Cory Blackwell in Phoenix
petros
Church of Christ, with sermon by Cory Blackwell. I only managed to jot
down some notes, they're not very coherent I'm afraid. Blackwell had
good volume -- almost deafening at times due to the sound system -- but
not much finesse, so maybe the incoherence was partly his fault. Words
in quotation marks are direct quotes of Blackwell's, as well as I could
get them (he seems to have a problem with enunciation -- maybe if he
toned the volume down a bit it would help.)
Started with quote from John 6 to point up the idea of "hard teachings."
General topic of sermon: GROWTH.
Talk of own personal life before the ICC -- growing up in tough Chicago
ghetto, family members from all different religions (Jehovah's Witness,
Islam, etc. etc.)
Points:
1. "You gotta grow, you gotta be fruitful."
Importance of bearing fruit = single most important thing, even more
important than faith. "I have an obligation to get to heaven." [??]
"Decide that you will be fruitful."
Digressed to talk about a "public thrashing" he received from Kip last
Friday about him (Cory) neglecting his family responsibilities due to
church work. (Establishing churches in Lebanon, Libya, some countries in
the Arabian peninsula.) Sounded very proud to have been spanked by Kip.
(Metaphorically, I hope.)
Qtd. from 2 Peter 1:5 . . . Am I growing?
Rebukes about laziness and excessive job-changing.
Qtd. 1 Thess. 1:3 . . . "your work" a healthy church.
Phoenix has a "healthy" church, but not a "zealous" one. Needs to be
zealous.
Qtd. Hebrews 3:12 Lack of faith prevents growth.
(Cory was speaking of both numerical and spiritual growth, but most of
the rebuking tone seemed to relate to a failing in numerical growth.)
"Grow now, grow at all costs."
Importance of living your life publically; those who are "secretive"
won't grow spiritually.
Comment about people sitting alone, or in the back rows, and people
(like me) who arrived late -- lack of disciple or faith. [So 500 people
are supposed to arrive all at once? And all sit in the front row?!]
"I look at peoples' postures and demeanors" Comment about people not
smiling or "fired up" -- "something's wrong!" [Big brother is watching.
. . ]
"No hope in the world but this church"
"If I am God's man, and I do believe I am . . ." [Sorry, missed the
context on this one, but it stood out.]
Overall a crude and predictable delivery that broke no new ground. I
left without taking a piece of the anniversary cake.
pjl
Garyincc
>I attended last Sunday's 10th anniversary service of the Phoenix Valley<BR>
>Church of Christ, with sermon by Cory Blackwell. I only managed to jot<BR>
>down some notes, they're not very coherent I'm afraid. Blackwell had<BR>
>good volume -- almost deafening at times due to the sound system -- but<BR>
>not much finesse, so maybe the incoherence was partly his fault. Words<BR>
>in quotation marks are direct quotes of Blackwell's, as well as I could<BR>
>get them (he seems to have a problem with enunciation -- maybe if he<BR>
>toned the volume down a bit it would help.)<BR>
><BR>
>Started with quote from John 6 to point up the idea of "hard teachings."<BR>
><BR>
>General topic of sermon: GROWTH.<BR>
>Talk of own personal life before the ICC -- growing up in tough Chicago<BR>
>ghetto, family members from all different religions (Jehovah's Witness,<BR>
>Islam, etc. etc.)<BR>
><BR>
>Points:<BR>
>1. "You gotta grow, you gotta be fruitful."<BR>
>Importance of bearing fruit = single most important thing, even more<BR>
>important than faith. "I have an obligation to get to heaven." [??]<BR>
><BR>
>"Decide that you will be fruitful."<BR>
><BR>
>Digressed to talk about a "public thrashing" he received from Kip last<BR>
>Friday about him (Cory) neglecting his family responsibilities due to<BR>
>church work. (Establishing churches in Lebanon, Libya, some countries in<BR>
>the Arabian peninsula.) Sounded very proud to have been spanked by Kip.<BR>
>(Metaphorically, I hope.)<BR>
><BR>
>Qtd. from 2 Peter 1:5 . . . Am I growing?<BR>
>Rebukes about laziness and excessive job-changing.<BR>
><BR>
>Qtd. 1 Thess. 1:3 . . . "your work" a healthy church.<BR>
>Phoenix has a "healthy" church, but not a "zealous" one. Needs to be<BR>
>zealous.<BR>
><BR>
>Qtd. Hebrews 3:12 Lack of faith prevents growth.<BR>
>(Cory was speaking of both numerical and spiritual growth, but most of<BR>
>the rebuking tone seemed to relate to a failing in numerical growth.)<BR>
><BR>
>"Grow now, grow at all costs."<BR>
><BR>
>Importance of living your life publically; those who are "secretive"<BR>
>won't grow spiritually.<BR>
><BR>
>Comment about people sitting alone, or in the back rows, and people<BR>
>(like me) who arrived late -- lack of disciple or faith. [So 500 people<BR>
>are supposed to arrive all at once? And all sit in the front row?!]<BR>
><BR>
>"I look at peoples' postures and demeanors" Comment about people not<BR>
>smiling or "fired up" -- "something's wrong!" [Big brother is watching.<BR>
>. . ]<BR>
><BR>
>"No hope in the world but this church"<BR>
><BR>
>"If I am God's man, and I do believe I am . . ." [Sorry, missed the<BR>
>context on this one, but it stood out.]<BR>
><BR>
>Overall a crude and predictable delivery that broke no new ground. I<BR>
>left without taking a piece of the anniversary cake.<BR>
><BR>
>pjl<BR>
Sounds like every other sermon I heard for seven years. To quote an
advertising slogan from a few yrs back: "Where's the beef?"....ICC sermons
tend to be pure milk, no meat.
--------
GH
eng...@my-dejanews.com
xri...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I attended last Sunday's 10th anniversary service of the Phoenix Valley
>
>
>
> Points:
> 1. "You gotta grow, you gotta be fruitful."
>
>
I believe this situation with Phil Lamb will have enormous long-term impact
upon the church and its leaders. There will be an increased focus on families
of leaders. This is a good thing.
<snippage>
--
~John Engler
reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Christopher
points. What a bore it must have been to sit there and listen to all that
garbage, but hopefully you got a few chuckles. Christopher
Jani Heinonen
Yeah, it seems that "things have changed". Boy, it's such a drag sitting
here getting closer and closer to senility each day, while I recall my
fading ancient tales from the ex-files.
One word: LAME.
--
Jani Heinonen
*** For heaven's sake, don't reply to the address in the header ***
Dcn2
disturbing. I realize that a lot of people are appropriately upset, but such a
tone will only prevent healing and push others away.
Jaz
>I believe this situation with Phil Lamb will have enormous long-term impact
>upon the church and its leaders. There will be an increased focus on families
>of leaders. This is a good thing.
>
We focus enough on Kip's family and the lavish education
they are getting: private school, tennis tutoring, etc.
Gintas
kcs...@qni.com
>
>
> Qtd. Hebrews 3:12 Lack of faith prevents growth.
>
>
>
> Comment about people sitting alone, or in the back rows, and people
>
>
> "No hope in the world but this church"
>
>
I'll leave the point by point to someone else...general comment for most
ICC sermons, and especially those with the metaphorical idea of getting
spanked by His Kipness -
<gag>
Do you think he used a paddle, or a belt? Maybe one of those leather
slappy things with the studs? Oy, vey...I'm digressing into the
gutter...
<evil grin>
kim
PatM1967
Dcn2
Deb
Jaz
>Well, Gintas, it pushes *me* away. \
>
>Deb
Chill, I was being sarcastic... ;-)
Gintas
ComputrDad
10th.
I date back to when PVCC had ties to Crossroads and eventually became East
Valley CoC when Ron Worsham got duped into going to Boston for "more
training..." little did he know it was a silent take over of his congregation
which he was never allowed to return to (that is IF he tried to come back).
I guess PVCC didn't count it's birthday till 1988 although the 1st of 3
reconstructions began in 1987 w/ Jeff Brown at the helm. The 3rd was completed
in '88.
I remember Cory being a fresh new convert in Chicago... him being a former pro
basketball player helped him gain spiritual credibility in ICC.
Precious memories... oh how they linger!
Vicki
> I date back to when PVCC had ties to Crossroads and eventually became East
> Valley CoC when Ron Worsham got duped into going to Boston for "more
> training..." little did he know it was a silent take over of his congregation
> which he was never allowed to return to (that is IF he tried to come back).
