Mega Church Blunders

[AbideWithMe]

I get your concern, because there can be that pressure to exaggerate the craziness of a person’s past life among some Evangelicals and others .

I do know a Catholic online, though, who I really trust, who had some similar bad trips—prior to conversion-- where he honestly believes–still–he saw the devil do crazy things and tell him to do crazy things. Perhaps there’s something about the drug-induced experience itself that leaves people’s memories unable to discern what was a hallucination and what was a real supernatural encounter.

I’ve read, too, that after some “good” trips (such as with monitored hallucinogen use) some people consider their spiritual encounters real even if they’re otherwise critically-thinking people.

Yes, but if he’s claiming that real people died as a result of something he did, then that’s a very serious claim and ought to be verifiable (that the people died, not that it was a result of his “demonic powers”).

Edwin

But do we know for sure that Jeff Johnson himself is claiming that he’s fully convinced that it was real?

Maybe I’m associating this story too much with the Catholic person I know online who had a really bad “demonic” trip which ended up in driving him to become a Christian. That person is sure of the vividness and the emotional impact of the experience, but he wavers on whether or not he believes it was a real supernatural encounter. To hear him talk, though, it can sound like he genuinely believes it sometimes because it seemed so real to him at the time, and still does.

The quoted article —which is from a former CC member who left years ago as a young man*— says that Johnson “apparently believes” it was real, but to me a second hand source saying “apparently believes” isn’t the same as Johnson himself claiming it really happened, and he’s sure it happened.

Anyway, somehow that made me think of the Catholic I’ve been speaking about, and the way he’s not fully convinced himself of what happened, but often could be said to apparently believe in the reality of the experience.

Sorry if I’m not communicating my thoughts well…I’m really tired.

• I read the whole article from which the quote is taken. I dunno—I’m not qualified to dismiss the negative experience which that young man had at CC Downey, but I’m also not swallowing it whole. I’m so used to seeing ex-members of “fill-in-the-blank-with-whatever” group or religion write about what a terrible experience they had that I’m cautious about taking such “ex-something”** stories as the last word on that group or religion.

** One of the effects of me being sleepy is that I lose all ability to discern when quotation marks may be appropriate.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Okay, here is what I did. To be fair, I purchased that whole sermon. I didn’t want to give just a small dosage but let people hear the full speech and hear for themselves. I admit that it’s not that big of a deal but imagine sitting in the church for over 2 years and not wanting to be there hearing little jabs at the CC here and there eventually a person gets frustrated.
Anyways, this sermon goes off a cliff for me at th 20:00 in mark and for those of you that know bible history you’ll notice that the Catholic Church is never mentioned thus explaining why Dr. Moore danced around the while Cephas, Peter meaning “Rock” thing. He’s trying to subtly use the old protestant apologetics by not referring Peter as the rock, ENJOY…

vocaroo.com/i/s0c27aKiexZi

Thanks, Fritz.

 

[Fritz6976]

I just made myself a bit generous and listen to his sermon. Quite a nice fellow, probably sounds a bit like Scott Hann though Hann is a Catholic and he is not. I like it when he speaks on the reliability of the Bible. I just like it when people talk about the Bible in that way because it endorses the scripture that the Catholic Church gave. He trims his version of the Bible though, saying it has only sixty-six books but then he is a Protestant. He, I mean his predecessor, must have held a council of their own to decide which books to be omitted from the original text.

But I stopped listening after the part on Cephas. He said that Cephas was Peter’s name from childhood. This is definitely not a simple mistake but rather his interpretation – that Cephas was a given name since childhood. So he introduces a new theology here, at least differing from those scholars who believe that Cephas was a name given by Jesus for Simon son of Jonah. With that he does not have to explain the significance of the name changed. Well, obviously he has to interpret the Bible to fit his theology.

