August Thread

can it really be August already

Been feeling the allergies on & off lately:ill: 

We went out & did some shooting yesterday bit of a crosswind but we got it done:)  

4 men attending WCO this month!!!

5 men attending NRMC next month!!!

Just did Essentials at NC RTA...    What a GREAT class!!!  More like church!!!  

When and where is the NRMC being done at? Is that the one in FL?

it's in Northwood NH...

I still have a seat available. I think!

Roadkill how do you think the Holy Spirit feels about you empowering folks and not pointing folks to Him for the empowerment?

Just curious?

Mark Jones

empower
verb To encourage or provide a person with the means or information to become involved in solving his/her own problems

This is just one of many of this type. The word empower comes from the self help movement. To draw from inner power... when used in reference to the Holy Spirit it would be correct. Yet it can also just as easily be used as Me empowering you. Not such a good idea for Christians that seek the infilling of the Holy Spirit.

It's a dirty term. Kinda like he sure is gay. Could mean many things to different people.

Main thing is remember the world uses empower so loosely and so often it is generally associated with flesh. Self help. Drawing from my inner power. Its been used by Doug Marsh is many of these ways of the past few years.

I have an objection to it. It offends me when I see it or hear it.
Has the same affect on me as a person that cusses that claims to be a Christian. Not saying I am right. Just know that is how it affects me.

Mark Jones
Mark Jones

Please allow me to QUOTE the Leaders Manual...

Leaders Manual pg 13 wrote:THE MISSION: The purpose of Royal Rangers
Royal Rangers is a tool that men ans boys, serving together, can use to evangelize their world, to equip the next generation of Christlike men and to empower them to become lifelong servant leaders.

Further down the page...

Leaders Manual pg 13-14 wrote:Empowering boys and young men to become lifelong servant leaders requires them involving them in leadership.  Upper elementary, middle school and high school students all have latent leadership abilities waiting to be developed.  Leadership merits provide the content, and the weekly meetings and activities provide the venue for servant leadership development.  Most importantly, Rangers is not a ministry to students, but rather a ministry that involves students in ministry to their peers. Spirit-empowered, biblically instructed boys and young men will lift up Christ.  And we know people are drawn to Him when that happens.

Yes, in many places its stated one way and in many others its me doing it to you. Going beyond the printed book and listening to past LEAD audios we hear Doug say, "let's go empower". That's you and I doing it not the Holy Spirit. Empowerment the Spirit gives was to be his witnesses nothing there about life long servant/leaders. The workers are few...the harvest is great! Its a marketing ploy to pastors promising them a new generation full of men that will be there whenever he needs them. Its not biblical. Read the epistles and letters in Revelation they had problems some mighty big ones sometimes. Its based on Warren's teaching that some sin is too ingrained for God so you need others to empower you through accountability partners.

I might be going to NRMC in Michigan next month. Dan, I know you've already been. Any thoughts?

I still like REACH, TEACH, & KEEP better than EEE.

NRMC:

Cons
-50 mins was too short to master any focus they offered.
-requires non-campers to buy base camp tents they may never use again. It was touted often years ago how new op's would never be required to camp-out.
-3 days instead of 4 (NTC). No hiking was covered.
-1 day less = $15 more then NTC and BYO tent.
-tech focus consisted of screen printing patrol tee shirts. Nothing else was covered.
-accountability partners was promoted in class and during Sat's council fire.
-trades consisted of working on a derby car but nothing so grand as changing oil or teaching how to do a tune-up on a car. Trades is mostly relegated to ER boys.
-no beret or military style.
-EEE (nuff said).
-local district action camps were mentioned for more advanced knowledge in one of the focus areas. Con side is you spend avg $100 more to get good at something.
-no organized team sports were offered.

Pros
-basic camping was still offered.
-Exposure to different activities.
-addition of air rifle instruction for the sports focus.
-addition of archery instrction for the sports focus.
-the use of modern media clips from well known movies to illustrate a spiritual truth. Much like bible parables in the gospels.
-new ball cap was nice and stylish with velcro front for a mini NRMC or NEEC patch.
-drawstring rain bag was standard issue for your book and tee shirt. Would of helped during 3/4 days of rain during my NTC.
-3 days makes it easier for more to attend. But we barely made our second NRMC a go with 24. First NRMC offering was canceled.

Overall analysis it teaches you the basics if you're not already familar with camping or other focus areas. Cost is higher for what you get as compared to NTC.  I think the addition of bows and guns required dumping the base camp tents and upping the fee. When I asked Steve Schultz why no tents for NRMC when NTC had them I got, "this isn't NTC". Not a straight answer. If you got the time, $, and have not done NTC I'd say go. Activities like archery, air rifle, derby cars, and even screen printing is something that has been done under RR1.0.

If you go plan to tune out the propaganda and enjoy yourself. I'd give it 6.5/10 points.

sreidelberger wrote:I might be going to NRMC in Michigan next month. Dan, I know you've already been. Any thoughts?

I still like REACH, TEACH, & KEEP better than EEE.

If you do let me know, love to have a chance to get together & chat for a few  

When is the date of your NRMC? I was planning on coming up next month to visit with Chris and do some shooting with my new AR. Love to meet you too.

Man we had an awesome service this morning. hands down the best service in our 6 years in this church   awesome worship & awesome Word.

Have you guys found a senior pastor yet?

Phillip Gross wrote:Have you guys  found a senior pastor yet?

No not yet. Waiting on the Lord. We want his choice for our next shepherd, not ours.

I have the feeling that the person the Lord has for us is not yet available & it will come to pass at the time He intends

I agree.