Ronnie is now the minister of a fairly new congregation in the Dallas
area. They started last November and are up to about 100 in attendance
now. (Crankin'!)
He was very helpful to us when we left the movement after 9 years... he
had the ability to state facts about his experiences without coming
across as bitter, and that was what we needed at that time.
Vicki
Dcn2
ICC, but the bitterness makes it difficult for me to sort things out and gain
some perspective.
deb
Grey Mouser
I have been following a few of your recent posts. I think I understand
what you are saying regarding the sarcasm and such that you find in the NG.
I am a fairly recent "addition" to the NG myself. You will learn, as you
read more and more posts, that different people are coming from different
places, and even have undergone different "intensities" of abuse. Mix all
that with all these different personalities, and "abra cadabra" - you have
what makes this NG so special.
Please don't that the "sarcastic" ones push you away. You will learn to
love them for it. It's their way of communicating sometimes. You will see
the same "sarcastic" people write a post to a hurt ex-member that they
really can relate to, and be wonderfully helpful.
It's funny, although I know nobody personally on this NG, (as far as I am
aware), I have posts that I ALWAYS read, if it's written by a particular
person. You will probably be the same way. I think everyone is like that
(unless they have gobs of time to read ALL the posts).
If you ever want to discuss something without sarcasm, and very seriously,
you can always post to me - I am WAY too serious. : )
Lastly, it is my opinion that the sarcasm and such is mostly people having
fun. For some people on this NG, after their personal experiences with the
ICC - they need to have some fun, trust me.
Respectfully,
Mouser
Curtis Eickerman
My understanding from Ronnie was that he wanted to come back and that was the
original conditions when he left. He had made some commitments here which he
wanted to honor. Unfortunately, it became clear after they got to San Diego
for "more training" that returning to Phoenix was NOT going to be an option.
I personally feel very bad for the way all of us here treated them after they
left San Diego. They came through here for a visit and we treated them like
they had a contagious disease. For that I am truely ashamed and publicly
apologize. Fortunately, we have been able to catch up on some old times since
having left ourselves.
A couple of weeks ago I heard from Glen Redmon that another church in the
Dallas area had thrown in with Ronnie's new congregation and things are going
really well. Ronnie was trying to talk Glen into moving to Dallas, but Glen
has just recently accepted a lead minister position for a new congregation in
Atlanta and will be moving from Mesa shortly. He said he kiddingly told
Ronnie, "Brother, when you snooze you lose." :-)
<sarcasm mode on>
Them cottin pickin non-ICCers just ain't committed enough to go anywhere, do
anything, and give up everything for Christ!
<sarcasm mode off> :-)
Curtis Eickerman
Phoenix, Arizona
Vicki
> Ronnie is now the minister of a fairly new congregation in the Dallas
> area. They started last November and are up to about 100 in attendance
> now. (Crankin'!)
>
> He was very helpful to us when we left the movement after 9 years... he
> had the ability to state facts about his experiences without coming
> across as bitter, and that was what we needed at that time.
: Dcn2 wrote:
: I am glad you said that, Vicki. I realize that people are angry and
: deb
Deb,
I'm not sure if you're talking about hearing bitterness from others,
bitterness you yourself feel or perhaps both.
When we left, we had not been as hurt as a lot of people are. We were
upset with the things we had seen, we knew that we could no longer
support the leadership there, and we never agreed to go through with an
"exit interview."
I have to say in all honesty though, if I had had to go through what
some of my friends did, I would definately have had bitterness. I had
some incredibly cruel things said to me in my 9 years there, but we had
several friends that were very unscripturally disfellowshipped, and I
cannot possibly imagine the pain they felt.
We've been out for a few years now, and if anything, I get angry at
myself sometimes for having allowed people to say some of the things
they did and get away with it. But you know what? Life goes on and we're
not in that situation anymore. Laughter is a part of our lives again,
more than ever. I learned a lot of good things while there, and I've
learned a lot *from* the bad things.
Be patient and understanding when people need to vent. Be patient with
yourself if you feel anger. It doesn't have to become a way of life, but
you gotta let people blow off some steam and express their pain
sometimes. It takes longer with some than others.
Vicki
Curtis Eickerman
"Grey Mouser" <lyn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Deb,
>
> I have been following a few of your recent posts. I think I understand
> what you are saying regarding the sarcasm and such that you find in the NG.
> I am a fairly recent "addition" to the NG myself. You will learn, as you
> read more and more posts, that different people are coming from different
> places, and even have undergone different "intensities" of abuse. Mix all
> that with all these different personalities, and "abra cadabra" - you have
> what makes this NG so special.
Excellent point. We are all different with the different gifts, talents, and
abilities which God gave us to use. With many of us, the conformity to
uniformity was very frustrating within the ICC. In a sense the newsgroup
gives us the outlet which we couldn't find within the organization.
> Please don't that the "sarcastic" ones push you away. You will learn to
> love them for it. It's their way of communicating sometimes. You will see
> the same "sarcastic" people write a post to a hurt ex-member that they
> really can relate to, and be wonderfully helpful.
I think it is very true that once you get to know some of these people better
you learn what they are trying to say through various combinations of
seriousness, humor, irony, and even sarcasm. Sometime what you will see here
is just plain anger. I've seen some excellent posts come from people who
just a few months earlier entered this newsgroup "madder than an ol wet hen"
as the saying goes.
> It's funny, although I know nobody personally on this NG, (as far as I am
> aware), I have posts that I ALWAYS read, if it's written by a particular
> person. You will probably be the same way. I think everyone is like that
> (unless they have gobs of time to read ALL the posts).
It seems equally funny (to me) that I personally know several people on this
newsgroup. There seems to be an amazing concentration of ex-members and
near-mis members (someone who studied but said no thanks) on this newsgroup
that live here in Phoenix, and even one current-but-absent member (where have
you been lately Jeremie?). I also agree that there are some people that I
always read (given the time), and others that I tend to skip over. Noooooo,
I'm not gonna tell you which are which. That's my little secret. :-)
> If you ever want to discuss something without sarcasm, and very seriously,
> you can always post to me - I am WAY too serious. : )
Likewise. Although I've been trying to lighten up a little lately instead of
getting into these extremely long winded theological dissertations. But, hey,
everything has it's place.
> Lastly, it is my opinion that the sarcasm and such is mostly people having
> fun. For some people on this NG, after their personal experiences with the
> ICC - they need to have some fun, trust me.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Mouser
Agreed regarding fun. In fact, in some support group gatherings I think we
have spent more time laughing about things that happened than talking about
anything serious. It's kind of like M.A.S.H. Sometimes you gotta laugh to
keep from crying.
petros
snip
> I guess PVCC didn't count it's birthday till 1988 although the 1st of 3
> reconstructions began in 1987 w/ Jeff Brown at the helm. The 3rd was completed
> in '88.
I hadn't heard of this. What exactly is involved in these
"reconstructions?" It sounds kinda scary.
Evon
Curtis Eickerman wrote in message <6oj3df$qeo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... <snippage>
>It seems equally funny (to me) that I personally know several people on
this
>newsgroup. There seems to be an amazing concentration of ex-members and
>near-mis members (someone who studied but said no thanks) on this newsgroup
>that live here in Phoenix, and even one current-but-absent member (where
have
>you been lately Jeremie?).
------------------
Well doggone, Curtis:
Now you know how it is with us desert dwellers...out here in the middle of
nowhere, with no oasis in sight. Why, the only company we have to depend on
are the cactuses and the ground hogs and an occaisional vist from the rattle
snakes and scorpions.
Whatever else could we possibly have to do, but sit and peck on our 'puters
all day.
(Speaking of oasis....my washer hose burst the other day and that is what my
laundry room and office turned into. Seemed like I had more water in my
house than I have seen in Phoenix in the 8 years I have lived here.)
Evon
mev...@home.com
"Always Keep An Open Mind...
But Not So Open That Your
Brains
Fall
Out!"
Unknown (But there are a couple of good possibilities :>)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
<more snippage>
Janet Chacon
I can also relate to the sarcasm. Something I've come to realize is
everyone deals with their situations differently, and this is especially
true when it comes to leaving the ICC. And, on this NG, everyone is in
a different place with it. For me, one day I feel like I'm over it and
I've moved on, and then another day I'll feel bitter or angry or
depressed or whatever else I've felt since leaving. Depending on the
post, at times I've been sarcastic and at times judgmental of the
sarcasm, but I've yet to have someone judge me for that because I think
people understand (having "been there, done that", so to speak). The
only thing I can really say is to try not to judge people when they
have a different reaction towards or perspective of the ICC. It's
something I've been guilty of, and something that I'm still trying to
change to this day.