I sympathize with you that you should endure all these sermons which contradict Catholic teaching, you being a Catholic yourself. You must be indeed a wonderful man, a wonderful husband to do so for the sake of your wife. I personally do not go to Protestant services, never has been, except for a couple of occasions to attend some conferences on goodwill basis. The reason is I do not need to and besides different theologies do not upbuild my spiritual life. If I want to know about their belief I would ask or search from books and libraries.

God bless.

Reuben

Yeah it can be tuff, especially when you gotta hold your tongue for the sake of not arguing.
But I’m glad you saw Dr. Moore attempt of making a “New Theology”.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Yeah it can be tuff, especially when you gotta hold your tongue for the sake of not arguing.
But I’m glad you saw Dr. Moore attempt of making a “New Theology”.

Fritz—I’m just stopping in quickly to say I listened to the audio you provided the other night, and I don’t see how you’re getting anything anti-Catholic or “off the cliff” out of it. I’m honestly trying to consider how anything he said should be seen as a deliberate jab at Catholicism, but, even after mulling it over for a few days in hopes of seeing from your perspective, I don’t see any anti-Catholicism there. I’m very busy, but I’ll listen again when I have a block of time and discuss it with you in some detail.

 

[Fritz6976]

Fritz—I’m just stopping in quickly to say I listened to the audio you provided the other night, and I don’t see how you’re getting anything anti-Catholic or “off the cliff” out of it. I’m honestly trying to consider how anything he said should be seen as a deliberate jab at Catholicism, but, even after mulling it over for a few days in hopes of seeing from your perspective, I don’t see any anti-Catholicism there. I’m very busy, but I’ll listen again when I have a block of time and discuss it with you in some detail.

you’re kidding me right? maybe your Bible history differs from what I have learned, how the Bible was put together, how the different books were determined to be placed in the Bible how the Catholic Church preserved cannons, etc. but I find the lack of mentioning anything Catholic along with the silly idea of the name Cephas being Peters childhood name given to him by his mother when any first grade Bible study student can figure out it isn’t just shows me that this 12 year New Testament professor with a PhD really has no clue of the Bible or tried everything he could to keep the Catholic Church out of his speech.

 

[dcana]

But I stopped listening after the part on Cephas. He said that Cephas was Peter’s name from childhood. This is definitely not a simple mistake but rather his interpretation – that Cephas was a given name since childhood. So he introduces a new theology here, at least differing from those scholars who believe that Cephas was a name given by Jesus for Simon son of Jonah. With that he does not have to explain the significance of the name changed. Well, obviously he has to interpret the Bible to fit his theology.

Where did he get this? What historical source did he pull from to make this claim?

Why is it important? Why can it be seen as at least subtlety anti-Catholic? Because Catholics claim that when Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, He said that He was building His Church on him, and Peter’s successors continue to be that Rock, who is a sign of the Church’s unity, as well as historical apostolicity. Protestants (obviously) do not believe this, say the “Rock” is Peter’s faith (though how they can reconcile this with Jesus changing his very *name to *“Rock” in the same breath, which is a name, from what I know, that was never even used as a name before then, is beyond me), and that Peter’s name change had no real significance, sort of like how Abram’s name change to “Abraham” had no real significance. If he truly believes it has no significance, why does he even care if his name was “given to him from childhood?” He does so because He knows Catholics believe that Jesus changed his name to “Peter”, indicating, as Jesus said, that he would be the one on whom He would, and has, built His Church. Plus, why does Jesus use the wording, “And so I say to you you are Peter”? What sense does that make if his name was already Peter? He doesn’t say, “From now on I want you to go by your other name, Peter.” It’s total nonsense.