It is a foreign concept for me though, choosing a pastor. I've attended churches that do that, but not for any length of time. The two churches I've spent the most time in have both been theocratic in format. If you don't like how the pastor is then you leave, not him!

Obviously any pastor with a true pastor's heart isn't going to run rough shod over the congregation, but from talking to pastors who've worked in different churches, there seems to be a little more tying of the hands when he can be voted out. How do you effectively shepherd a flock who can boot you out of the pasture if they don't like the direction?

I don't believe in blindly following, which is why I left one church after being there 16 years. I no longer agreed with some governmental decisions and had to leave. It is an interesting concept to me that the sheep pick the shepherd. Yes, that's in effect what you do as an individual when you leave or join one fellowship or another, but it is on a different scale at the church wide level. Interesting....

In our case, the selection work is handled by a 5 person search committee (of which I am Chairman) The congregation is only involved once we bring a candidate to them.
then there is an up or down vote of the voting members only.

Voting out a pastor would be a pretty extreme step & would (in our case) require the involvement of the District office before such a vote could be taken. The District would attempt to talk to all parties & resolve the issue, before any voting. If unavoidable, a District AG Official would be required to come & conduct the vote.

My father in-law's church runs "theocratically" or so they claim. There is no voting of a pastor in or out. No voting on deacons. Pastor is appointed by regional overseer. Deacons are appointed by pastor. If you have a problem you escalate it up to the regional level and he can act on it. I don't put much stock in their organization they preach exclusivity; they are the one "true church" this side of the dark ages.

We've had an instance in which a full-time paid pastor refused to keep ANY office hours and essentially considered himself a missionary & not accountable to the church.

Some folks said that he could do whatever he wanted.  

My opinion is that if a pastor is getting paid by the church, then he is an employee of the church, and he should be accountable to the church.

Phillip spoke of leaving, if you couldn't handle the pastor.  I believe that, if you have invested thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars in a church over the years, it is the PASTOR who should leave when things get messed up.  Otherwise, the only persons who are left are the "Yes-Men" and Bobbleheads, and the Pastor gets whatever he wants, anyway.

When things like that happen, it is easy to see why some folks may get disillusioned with
Church-Life & Politics, and stay home, & save their money.

Depending on the denominational structure would anyone do what my job calls an "open-door" on the pastor to his immediate presbyter? Obviously, pastor's actions would need to warrant such an escalation above his head. This isn't done for petty reasons or because you didn't get a job title you wanted.

In my situation, it wasn't a sin issue, but his management decisions that I felt were consistently wrong enough to leave over. There are people still there that observed the same things I had and still remain. They don't have enough of a problem with it (or one at all) to leave the church. That's fine with me. Are they "yes men"? Maybe, but that's not my place to judge them. I'm responsible for me and my family.

A couple thoughts.

I believe that churches/ministries are metaphorically like the military. Well we are call the army of God... In my mind the different "branches" are the different denominations. There are at that level some fairly different operational philosophies. Within the branches of service are different units. These are individual churches and other outreach ministries. Once again there are more operational differences. The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. People squabble all the time about this being right and that being wrong. What I know is that we all must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, not anyone else's. There are a few foundational truths that I'm willing to go to the mat on. Jesus is the only way. The Trinity is real with equal yet different members. The rest is fun to debate/discuss, but not get in too much of a twist about.

Secondly, I disagree with the notion that church must operate like a business. I run a business, and I lead in multiple ministries. They're different. "Paying" a pastor today is no different than the Levites having their food and shelter provided for. It wasn't so the people could hold their feet to the fire about whatever they felt was right. God appointed the priests and God will deal with them according to their actions towards His sheep. Do I believe we should remove and punish clergy for egregious acts like molestation, embezzlement, sacrilege, etc? Yes, but for issues of less importance, I think people had better be careful. We've all heard of churches splitting over the color of the carpet chosen.... People can be petty. A pastor I know recounted his struggles to me from a church that he "worked" at that gave him terrible problems as he tried to create an atmosphere pleasant to the Holy Spirit. The blue haired Mafia there wanted their same three hymns, a short message that didn't step on toes so they could be the first to the buffet line. Stuff like that happens all the time, so I don't put much weight in people's desire. If the people had had their way, they would have turned around and went back to Egypt because at least it was easier there. Do you think they would've hired Moses I'm the first place, or kept him in office the whole time? I don't believe that for a second! They would've "hired" a leader to take them where they wanted to go. Even the concept of hiring is that of finding someone to do what you want them to for a salary. That just like an odd mentality in itself. Because of my little business, I'm in the upper level of tithers to the church, but I've never had the thought that pastor needs to do what I think because I give so much money. That's a sick mentality! I don't tithe because the pastor is good or bad. I tithe because I see it in both olde and new testament. I tithe because I've seen God do amazing things and His word is true.

Had more thoughts, but I type slow and I need to get ready for work!

That's a great attitude, if you're in a Catholic Church.

Been there, done that.

You're born into a Parish, follow the Priest, listen to the sermons, give your money, and you're only supposed to attend the Parish that you reside in.

So if you're not Catholic then it's a bad attitude to have? Wow... classic.

I don't think Claymore meant it that way. Yet, without intende offense to catholics they have had that mentality drilled into them. Even to the point of not speaking out against the priest who molested or raped you. Many injustices in the dark ages occurred cause no one stood up for fear of excommunication which to them meant no salvation since you had to be in the one "true church". It can be taken to extremes. What is an independent church like mine to do?

Tithing is a whole other issue.