Good luck in working out the stuff you're trying to get into
perspective. :)
-Janet
kcs...@qni.com
Oh, it's a wonderful little practice. The ICC (then "Boston) comes there,
and the whole leadership resigns. The evangelist and his wife go to
Boston "for further training". A new evangelist that you've never heard
of becomes the lead evangelist for the congregation. Membership becomes
2 - the evangelist and spouse.
Then everyone, from the leader-level on down to the newest member, goes
through a "life talk" -- where they go over their conversion, step by step,
talk about all their sins, and then it is decided whether or not they
became a true Christian or not. If not, you are officially a non-member
until you study out whatever was flawed in your conversion and you are
re-baptized -- er...not *re* baptized, since there's only one, but
baptized again. ;P If you survive the process, you are added to the
rolls and are officially saved again.
Of course, that was back in '87 and in Denver.
Nowadays, they use it when the church just isn't "crankin out the
numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
It's a sick process.
bb,
kim
Dcn2
Thanks
deb
Jaz
>ComputrDad wrote:
>snip
>> I guess PVCC didn't count it's birthday till 1988 although the 1st of 3
>> reconstructions began in 1987 w/ Jeff Brown at the helm. The 3rd was
> completed
>> in '88.
>
>I hadn't heard of this. What exactly is involved in these
>"reconstructions?" It sounds kinda scary.
Remember Sherman's long march through the South,
looting, burning, pillaging? It's worse.
Gintas
Jani Heinonen
>Nowadays, they use it when the church just isn't "crankin out the
>numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
>of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
I flat out prayed that our church would be reconstructed. I could point out
my lack of evangelistic success, convince everyone that I was hellbound
anyway and that further membership would be a waste of time. Alas, no
reconstruction and I had to take the initiative.
ComputrDad
ICC, say that anger (and its manifestations in emotions such as sarcasm) is a
healthy thing. I won't and can't go into detail but in essence the anger is
the person's realization and acknowledgement that they were wronged or treated
poorly. I find sarcasm rather therapeutic as I'm sure others do.
eng...@my-dejanews.com
kcs...@qni.com wrote:
> In article <35AD12...@earthlink.net>,
> xri...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > ComputrDad wrote:
> > snip
> > > I guess PVCC didn't count it's birthday till 1988 although the 1st of 3
> > > reconstructions began in 1987 w/ Jeff Brown at the helm. The 3rd was
completed
> > > in '88.
> >
> > I hadn't heard of this. What exactly is involved in these
> > "reconstructions?" It sounds kinda scary.
>
> and the whole leadership resigns. The evangelist and his wife go to
> Boston "for further training". A new evangelist that you've never heard
> of becomes the lead evangelist for the congregation. Membership becomes
> 2 - the evangelist and spouse.
>
> Then everyone, from the leader-level on down to the newest member, goes
> through a "life talk" -- where they go over their conversion, step by step,
> talk about all their sins, and then it is decided whether or not they
> became a true Christian or not. If not, you are officially a non-member
> until you study out whatever was flawed in your conversion and you are
> re-baptized -- er...not *re* baptized, since there's only one, but
> baptized again. ;P If you survive the process, you are added to the
> rolls and are officially saved again.
>
> Of course, that was back in '87 and in Denver.
>
> numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
> of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
>
>
> bb,
>
> kim
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
I must strongly disagree with Kim. First of all, the reconstruction in Denver
was 1988. It was one of the best things that EVER happened here.
The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's later
moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
The rest of the staff did have "life talks" or whatever you want to call them
where they were basically challenged to get the right focus in their lives and
leadership. These also resulted in some serious sin being brought out that had
not been confessed. Some talks I heard about with the staff were quite
emotional. But in the ten years since then I haven't heard any complaints from
any of the staff when the Shepherds arrived here.
There WERE personal appointments with each member. All kinds of things in
people's spiritual lives were discussed. Yes, conversions were discussed. I
can't speak for everyone, but in my talk the person getting with me asked if
I felt fine about my conversion, I said yes, and he said no problem. Next
topic. It was a chance to get a spiritual check-up. I found the experience
completely encouraging. I didn't get rebuked or made to feel like I was a
failure as a disciple. It was a completely inspiring and invigorating
experience. (Please, no inane remarks about "getting off" on being rebuked,
ok?)
I also sat in on talks with other members and these were all conducted in the
same spirit.
Quite a few were rebaptized. I don't know of ANY that were "hammered on"
about their conversion. Actually, most people here had been going round and
round on the conversion issue months and weeks before the reconstruction ever
occurred. It was practically a non-issue by the time of the reconstruction.
People who had legitimate doubts about their previous conversion were
baptized.
IMO, and I have been a member of the Denver church since the Wooten's first
moved to Denver, the summer of 1988 after the reconstruction, was the BEST
time in the history of this church. Period. You had to be here to experience
it. People were excited, joyful and growing immensely. I think the church set
attendance records for the first 12 weeks in a row after the reconstruction.
Doesn't sound "sick" to me at all.
I've heard of some "reconstructions" of various plantings (and this may be
what Kim is discussing in parts of her post) but I haven't heard of a
reconstruction in probably 5 years.
--
~John Engler
reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Jaz
>On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 01:10:15 GMT, kcs...@qni.com <kcs...@qni.com> wrote:
>
>>numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
>>of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
>
>my lack of evangelistic success, convince everyone that I was hellbound
>anyway and that further membership would be a waste of time. Alas, no
>reconstruction and I had to take the initiative.
>
A reconstruction is a form of a weed-out. They
go through everyone, and get commitments to
do what passes for success in the ICC (as if
they don't hear enough sermons about it).
Usually something changes, so you have to
commit to that change. Anyone not willing
is sent packing soon.
Since the ICC can get quite burdensome, they
can always find some weak spots in your life,
and they hammer on those spots. Sometimes
you become convinced you never really became
a Christian, which is supposed to explain some
sin or something. I have yet to see documented
how to stop sinning altogether, so obviously the
ICC leadership is vulnerable to these tactics too,
from above. And it happens. Kip never gets
reconstructed, he gets to do it to others.
BTW, are ICC top leaders very fruitful? You'd
think they would be.
Gintas
Curtis Eickerman
> numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
> of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
>
>
> bb,
>
> kim
I think Kim has pretty well summed up the process. In Phoenix the initial
reconstruction of the East Valley Church of Christ happened in the fall of
'87 by the Mission Church of Christ in San Diego (later to become the San
Diego Church of Christ). This inititial reconstruction wasn't too bad
largely because the Mission Church had not yet been put through the wringer
by Boston. My reconstruction talk was with Ron Brumley (Brum's dad). It was
actually pretty easy. A few months later about 20 of us from Phoenix were
present in San Diego for the kick off of the Mission Church reconstruction.
Gordon Fergusen and Greg Marutzky were shipped out and Bruce Williams was
installed as the new evangelist. Kip spoke that night and got everyone wound
up and it was clear that a Boston reconstruction was not the same as what we
had experienced just a few months earlier. The Phoenix group met with Tom
Brown that night while the reconstruction process started with the leaders in
San Diego. We had one of those big group confession sessions (what fun).
Jeff Brown went through the reconstruction with San Diego even though he was
at the time leading Phoenix (he was rebaptized). This lead to a second
reconstruction in Phoenix in the spring of '88. This one was incredibly
harsh. I think Gintas equated this kind of reconstruction to Sherman's march
to the sea, and that is about what it feels like (being on the receiving
end). My best estimate is that around 200 people were "driven out" of the
Phoenix church at this point, and virtually 100% of those that were left had
been re-baptized (I believe I know of only one exception).
Then in the summer Jeff and Cheryl Brown were moved back to San Diego for the
ever popular "more training" and Dave and Kathy Eastman came to Phoenix. We
underwent yet a third reconstruction. This one was relatively minor and
involved little more that a serious talk with Dave (at least in my case).
Hey, after all, there was not much left to pilage and burn after the Spring
reconstruction.
Then there was one more "something" that happened in about '92. They didn't
call it a reconstruction. Actually I don't remember them calling it anything.
Yet, the membership of the church dropped to 2 (the evangelist and womens
leader) and everyone had to be requalified as a member of PVCC. This process
lasted for around 3 or 4 weeks.