As a side note, I was recently having dinner with a next-door neighbor, a dear woman with much faith in God and a sound knowledge of the Scriptures from her Bible studies. She used to attend a local Methodist church but now goes to a mega-church. I mentioned the fact the Jesus built His Church on rock, in responding to her downplaying the Church, most unbiblically, as just a building and, really, just the people inside the building. Not, you know, the Body of Christ, the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth, etc. She then asked me for my opinion, genuinely, by saying “what do you think the rock is, the Word of God?” Her husband knew that the rock was Peter. How she could study the Bible that much and not know to what I was referring? I don’t know. I guess the mega-church pastor doesn’t spend too much time (probably, more like ignores) on that verse in his preaching. In my opinion, it doesn’t show much respect to the oft-repeated “God-breathed Scripture” to preach on and study what you like, while ignoring parts that you don’t like or that don’t fit into your theology. It also doesn’t show much (any, actually) respect to the Word of God to say a certain writing of Paul is “an epistle of straw” and “has nothing of the character of the Gospel in it”, adding your own words to the Word of God in order to make it fit your theology, and desiring to actually remove books from the Bible, nor does (what was eventually to happen as a result) actually removing entire books from the Word of God, but that’s another matter.

Could anybody imagine how someone who did to and said of Sacred Scripture such things today would be accepted as a genuine preacher of the Word of God? Would people embrace anything such a person has to say on any theological matter whatsoever? I should think not. I would certainly hope not. What if I, here and now, declared that I thought 2 Corinthians was a worthless document, started advocating for the removal of the Books of Proverbs, Hebrews, and Revelation from the Bible, started inserting my own words into the Sacred Text, and started preaching unheard-of theological doctrines? Would anyone listen to me? I hope not.

 

[Fritz6976]

As a former Protestant Angeleno, I can tell you that Dudley Rutherford is considered one of the best Protestant pastors in Los Angeles, and he has been preaching for at least since 1987. The church the OP is writing about has been in existence since 1912. Two churches merged to form Shepherd of the Hills in 1995, and the church continues to grow. The physical evidence is there… the church is building new parking and a new building. (This info is straight off of their website.) Their young adult evening ministry, which disbanded a few months ago with many tears, was Evangelicalism at its best, most effective, and life-impacting.

Manny Pacquiao spoke at this church before his fight against Mayweather. Pacquiao is himself a Catholic turned Protestant.

Being a Protestant pastor is difficult, as you are subject to criticism left and right, every weekend.

Meanwhile, I’m not hearing anything about Catholic growth in the San Fernando Valley. The Archdiocese of LA is continuing to recover from the scandal of Roger Mahoney, and though Jose Gomez is a good man, he is fighting an uphill battle for change. In fact, many people who attend Shepherd of the Hills are ex-Catholics.

So no, Evangelicalism and Protestantism in general are not dying anytime soon.

Manny Pacquiao is Dudley Rutherford lottery ticket. Dudley will leave his congregation and travel to wherever Manny is. He’s gone to Vegas and even China! At the whim of Manny Pacquiao. It’s all for money (my opinion).

Here is a clip of after an interview between Dudley Rutherford and Manny Pacquiao, take of it what you will (Rutherford does kind of mention Catholicism) figured since Manny if a former Catholic…
youtu.be/cNRzdbAxCns

Fort he full interview between the two here is the link…
youtu.be/QTYZDjEEkkE

Media interview with Rutherford about Pacquiao. …
youtu.be/WjaOdsY_4aE

 

[Reuben_J]

Where did he get this? What historical source did he pull from to make this claim?

…

Could anybody imagine how someone who did to and said of Sacred Scripture such things today would be accepted as a genuine preacher of the Word of God? Would people embrace anything such a person has to say on any theological matter whatsoever? I should think not. I would certainly hope not. What if I, here and now, declared that I thought 2 Corinthians was a worthless document, started advocating for the removal of the Books of Proverbs, Hebrews, and Revelation from the Bible, started inserting my own words into the Sacred Text, and started preaching unheard-of theological doctrines? Would anyone listen to me? I hope not.

This I would say is one of the problems with mega churches among other things, that the pastors in other to pull crowd with nice sounding theology should resort to lying. From a Catholic POV, saying that Cephas was a given name since childhood was a downright lie. Probably this theologian, perhaps in his PhD thesis, found out that Cephas was a name given by his mother and so, in one master discovery disproved more than two thousand years of Catholicism and justify the formation of his new church.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yeah it can be tuff, especially when you gotta hold your tongue for the sake of not arguing.
But I’m glad you saw Dr. Moore attempt of making a “New Theology”.

