows chapter 12 for a reason. We make to much of that chapter division. Shame on us.


Robert Winkler Burke said...

You think Ed Young will take a rebuke? Or is it impossible for his archetype?

Ridin’ from Rebuke
By Robert Winkler Burke
Copyright 2/4/09
Isaiah 28: 1-3; Rev. 3:19

Ridin’ from rebuke,
Ah’m so free!
Gallopin’ from rebuke,
Ah’m on TV!

Ah’m a televangelist,
Boy howdy,
A hat’n saddle cowboy,
Not dowdy!

For ten, no twenty,
Maybe fifty years,
Me and mah compadres,
Been swilling beers.

The beers of intoxicating self-glory,
The wine of ME and MINE!
Broadcastin’ strong drink delusions,
Drunkards we all, divine!

Mah duster is religiosity,
Pard, buy me a drink,
Hand over your money, son,
Don’t you dare think.

Think what a bank heist,
Mah game actually is,
Renegade outlaws runnin’,
God’s broadcastin’ biz.

Ah have this here strong faith-hunch,
Y’all’s seed cash pronto-quick becomes mine,
Believe mah faith mantras, NOW, son,
God, not me and mine, will times it back fine!

Ah LOVE this outlaw math,
With every dollar mah faith is reborn,
Y’all’s coin increases belief,
Of me and mine, that is, not your’n!

AH AM the believer’s leader!
Ah ain’t never wrong,
Runnin’ from rebuke,
God’s posse ‘tain’t strong.

Support mah babble-on, anti-chastisement,
Non-rebuke charade,
YOU, Ah don’t know son, but me and mine,
Shor’ ‘nuff, got it made!

And love, Lordy Lordy, heaven above,
Jes’ why kin we never repent?
God ain’t rebukin’ whom He don’t love,
So’s we ride on, God absent!

Ask me now, friend, why should God love us,
We rebels of His way?
We take from His spiritual orphans and widows,
Who give us their pay.

So’s we ride hard,
From God’s missing rebuke,
Happy we be,
With all we took!