Reconstructions are sort of like a root canal. You've got to experience one
to really appreciate what it's like. :-( By comparison, anyone who has been
through the "Light and Darkness" study and "Cost Counting" in the last few
years has had a walk in the park compared to what took place in '88.
Curtis Eickerman
Phoenix, Arizona
petros
snip
>
> I remember Cory being a fresh new convert in Chicago... him being a former pro
> basketball player helped him gain spiritual credibility in ICC.
Very (ill)-logical.
> Precious memories... oh how they linger!
Believe me, if anyone was ever deserving of a nice fluffy lemon meringue
pie-in-the-face, it was Cory that day. Wouldn't have won me a lot of
friends though . . .
petros
snip
> > Digressed to talk about a "public thrashing" he received from Kip last
> > Friday about him (Cory) neglecting his family responsibilities due to
> > church work. (Establishing churches in Lebanon, Libya, some countries in
> > the Arabian peninsula.) Sounded very proud to have been spanked by Kip.
> > (Metaphorically, I hope.)
>
> upon the church and its leaders. There will be an increased focus on families
> of leaders. This is a good thing.
Uh . . . yeah, I guess so . . . (Twilight Zone music) . . . families can
be together forever! (Oops, wrong church) --
> <snippage>
petros
> >numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
> >of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
>
> my lack of evangelistic success, convince everyone that I was hellbound
> anyway and that further membership would be a waste of time. Alas, no
> reconstruction and I had to take the initiative.
Reminds me of the old Monty Python skit . . . 'NO ONE expects the
Spanish Inquisition!'
petros
>
> In article <35AD12...@earthlink.net>,
> xri...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > ComputrDad wrote:
> > snip
> > > I guess PVCC didn't count it's birthday till 1988 although the 1st of 3
> > > reconstructions began in 1987 w/ Jeff Brown at the helm. The 3rd was completed
> > > in '88.
> >
> > I hadn't heard of this. What exactly is involved in these
> > "reconstructions?" It sounds kinda scary.
>
> Oh, it's a wonderful little practice. The ICC (then "Boston) comes there,
> and the whole leadership resigns. The evangelist and his wife go to
> Boston "for further training". A new evangelist that you've never heard
> of becomes the lead evangelist for the congregation. Membership becomes
> 2 - the evangelist and spouse.
That "for further training" part sounds deliciously hideous somehow . .
. the imagination just runs wild.
> Then everyone, from the leader-level on down to the newest member, goes
> through a "life talk" -- where they go over their conversion, step by step,
> talk about all their sins, and then it is decided whether or not they
> became a true Christian or not. If not, you are officially a non-member
> until you study out whatever was flawed in your conversion and you are
> re-baptized -- er...not *re* baptized, since there's only one, but
> baptized again. ;P If you survive the process, you are added to the
> rolls and are officially saved again.
>
> Of course, that was back in '87 and in Denver.
>
> Nowadays, they use it when the church just isn't "crankin out the
> numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
> of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
>
> It's a sick process.
> bb,
> kim
Sounds thoroughly unpleasant indeed.
Curtis Eickerman
eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip C.E.>
>
> The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
> always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
> Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's later
> moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
>
I can tell you why I came to put "more training" or "further training" in
quotes. These are euphemisisms that allow leadership to avoid being
completely honest about the real reason for changes. One time we had an
evangelist tell us exactly why his predecessor was transferred. After making
a requested trip for a "conference" he came back and had another little talk
with us. He explained that he shouldn't have said what he did (which, by the
way, happened to be the truth). Forever afterward the reason given for moving
an evangelist was for "more training". From that point onward it was pretty
clear to me that openness and honesty is what leadership expects to come up
the discipling chain, but not what they allow to go down the chain.
I was just commenting last week that it is probably about time for Joe Silipo
to need "more training". He's been here in Phoenix almost 3 years. Anyone
want to place any bets on this being his year? Given 6 leaders in the last
10 years I would think his tour of duty is about up.
chil...@yahoo.com
xri...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Reminds me of the old Monty Python skit . . . 'NO ONE expects the
> Spanish Inquisition!'
We don't take kindly to Monty Python quoting around here. In fact, we may
have to start poking you with.....the Soft Cushions!
eng...@my-dejanews.com
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
On the surface, I agree that there should be more candor when leaders leave
and not "white-washing" things as is sometimes done. But this is a tricky
issue.
The secular seminars use the buzzwords "Praise in public, criticize in
private." Most of us would want the same thing. So not running out the dirty
laundry for all to see is something that protects the individual as well as
the institution of leadership. This is good.
However, sometimes disciples get criticized in public. And that isn't usually
best and is often wrong and harsh. To those on the receiving end it can seem
like "justice" for the leader to "get it, too." But that is a poor
justification for criticizing a leader in public.
IMO, the best solution is for the leader in question to just explain why he's
blown it and tell his people, honestly, openly. When I've seen this done is
practically brings tears to my eyes, because I appreciate the openness and
humility it takes to do this.
--
~John Engler
reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Grey Mouser
I was wondering if you were ever in the Ventura Sector of the Los Angeles
Church?
Respectfully,
Mouser
================================
Janet Chacon <jcsp...@webtv.net> wrote in article
<492-35A...@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>...
kcs...@qni.com
> kcs...@qni.com wrote:
> > In article <35AD12...@earthlink.net>,
> > xri...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > ComputrDad wrote:
> > > snip
> > > > I guess PVCC didn't count it's birthday till 1988 although the 1st of 3
> > > > reconstructions began in 1987 w/ Jeff Brown at the helm. The 3rd was
> completed
> > > > in '88.
> > >
> > > I hadn't heard of this. What exactly is involved in these
> > > "reconstructions?" It sounds kinda scary.
> >
> > Oh, it's a wonderful little practice. The ICC (then "Boston) comes there,
> > and the whole leadership resigns. The evangelist and his wife go to
> > Boston "for further training". A new evangelist that you've never heard
> > of becomes the lead evangelist for the congregation. Membership becomes
> > 2 - the evangelist and spouse.
> >
> > through a "life talk" -- where they go over their conversion, step by step,
> > talk about all their sins, and then it is decided whether or not they
> > became a true Christian or not. If not, you are officially a non-member
> > until you study out whatever was flawed in your conversion and you are
> > re-baptized -- er...not *re* baptized, since there's only one, but
> > baptized again. ;P If you survive the process, you are added to the
> > rolls and are officially saved again.
> >
> > Of course, that was back in '87 and in Denver.
> >
> > Nowadays, they use it when the church just isn't "crankin out the
> > numbers" -- His Kipness has decided that is evidence of sin on the part
> > of the church and they need to be "reconstructed"
> >
> > It's a sick process.
> >
> > bb,
> >
> > kim
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >
>
> was 1988. It was one of the best things that EVER happened here.
>
> always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
> Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's later
> moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
>
John - mea culpa on the date -- you are correct, it was '88 and not '87.
BUT -- we must've been at two different churches at that time, because
what I talked about was *not* "hey, how do you feel about your conversion?"
And yes, I was hammered. I can say that without hesitation. Perhaps
we have two different definitions for the word. After all, I left within
a few months of the Reconstruction. You did not. I am truly glad that
you have been happy in your membership at Denver.
But do not presume to tell me how or what I remember occuring. I can
concede that we perhaps view it differently - but my viewpoint is as
valid as yours is.
Reconstructions during that time were all fairly similar. Ever listen
to the Dallas Reconstruction sermon? How about the Phoenix one?
I use the phrase "further training" in quotation marks -- because the
event, in actuality and IMO, was simply "further training in the Boston
methodology and in loyalty to Kip". You can call it whatever you like.
Yes, to a certain degree I was generalizing what happens during
Reconstructions -- but I also experienced one personally. And as far
as you not hearing of one in five years, the Kansas City church went
through one just this past December.
bb,
kim
You can get by on charm for about 15 minutes. After that, you better know
something.
--H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
Benjamin Raymond
>In article <35AE1B...@earthlink.net>,
> xri...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of the old Monty Python skit . . . 'NO ONE expects the
>> Spanish Inquisition!'
>
>We don't take kindly to Monty Python quoting around here. In fact, we may
>have to start poking you with.....the Soft Cushions!
The Comfy Chair!!
Have you ever seen such cruelty?