No point in arguing. You are in their church and basically a ‘guest’ there. It is their belief but I can see your point. As for him (Dr. Moore),the way he said it, it was obviously not a mistake but a discourse that he wanted the audience to believe. From our perspective that such a preaching really did happen is quite amazing.

 

[dcana]

This I would say is one of the problems with mega churches among other things, that the pastors in other to pull crowd with nice sounding theology should resort to lying. From a Catholic POV, saying that Cephas was a given name since childhood was a downright lie. Probably this theologian, perhaps in his PhD thesis, found out that Cephas was a name given by his mother and so, in one master discovery disproved more than two thousand years of Catholicism and justify the formation of his new church.

I’m sorry, I don’t quite get this. What do you mean “from a Catholic POV” as opposed to “this theologian…found out that Cephas was a name given by his mother and so…”? Cephas was either one of his given names (was it even a common practice at the time to have two given names? - I have no idea) or not. It doesn’t matter from what perspective you’re looking. There really is no “perspective” at all. It’s a matter of fact - a factual matter, not opinion or theory. I personally have never heard this before and it sounds like nonsense.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m sorry, I don’t quite get this. What do you mean “from a Catholic POV” as opposed to “this theologian…found out that Cephas was a name given by his mother and so…”? Cephas was either one of his given names (was it even a common practice at the time to have two given names? - I have no idea) or not. It doesn’t matter from what perspective you’re looking. There really is no “perspective” at all. It’s a matter of fact - a factual matter, not opinion or theory. I personally have never heard this before and it sounds like nonsense.

Right–it’s a fact known to any theologian and anyone at all who reads the New Testament that the Bible clearly states Jesus gave Simon the new name Cephas/Peter. It’s an extremely easily discovered fact which comes up numerous times in the Bible. Any decently attentive Bible reader will see this fact with their own eyes—it doesn’t take a professor with a PhD to reveal this to people, like it’s an obscure fact or an abstruse theory, or an opinion, or something believed only by those who hold a certain perspective.

Fritz and Reuben, most Protestants, if they’re paying even a decent amount of attention (the level of attention that in a regular elementary school subject would make them A,B, or C students) already know that Peter/Cephas means “rock”. The third most popular Protestant translation of the Bible, the New Living Translation, which is written mostly using dynamic equivalence and is meant to be easily understood, says right in parentheses in Matthew 16 that “Peter means rock” as an explanation. Also, all the Protestant translations of the Bible which I looked at online (they’re available either at Biblehub or Biblegateway) have a footnote right below John 1:42 saying that Peter and Cephas both mean rock in Greek and Aramaic respectively.

On one of Dr. Moore’s blog posts —“An open letter to American Christians”—he talks about the need to eliminate Bible illiteracy among Christians. According to your assertions, though, Fritz and Reuben, while on one hand he says people need to be familiar with the Bible themselves, at the same time he’s evilly exploiting any ignorance in his hearers by deliberately lying to them about an obvious, elementary fact from the Bible. This, if your accusations are true, is an evil and abusive man indeed.

So, I will email him and ask to him publically respond here to your accusations. I agree that if he’s purposefully lying that’s a terrible thing, and he should be confronted and held accountable. These aren’t small accusations you’re publically making and he should have a public opportunity to explain that he made an innocent careless mistake or that he is deliberately lying for some purpose which he should reveal himself.

I’m still very busy today, and I’m not sure that Dr. Moore is back in the US. I’ll email by the weekend, then give him time to respond here. Fritz, when I email him, I’ll also PM you and ask you to send him your email address so he can respond to both of us privately if for any reason he doesn’t want to sign up for CAF. If we don’t get a response after a reasonable length if time and several requests, then perhaps an email to Dudley Rutherford would be called for.

I don’t take any deliberate lies from a pastor lightly; I also don’t take accusations that a pastor or priest is purposefully lying lightly, either. We’re going to have to go to the source to get an answer.

 

[Fritz6976]

Right–it’s a fact known to any theologian and anyone at all who reads the New Testament that the Bible clearly states Jesus gave Simon the new name Cephas/Peter. It’s an extremely easily discovered fact which comes up numerous times in the Bible. Any decently attentive Bible reader will see this fact with their own eyes—it doesn’t take a professor with a PhD to reveal this to people, like it’s an obscure fact or an abstruse theory, or an opinion, or something believed only by those who hold a certain perspective.

Fritz and Reuben, most Protestants, if they’re paying even a decent amount of attention (the level of attention that in a regular elementary school subject would make them A,B, or C students) already know that Peter/Cephas means “rock”. The third most popular Protestant translation of the Bible, the New Living Translation, which is written mostly using dynamic equivalence and is meant to be easily understood, says right in parentheses in Matthew 16 that “Peter means rock” as an explanation. Also, all the Protestant translations of the Bible which I looked at online (they’re available either at Biblehub or Biblegateway) have a footnote right below John 1:42 saying that Peter and Cephas both mean rock in Greek and Aramaic respectively.

On one of Dr. Moore’s blog posts —“An open letter to American Christians”—he talks about the need to eliminate Bible illiteracy among Christians. According to your assertions, though, Fritz and Reuben, while on one hand he says people need to be familiar with the Bible themselves, at the same time he’s evilly exploiting any ignorance in his hearers by deliberately lying to them about an obvious, elementary fact from the Bible. This, if your accusations are true, is an evil and abusive man indeed.

So, I will email him and ask to him publically respond here to your accusations. I agree that if he’s purposefully lying that’s a terrible thing, and he should be confronted and held accountable. These aren’t small accusations you’re publically making and he should have a public opportunity to explain that he made an innocent careless mistake or that he is deliberately lying for some purpose which he should reveal himself.

I’m still very busy today, and I’m not sure that Dr. Moore is back in the US. I’ll email by the weekend, then give him time to respond here. Fritz, when I email him, I’ll also PM you and ask you to send him your email address so he can respond to both of us privately if for any reason he doesn’t want to sign up for CAF. If we don’t get a response after a reasonable length if time and several requests, then perhaps an email to Dudley Rutherford would be called for.

I don’t take any deliberate lies from a pastor lightly; I also don’t take accusations that a pastor or priest is purposefully lying lightly, either. We’re going to have to go to the source to get an answer.

That sounds like a great idea.

 

[AbideWithMe]

That sounds like a great idea.

Thanks, Fritz, for letting me know you agree to emailing him. I think otherwise we’re just going to go in circles. Hopefully he’ll respond when I do contact him.

 

[dcana]

Well, God bless you both. I for one wasn’t making any accusations. I was simply asking where he claims to have gotten this purported information, so it can be examined (assuming that there actually is some source, even if it is discredited or unreliable, as opposed to just making things up out of thin air) - you know, kind of like “put up or shut up”, pardon the phrase. Maybe better would be “state you source or, either if unwilling or if the source is demonstrably unreliable (aka “junk”), stop teaching falsehoods to your congregation, in violation of the 8th Commandment.”

David

 

[Fritz6976]

Thanks, Fritz, for letting me know you agree to emailing him. I think otherwise we’re just going to go in circles. Hopefully he’ll respond when I do contact him.

Hello AbideWithMe,
Did you contact Dr. Mark Moore?

 

[AbideWithMe]

Hello AbideWithMe,
Did you contact Dr. Mark Moore?