----------------------------
Benjamin Raymond
senior, Harding University School of Biblical Studies
501-279-4820
HU Box 11871, 900 E Center
Searcy, AR 72149
bray...@ipa.net.no.spam
(remove ".no.spam" to e-mail)
wylds...@my-dejanews.com
> >
> > The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
> > always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
> > Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's later
> > moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
> >
> > ~John Engler
> > reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
>
> I can tell you why I came to put "more training" or "further training" in
> quotes. These are euphemisisms that allow leadership to avoid being
> completely honest about the real reason for changes. One time we had an
> evangelist tell us exactly why his predecessor was transferred. After making
> a requested trip for a "conference" he came back and had another little talk
> with us. He explained that he shouldn't have said what he did (which, by the
> way, happened to be the truth). Forever afterward the reason given for moving
> an evangelist was for "more training". From that point onward it was pretty
> clear to me that openness and honesty is what leadership expects to come up
> the discipling chain, but not what they allow to go down the chain.
>
> I was just commenting last week that it is probably about time for Joe Silipo
> to need "more training". He's been here in Phoenix almost 3 years. Anyone
> want to place any bets on this being his year? Given 6 leaders in the last
> 10 years I would think his tour of duty is about up.
>
> Curtis Eickerman
> Phoenix, Arizona
I always put "further training" in quotes because the term carries the
implication that the leaders who are sent away for it have been judged to
have fallen short in some major way that usually isn't elaborated on. While I
was in the ICC, our branch had three evangelists in five years.
Sarah M.
Jaz
>I must strongly disagree with Kim. First of all, the reconstruction in Denver
>was 1988. It was one of the best things that EVER happened here.
>
Reconstructions good? Wow, that REALLY SCARES ME.
>The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
>always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
>Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's later
>moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
>
"Further training" is a euphemism for assimilation into
Kipdom. Of course, they are replaced with already-
assimilated drones.
>The rest of the staff did have "life talks" or whatever you want to call them
>where they were basically challenged to get the right focus in their lives and
>leadership. These also resulted in some serious sin being brought out that had
>not been confessed. Some talks I heard about with the staff were quite
>emotional. But in the ten years since then I haven't heard any complaints from
>any of the staff when the Shepherds arrived here.
>
>There WERE personal appointments with each member. All kinds of things in
>people's spiritual lives were discussed. Yes, conversions were discussed. I
>can't speak for everyone, but in my talk the person getting with me asked if
>I felt fine about my conversion, I said yes, and he said no problem. Next
>topic. It was a chance to get a spiritual check-up. I found the experience
>completely encouraging. I didn't get rebuked or made to feel like I was a
>failure as a disciple. It was a completely inspiring and invigorating
>experience. (Please, no inane remarks about "getting off" on being rebuked,
>ok?)
>
You musta been crankin' already. The rest of us losers
got pistol-whipped.
>I also sat in on talks with other members and these were all conducted in the
>same spirit.
>
>Quite a few were rebaptized. I don't know of ANY that were "hammered on"
>about their conversion. Actually, most people here had been going round and
>round on the conversion issue months and weeks before the reconstruction ever
>occurred. It was practically a non-issue by the time of the reconstruction.
>People who had legitimate doubts about their previous conversion were
>baptized.
>
>IMO, and I have been a member of the Denver church since the Wooten's first
>moved to Denver, the summer of 1988 after the reconstruction, was the BEST
>time in the history of this church. Period. You had to be here to experience
>it. People were excited, joyful and growing immensely. I think the church set
>attendance records for the first 12 weeks in a row after the reconstruction.
>
That's because us weak weirdo high-maintenance losers were flushed out
of there.
Best thing that ever happened to me, too!
Gintas
Jaz
Eickerman) wrote:
>I think Kim has pretty well summed up the process. In Phoenix the initial
>reconstruction of the East Valley Church of Christ happened in the fall of
>'87 by the Mission Church of Christ in San Diego (later to become the San
>Diego Church of Christ). This inititial reconstruction wasn't too bad
>largely because the Mission Church had not yet been put through the wringer
>by Boston. My reconstruction talk was with Ron Brumley (Brum's dad). It was
>actually pretty easy. A few months later about 20 of us from Phoenix were
>present in San Diego for the kick off of the Mission Church reconstruction.
>Gordon Fergusen and Greg Marutzky were shipped out and Bruce Williams was
>installed as the new evangelist. Kip spoke that night and got everyone wound
>up and it was clear that a Boston reconstruction was not the same as what we
>had experienced just a few months earlier. The Phoenix group met with Tom
>Brown that night while the reconstruction process started with the leaders in
>San Diego. We had one of those big group confession sessions (what fun).
>
I was the tall red one in back with the horns and the forked
tail.
>Jeff Brown went through the reconstruction with San Diego even though he was
>at the time leading Phoenix (he was rebaptized).
So I had been led in the singles and in a bible study by
a non-Christian! That explains a lot.
>This lead to a second
>reconstruction in Phoenix in the spring of '88. This one was incredibly
>harsh. I think Gintas equated this kind of reconstruction to Sherman's march
>to the sea, and that is about what it feels like (being on the receiving
>end). My best estimate is that around 200 people were "driven out" of the
>Phoenix church at this point, and virtually 100% of those that were left had
>been re-baptized (I believe I know of only one exception).
>
I had friends who likened it to being in boot camp--getting
yelled at by their drill instructors.
Gintas
Jani Heinonen
<eng...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>I must strongly disagree with Kim. First of all, the reconstruction in Denver
>was 1988. It was one of the best things that EVER happened here.
If you get off on verbal abuse, that is. Then again, I wasn't there.
>The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
>always in quotes? Is it a euphemism?
Well, the "further training" seems to always refer to being trained to
better grovel before His Almighty Kipness. A bit like house training,
actually.
>(Please, no inane remarks about "getting off" on being rebuked, ok?)
I...just...HAD TO!
Catherine Hampton
: Reconstructions -- but I also experienced one personally. And as far
: as you not hearing of one in five years, the Kansas City church went
: through one just this past December.
Seattle went through one this past year, as well, and I know a
couple of other churches have, as well. :/ Perhaps the members of
those churches who have shown up and posted here over the past year
will confirm this....
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@ng.reveal.org>, Webmaster
REVEAL: Former Members of the International Churches of Christ
<http://www.reveal.org>
Jani Heinonen
Jaz
>kcs...@qni.com wrote:
>
>: Reconstructions -- but I also experienced one personally. And as far
>: as you not hearing of one in five years, the Kansas City church went
>: through one just this past December.
>
>couple of other churches have, as well. :/ Perhaps the members of
>those churches who have shown up and posted here over the past year
>will confirm this....
>
>
I can confirm from Seattle, but only by hearsay....
Gintas
Quality Wear
Could you simply show us some scriptures that back up the concept of a
congregational
reconstruction? Has membership ever been set to 0 in one of these? How are
elders involved?
Even if your experience was good, doesn't a reconstruction have great potential to
do damage?
And besides, those who only had the baptism of John (one example), why were
there no other
rebaptism mentioned in the New Testaments, for those baptized in the name of
Jesus?
The ICC has yet to make it as long as the church period covered by scripture, yet
there seems
to be a lot of rebaptisms that did not exist or were not recorded by the first
century church.
Rob Vugrnick
eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >
>
> I must strongly disagree with Kim. First of all, the reconstruction in Denver
> was 1988. It was one of the best things that EVER happened here.
>
> The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
> always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
> Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's later
> moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
>
> The rest of the staff did have "life talks" or whatever you want to call them
> where they were basically challenged to get the right focus in their lives and
> leadership. These also resulted in some serious sin being brought out that had
> not been confessed. Some talks I heard about with the staff were quite
> emotional. But in the ten years since then I haven't heard any complaints from
> any of the staff when the Shepherds arrived here.
>
> There WERE personal appointments with each member. All kinds of things in
> people's spiritual lives were discussed. Yes, conversions were discussed. I
> can't speak for everyone, but in my talk the person getting with me asked if
> I felt fine about my conversion, I said yes, and he said no problem. Next
> topic. It was a chance to get a spiritual check-up. I found the experience
> completely encouraging. I didn't get rebuked or made to feel like I was a
> failure as a disciple. It was a completely inspiring and invigorating
> experience. (Please, no inane remarks about "getting off" on being rebuked,
> ok?)
>
> I also sat in on talks with other members and these were all conducted in the
> same spirit.