Ach, I forgot about this, Fritz, I’m sorry. I’m really enmeshed in some family medical concerns now, but I’ll get back to this.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Another mega Church about to implode:

washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/21/billy-grahams-grandson-steps-down-from-florida-megachurch-after-admitting-an-affair/

Billy Graham’s grandson Tullian Tchividjian has resigned from his pulpit at Coral Ridge Presbyterian, a high-profile church in South Florida, after admitting he had an affair. He released the following statement to The Washington Post:

“I resigned from my position at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church today due to ongoing marital issues. As many of you know, I returned from a trip a few months back and discovered that my wife was having an affair. Heartbroken and devastated, I informed our church leadership and requested a sabbatical to focus exclusively on my marriage and family. As her affair continued, we separated. Sadly and embarrassingly, I subsequently sought comfort in a friend and developed an inappropriate relationship myself. Last week I was approached by our church leaders and they asked me about my own affair. I admitted to it and it was decided that the best course of action would be for me to resign. Both my wife and I are heartbroken over our actions and we ask you to pray for us and our family that God would give us the grace we need to weather this heart wrenching storm. We are amazingly grateful for the team of men and women who are committed to walking this difficult path with us. Please pray for the healing of deep wounds and we kindly ask that you respect our privacy.”

Tchividjian, 42, has been married to his wife, Kim, since 1994 and they have three children. Kim Tchividjian sent the following message to The Post Monday morning:

“The statement reflected my husband’s opinions but not my own. Please respect the privacy of my family at this time, thank you. I do thank everyone for the outpouring of love for my family as well during this difficult time and we appreciate all the prayers and support we are receiving.”

 

[PRmerger]

And Catholics don’t interpret it to fit their theology?

Actually, no.

Catholicism has never claimed to get its doctrines from a book.

We, in fact, reject the nomenclature that we are a religion of the Book.

Rather, the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

So, no, Catholicism doesn’t interpret the Bible to fit her theology. Rather, the Bible reflects Catholic theology.

 

[Fritz6976]

My Letter sent to Dr. Mark Moore in regards to his sermon on 4/26/2015.

vocaroo.com/i/s1bMnU7uNfqM

From: J*** **** [mailto:j***@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:35 AM
To: Moore, Mark
Subject: Sermon on 4/26/2015

"Hello Dr. Moore,

On April 26, 2015 I was attending Shepherd of the hills church in Porter Ranch California when you gave your sermon on “Is the Bible Reliable” I also purchased it online from the online store. Though I had a number of issues regarding what was said I am only going to touch on one.

Towards the middle of your sermon you stated that the reason apostle Paul refurred to Peter as Cephas was because the name Cephas was Peters childhood name in Aramaic “the name his mother would call him” and that the name Peter is just a nickname.

If this is true where can I find resources for this? I am unable to find anything in scripture.

Thank you"

His response :

From:“Moore, Mark” M******@ccv.church
Date:Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:34 PM
Subject:RE: Sermon on 4/26/2015

"J***,

I will be glad to help. I mistakenly stated that his childhood name was Cephas, as you likely know from John 1:42, it was Simon, and Cephas was the nickname Jesus gave him (also translated as Petros into Greek).

M*** M****

Teaching Pastor

Christ’s Church of the Valley
7**** W H**** V*** Rd , Peoria , AZ 8******"

 

[Fritz6976]

My reply to his email :

From:“J*****” j****@yahoo.com
Date:Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:55 PM
Subject:Re: RE: Sermon on 4/26/2015

"Hello Dr. Moore,

Thank you for your quick response.
I can’t help notice as I review your sermon that this seems intentional. I realize that mistakes do happen even to a person that taught 22 years of New Testament scripture at a Bible College. But let’s say it was intentional why would it have been said? Is it to avoid something? Why would you make a big theology mistake in front of, maybe thousands of people? Sorry if it seems I am not buying the “oops, I made a boo boo” excuse because many many people go to that church to learn scripture and when someone make a “mistake” like that it doesn’t seem like a mistake at all.

Don’t mean to be rude, I just don’t appreciate being told obvious falsehoods about scripture. It just seems like it was a tactic to avoid a topic.

Thank you"

As of July 5, 2015, no reply