>
> Quite a few were rebaptized. I don't know of ANY that were "hammered on"
> about their conversion. Actually, most people here had been going round and
> round on the conversion issue months and weeks before the reconstruction ever
> occurred. It was practically a non-issue by the time of the reconstruction.
> People who had legitimate doubts about their previous conversion were
> baptized.
>
> IMO, and I have been a member of the Denver church since the Wooten's first
> moved to Denver, the summer of 1988 after the reconstruction, was the BEST
> time in the history of this church. Period. You had to be here to experience
> it. People were excited, joyful and growing immensely. I think the church set
> attendance records for the first 12 weeks in a row after the reconstruction.
>
> Doesn't sound "sick" to me at all.
>
> I've heard of some "reconstructions" of various plantings (and this may be
> what Kim is discussing in parts of her post) but I haven't heard of a
> reconstruction in probably 5 years.
>
> --
> ~John Engler
> reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
>
Vicki
>
> Jaz <j...@jaz.net> wrote:
>
> : I can confirm from Seattle, but only by hearsay....
>
> I didn't need that confirmed -- I've spoken with one of the
> women who was "reconstructed" out of the Seattle Church of
> Christ during it. :/
>
> BTW -- you are still in a mainline CofC, right? Which one
> in the Seattle area?
Let's see... Gintas is the leader of the Super True Church [tm], and he
lives in the Seattle area....
Does it not make sense that he would attend a congregation in the city
where the world's richest man lives? Think of the possibilities! The
potential!
I don't know, though... one of our mutual friends saw Bill and Melinda
(Gates) eating lunch at the Wendy's near the main Microsoft complex in
Redmond recently... maybe ole Bill isn't sharp enough....
Vicki
wylds...@my-dejanews.com
eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6olg9a$86n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> eick...@aztec.asu.edu (Curtis Eickerman) wrote:
> > In article <6ol4ok$m9d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
> > > always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
> > > Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's
> later
> > > moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
> > >
> > quotes. These are euphemisisms that allow leadership to avoid being
> > completely honest about the real reason for changes. One time we had an
> > evangelist tell us exactly why his predecessor was transferred. After making
> > a requested trip for a "conference" he came back and had another little talk
> > with us. He explained that he shouldn't have said what he did (which, by the
> > way, happened to be the truth). Forever afterward the reason given for moving
> > an evangelist was for "more training". From that point onward it was
> pretty
> > clear to me that openness and honesty is what leadership expects to come up
> > the discipling chain, but not what they allow to go down the chain.
> >
> > I was just commenting last week that it is probably about time for Joe Silipo
> > to need "more training". He's been here in Phoenix almost 3 years. Anyone
> > want to place any bets on this being his year? Given 6 leaders in the
> last
> > 10 years I would think his tour of duty is about up.
> >
> > Curtis Eickerman
> > Phoenix, Arizona
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >
>
> and not "white-washing" things as is sometimes done. But this is a tricky
> issue.
>
> The secular seminars use the buzzwords "Praise in public, criticize in
> private." Most of us would want the same thing. So not running out the dirty
> laundry for all to see is something that protects the individual as well as
> the institution of leadership. This is good.
>
> However, sometimes disciples get criticized in public. And that isn't usually
> best and is often wrong and harsh. To those on the receiving end it can seem
> like "justice" for the leader to "get it, too." But that is a poor
> justification for criticizing a leader in public.
>
> IMO, the best solution is for the leader in question to just explain why he's
> blown it and tell his people, honestly, openly. When I've seen this done is
> practically brings tears to my eyes, because I appreciate the openness and
> humility it takes to do this.
Well, I think you've really hit on something there, John. I
think the fact that it takes a lot of openness & humility is
why it seems to happen so seldom, the higher up you go.
To be fair, I have seen several people make some really tough confessions in
the ICC, and have had great respect for those who did it.*
Sarah M.
*(But that doesn't make the ICC The One True Church [tm])
Catherine Hampton
: I can confirm from Seattle, but only by hearsay....
I didn't need that confirmed -- I've spoken with one of the
women who was "reconstructed" out of the Seattle Church of
Christ during it. :/
BTW -- you are still in a mainline CofC, right? Which one
in the Seattle area?
John & Deborah Proctor
>> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>>
>
>
>
>I must strongly disagree with Kim. First of all, the reconstruction in Denver
>was 1988. It was one of the best things that EVER happened here.
>
>The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
>always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
>Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's later
>moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
>
>The rest of the staff did have "life talks" or whatever you want to call them
>where they were basically challenged to get the right focus in their lives and
>leadership. These also resulted in some serious sin being brought out that had
>not been confessed. Some talks I heard about with the staff were quite
>emotional. But in the ten years since then I haven't heard any complaints from
>any of the staff when the Shepherds arrived here.
>
>There WERE personal appointments with each member. All kinds of things in
>people's spiritual lives were discussed. Yes, conversions were discussed. I
>can't speak for everyone, but in my talk the person getting with me asked if
>I felt fine about my conversion, I said yes, and he said no problem. Next
>topic. It was a chance to get a spiritual check-up. I found the experience
>completely encouraging. I didn't get rebuked or made to feel like I was a
>failure as a disciple. It was a completely inspiring and invigorating
>experience. (Please, no inane remarks about "getting off" on being rebuked,
>ok?)
>
>I also sat in on talks with other members and these were all conducted in the
>same spirit.
>
>Quite a few were rebaptized. I don't know of ANY that were "hammered on"
>about their conversion. Actually, most people here had been going round and
>round on the conversion issue months and weeks before the reconstruction ever
>occurred. It was practically a non-issue by the time of the reconstruction.
>People who had legitimate doubts about their previous conversion were
>baptized.
>
I was hammered so much that I decided getting rebaptized was a lot easier
than trying to convince my zone leader that I really did have a biblical
conversion in the mainline church of christ.
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
Phoenix, AZ
>IMO, and I have been a member of the Denver church since the Wooten's first
>moved to Denver, the summer of 1988 after the reconstruction, was the BEST
>time in the history of this church. Period. You had to be here to experience
>it. People were excited, joyful and growing immensely. I think the church set
>attendance records for the first 12 weeks in a row after the reconstruction.
>
>Doesn't sound "sick" to me at all.
>
>I've heard of some "reconstructions" of various plantings (and this may be
>what Kim is discussing in parts of her post) but I haven't heard of a
>reconstruction in probably 5 years.
>
>--
>~John Engler
>reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
>
John & Deborah Proctor
eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <6olg9a$86n$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> eick...@aztec.asu.edu (Curtis Eickerman) wrote:
>> In article <6ol4ok$m9d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> eng...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> <snip C.E.>
>> >
>> > The Wootens and Bauers DID move to Boston (and why is "further training"
>> > always in quotes? Is it a euphemism? ) for *further training*. Preston and
>> > Sandie Shepherd and Grant and Amy Henley moved to Denver. (The Henley's
>later
>> > moved to Munich to lead the mission team there.)
>> >
>> <snip C.E.>
>> > ~John Engler
>> > reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
>>
>> I can tell you why I came to put "more training" or "further training" in
>> quotes. These are euphemisisms that allow leadership to avoid being
>> completely honest about the real reason for changes. One time we had an
>> evangelist tell us exactly why his predecessor was transferred. After making
>> a requested trip for a "conference" he came back and had another little talk
>> with us. He explained that he shouldn't have said what he did (which, by the
>> way, happened to be the truth). Forever afterward the reason given for moving
>> an evangelist was for "more training". From that point onward it was
>pretty
>> clear to me that openness and honesty is what leadership expects to come up
>> the discipling chain, but not what they allow to go down the chain.
>>
>> I was just commenting last week that it is probably about time for Joe Silipo
>> to need "more training". He's been here in Phoenix almost 3 years. Anyone
>> want to place any bets on this being his year? Given 6 leaders in the
>last
>> 10 years I would think his tour of duty is about up.
>>
>> Curtis Eickerman
>> Phoenix, Arizona
>>
>> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>>
>
>
>On the surface, I agree that there should be more candor when leaders leave
>and not "white-washing" things as is sometimes done. But this is a tricky
>issue.
>
John,
"White-washing"? You mean lying don't you?
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
Phoenix, AZ
>The secular seminars use the buzzwords "Praise in public, criticize in
>private." Most of us would want the same thing. So not running out the dirty
>laundry for all to see is something that protects the individual as well as
>the institution of leadership. This is good.
>
>However, sometimes disciples get criticized in public. And that isn't usually
>best and is often wrong and harsh. To those on the receiving end it can seem
>like "justice" for the leader to "get it, too." But that is a poor
>justification for criticizing a leader in public.
>
>IMO, the best solution is for the leader in question to just explain why he's
>blown it and tell his people, honestly, openly. When I've seen this done is
>practically brings tears to my eyes, because I appreciate the openness and
>humility it takes to do this.
John & Deborah Proctor
j...@jaz.net (Jaz) wrote:
>In article <6ol7ak$qbi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, eick...@aztec.asu.edu (Curtis
>Eickerman) wrote:
>
>>I think Kim has pretty well summed up the process. In Phoenix the initial
>>reconstruction of the East Valley Church of Christ happened in the fall of
>>'87 by the Mission Church of Christ in San Diego (later to become the San
>>Diego Church of Christ). This inititial reconstruction wasn't too bad
>>largely because the Mission Church had not yet been put through the wringer
>>by Boston. My reconstruction talk was with Ron Brumley (Brum's dad). It was
>>actually pretty easy. A few months later about 20 of us from Phoenix were
>>present in San Diego for the kick off of the Mission Church reconstruction.
>>Gordon Fergusen and Greg Marutzky were shipped out and Bruce Williams was
>>installed as the new evangelist. Kip spoke that night and got everyone wound
>>up and it was clear that a Boston reconstruction was not the same as what we
>>had experienced just a few months earlier. The Phoenix group met with Tom
>>Brown that night while the reconstruction process started with the leaders in
>>San Diego. We had one of those big group confession sessions (what fun).
>>
>
> I was the tall red one in back with the horns and the forked
> tail.
>
>>Jeff Brown went through the reconstruction with San Diego even though he was
>>at the time leading Phoenix (he was rebaptized).
>
> So I had been led in the singles and in a bible study by
> a non-Christian! That explains a lot.
>
Gee Gintas, no wonder why you didn't make it through reconstruction. A non-christian
reconstructing a christian?
Deborah Proctor
call...@ix.netcom.com
Phoenix, AZ
>>This lead to a second
Jaz
>Jaz <j...@jaz.net> wrote:
>
>: I can confirm from Seattle, but only by hearsay....
>
>I didn't need that confirmed -- I've spoken with one of the
>women who was "reconstructed" out of the Seattle Church of
>Christ during it. :/
>
>BTW -- you are still in a mainline CofC, right? Which one
>in the Seattle area?
>
>
in New York.
Gintas
eng...@my-dejanews.com
I am surprised that you were "hammered." Were you in the East at the time? My
talk and all the ones I was a part of were not hammering sessions at all.
(I've seen hammering sessions from the nail's perspective; but 1988 wasn't
like that to me.)
>
> But do not presume to tell me how or what I remember occuring. I can
> concede that we perhaps view it differently - but my viewpoint is as
> valid as yours is.
Granted.
>
> Reconstructions during that time were all fairly similar. Ever listen
> to the Dallas Reconstruction sermon? How about the Phoenix one?
>
Nope.
> I use the phrase "further training" in quotation marks -- because the
> event, in actuality and IMO, was simply "further training in the Boston
> methodology and in loyalty to Kip". You can call it whatever you like.
>
(This is not directly at you, Kim; a lot of people have hit on this one.) Is
there any chance that someone is actually more well trained as an evangelist
when they go for "further training." Training seems pretty legitimate to me,
all the sarcasm about becoming more into the methodoligy, etc. Doesn't God
have a methodology for an effective evangelist?
It is evident from a survey of the NT that evangelists were not trained in
schools but in association (d-i-s-c-i-p-l-i-n-g) with other evangelists. This
is how Jesus trained the 12 and how they trained others. So for an evangelist
to be brought into closer proximity with someone who can help him over the
current humps in his life and leadership is a pretty biblical thing.
Granted, one may argue the things that one is trained in, but the method is
pretty sound, scripturally.
> Yes, to a certain degree I was generalizing what happens during
> Reconstructions -- but I also experienced one personally. And as far
> as you not hearing of one in five years, the Kansas City church went
> through one just this past December.
Hadn't heard about that.
Of course, after my blurb on "life talks," I guess I was basically saying we
should have a reconstruction every year. I think that would be good.
But, these reconstructions of movemement churches (Like KC) are different
than those like we had in Denver. In the late 80's, there was a paradigm
shift. Many of the problems in these churches were blamed on being out of
sync with how Boston was doing things. In many cases these were right. We
learned a ton from Boston.
But when you reconstruct a movement church, these are a different animal.
You're kind of reconstructing yourself. You can't blame your problems on
yourself and send yourself in to fix them, you know what I mean? At these
times, you have to take ownership of whatever problems exist and deal with
them head-on. This is why confession needs to start with the leadership, and
it often does, at least in my experience.
Reconstructions, life-talks, re-focus weekend, whatever you call it-- I think
this is a really good thing to do about once a year. Helps get the focus
straightened out.
~John
>
> bb,
>
> kim
>
> You can get by on charm for about 15 minutes. After that, you better know
> something.
> --H. Jackson Brown, Jr.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
~John Engler
reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
eng...@my-dejanews.com
quali...@execpc.com wrote:
> John
>
> Could you simply show us some scriptures that back up the concept of a
> congregational
> reconstruction? Has membership ever been set to 0 in one of these? How are
> elders involved?
I don't think there are any examples of the whole thing in process, but I
think it is in keeping with the spirit of several things in the NT.
First, Titus's mission on Crete was to straighten out what was left
unfinished and appoint elders in each city/church on the island of Crete.
This implies that there were churches there (and they had in fact been under
some form of leadership already) but that there were aspects of
incompleteness to them. These are unspecified except that Paul specifically
mentions the appointment of elders. So some of the aspects of reconstruction
(straightening things out, appointing new leaders) can be found in Titus'
ministry on Crete.
The next place I would look is in Paul's missionary journeys. They would
plant c churches, then later on they would visit and encourage the disciples
to remain true in the faith and appoint elders (Acts 14:21ff). This provides
a precedence for a periodic ongoing minstry by leaders outside of the
congregation to help keep the churches on track. Actually, Paul's had ongoing
involvement with many churches, the NT bears this out.
Paul also had an entourage of leaders from other cities that travelled with
him-- these are cited in Acts 20:4. These men had been leaders in their local
congregations and travelled with Paul for "more training" while others had
been put in charge of their local churches.
Membership set to 0? I doubt it. I think that whole thing is more of a device
than anything. I don't agree with it.
What do you mean about involvement with elders?
~John
>
> Even if your experience was good, doesn't a reconstruction have great
potential to
> do damage?
It depends upon individuals involved; I don't doubt that there has been damage
done. I also believe a lot of good has been done.
>
> And besides, those who only had the baptism of John (one example), why were
> there no other
> rebaptism mentioned in the New Testaments, for those baptized in the name of
> Jesus?
This is a problem of modern-day denominationalism. I think we have in the
past (and hopefully not the present) been too quick to blame something on
someone's baptism. Next thing you know everyone is insecure about their
baptism. I believe one reason God gave us baptism is so that we would know we
became Christians. We can remember when we were baptized.
Yes, we need to repent prior to baptism, and we need to understand we are
making a decision to become a disciple of Jesus with all that that entails.
But no one can repent perfectly, no one can become Mr. Super Disciple ever,
much less the day they're baptized. At some point the grace of God is needed,
we just need to make an honest, sincere decision with a clear conscience in
accordance with scripture, and I believe the grace of God covers the rest.
People in the NT were never neurotic about their conversions. Because of
false gospels and false baptisms out there, the churches of Christ have
rightly insisted upon proper conversion and baptism. But the flip side of
this is a certain amount of neurosis about "did I *really* repent?" Short of
deliberately withheld sins and holding back in commitment, I'd say if people
repented and were baptized right, don't worry about it. Now get on with your
life as a disciple. But if someone has ongoing concerns of conscience, then
go back and look at it again. ~John
>
> The ICC has yet to make it as long as the church period covered by scripture,
yet
> there seems
> to be a lot of rebaptisms that did not exist or were not recorded by the first
> century church.
>
> Rob Vugrnick
>
<snippage of stuff>
Catherine Hampton
: Bellevue. It ain't quite the same as Bellevue
: in New York.
<choke> To put it mildly. Of course, with you there, at least it
won't sink into boring, respectable upper-middle-class suburbia
either. ;>
James A. Robbins
> The secular seminars use the buzzwords "Praise in public, criticize in
> private." Most of us would want the same thing. So not running out the dirty
> laundry for all to see is something that protects the individual as well as
> the institution of leadership. This is good.
>
> However, sometimes disciples get criticized in public. And that isn't usually
> best and is often wrong and harsh. To those on the receiving end it can seem
> like "justice" for the leader to "get it, too." But that is a poor
> justification for criticizing a leader in public.
It may seem like poor justification to you, John, but what about following
the scriptures where it says:
Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought
by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked ***publicly***,
so that the others may take warning. I charge you, in the sight of God and
Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions ***without
partiality***, and to do nothing out of ***favoritism***. 1 Tim 5:19-21 (NIV)
It would seem that God expects more from leaders than from the rank and file
(and, yes, several other scriptures come to mind in regard to this).
> IMO, the best solution is for the leader in question to just explain why he's
> blown it and tell his people, honestly, openly. When I've seen this done is
> practically brings tears to my eyes, because I appreciate the openness and
> humility it takes to do this.
>
It's not just a matter of opinion, brother. It God's Word.
--
James A. Robbins
Senior Design Engineer / Network Engineer
The Ohio State University Chemistry Department
robb...@osu.edu
PatM1967
<sound of police sirens> WoooooOOOOOOoooOOOoooo!
"Alright Lady, pull over. This is the *Sarcasm*Police* Do you know whatcha
did? You made a sarcastic post without signalling. That's right. You should
use a :-> or a ;-> or even a <s> when sarcastically posting.
Can you imagine if nobody signalled when they made sarcastic posts? It
would get ugly real quick. You betcha ...people woundn't know what to do...
all kinds of misunderstandings ultimately resulting in bloody carnage like ya
see on the 11:00 news when a "disgruntled former Postal employee" gets hold of
an automatic weapon. Believe me, I've seen it and it ain't pretty. Don't let
it happen again."
*Sarcasm*Police*
-----------------------
Jaz
>Jaz <j...@jaz.net> wrote:
>
>: Bellevue. It ain't quite the same as Bellevue
>: in New York.
>
><choke> To put it mildly. Of course, with you there, at least it
>won't sink into boring, respectable upper-middle-class suburbia
>either. ;>
>
>
I try not to be dull. Blunt, maybe, but
not dull.
Gintas
Catherine Hampton
: In article <6ontuo$m0b$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, Catherine Hampton
: <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
:>Jaz <j...@jaz.net> wrote:
I'm surprised you even have to try. ;>
ComputrDad
the Fulcher's?
ComputrDad
Phx wasn't as traumatic as I thought it would be. It took me about six
interviews w/ him before I "broke" and was allowed in. It took awhile because
I had questions such as the difference between advice and commandments (from
men and not God).
Interestingly, I had been a Christian for about 8.5 yrs at the time and
didn't have a major crime (sin) like sexual immorality to confess. Maybe
that's why I got off w/out having to be re-baptized (a term even Jeff Brown
used after his 2nd or 3rd reconstruction baptism) to be let in.
My roommates resented me for not receiving the baptism of reconstruction and
later told me they didn't think I was saved. It was common for me to question
(in a gentle spirit) and study things out prior to the Boston Movement take
over but my inquisitiveness was seen as being unsubmissive amongst other
"sins."
ComputrDad
the 2nd reconstruction so I escaped the bible whipping that was lashed upon the
rank and file.
I'm curious, how many members does Phoenix have now? Did they outgrow that
theatre in the round--Celebrity Theater?
Janet Chacon
now. I got to know them both extremely well. But, I don't know the
other people you asked about. Coincidentally, Dave and Kathy Eastman
are in O.C. too.
-Janet
Curtis Eickerman
compu...@aol.com (ComputrDad) wrote:
> Speaking of old Phoenician leaders where's Mike Rock these days? Joe Fields?
> the Fulcher's?
>
Joe Fields was a zone leader here then went to San Diego for "further
training". He was appointed as an evangelist in San Diego. Later her
returned here, replacing James Hammon. He subsequently returned to San Diego
for "further training" for eldership and is still there.
Mike Rock returned from San Diego as an evangelist replacing Dave Eastman
here. Then he went to Denver. He was part of the mission team to start
Novosibirsk (Russia) and then returned to LA (Orange County) where I believe
he still is located.
The Fulchers lead the Tucson planting and were later replaced by Mark and
Margret Hodge. I'm not sure where they went from there but I believe they are
presently leading a sector in San Diego.
Curtis Eickerman
Phoenix, Arizona
Curtis Eickerman
The best guesstimate from people who have left in the last few months is
around 700 with attendance pretty regularly over 1000 (includes kids).
We continued to meet in the Celebrity for a while until the management became
intolerable. At this point we moved downtown to the Civic Center Plaza which
was a much better arrangement (besides being centrally located). Having
children's ministry in the bar of the Celebrity was a pretty miserable
situation.
After the Civic Center we eventually moved back to the McClintock HS
auditorium for quite a while. Then the church office was moved to north
Scottsdale into a facility which will actually accomodate half the church.
At this point the church here started meeting largely as two separate groups
(this was while Joe Fields was leading here). When both the north and south
are together it is at Shadow Mountain HS in Paradise Valley (that's where the
big 10th anniversary bash was held). When they are separate the north meets
at the office in Scottsdale and the south meets at Rhodes Jr. HS in Mesa.
Dcn2
>> in the Seattle area?
>
>lives in the Seattle area....
>
I was in Seattle recently, and I couldn't find any COC, International or
mainline in the downtown area. What is going on?
deb
eng...@my-dejanews.com
Your point is well taken.
--
~John Engler
reply to eng...@my-dejanews.com
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Vicki
> I was in Seattle recently, and I couldn't find any COC, International or
> mainline in the downtown area. What is going on?
Deb,
The closest ones to downtown would probably be the Northwest
congregation, about 10 minutes north of downtown (which is also where
Catherine went several years ago), and also the Bellevue C of C, which
is about a 10 minute drive east of downtown. There are not a lot of C of
C's up here... most of them are in the surrounding towns and are named
that way, i.e., the Bellevue C of C, Federal Way C of C, Montlake
Terrace C of C, etc.
The SICC (Seattle ICC) has met a lot in an auditorium in downtown
Bellevue called the Meydenbauer, but I don't know where they are at now.
Next time you come for a visit, send me an e-mail ahead of time. You can
come to church with us and we'll take you sightseeing. We love to show
off Seattle - the Switzerland of America!
Vicki
(Native Texan, transplanted Seattle-ite.)
p.s. Did you get to see Mount Rainier when you were here?
Dcn2
>Bellevue called the Meydenbauer, but I don't know where they are at now.
It's funny. they don't even advertise in the Yellow Pages like the other ICCs
>
>Next time you come for a visit, send me an e-mail ahead of time. You can
>come to church with us and we'll take you sightseeing. We love to show
>off Seattle - the Switzerland of America!
thanks, Vicki. I think I visited at the Northwest Church. Real nice place.
I didn't see anything while I was there -- business trip. no time, but the city
seemed terrific. All the coffee I could drink!!>
Dcn2
>only thing I can really say is to try not to judge people when they
>have a different reaction towards or perspective of the ICC. It's
>something I've been guilty of, and something that I'm still trying to
>change to this day.
>Good luck in working out the stuff you're trying to get into
>perspective. :)
>-Janet
>
thanks, Jan, what you say makes sense. But, I do still insist on respect toward
individuals. There is a problem with that on this NG.
deb
John & Deborah Proctor
>Speaking of old Phoenician leaders where's Mike Rock these days? Joe Fields?
>the Fulcher's?
I knew Jim and Eveyln Fulcher. He discipled my friend from the mainline
church who introduced me to the ICC. I went with my friend to their
house in Rancho Bernardo. Can we say in the 500-750 range? I didn't
know they moved to Phoenix. When were they in Phoenix? Why were
they moved to Phoenix? The Fulcher's were leading the northwest zone in
San Diego when I left in 1989.
PatM1967
-- snip --
>The SICC (Seattle ICC) has met a lot in an auditorium in downtown
>Bellevue called the Meydenbauer, but I don't know where they are at now.
How do you pronounce SICC?
Pat
heehee :D
--snip --
Curtis Eickerman
The Fulchers had been moved here specifically to get ready to plant the
Tucson church which they were to lead. I think they were here in Phoenix
less than a year. I don't remember the timing for certain, but it was
probably around 90 or 91.
Curtis Eickerman
Phoenix, Arizona