Leadership Change at ABWE

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jim's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 6253
Leadership Change at ABWE

Tags: 

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 396
ABWE's letter said that they

ABWE's letter said that they were forming a committee to "assess the needs of the administration."

Isn't that something they should have done BEFORE letting Loftis go. Shouldn't they have assessed the needs of the administration and then comparing their needs to Loftis' abilities, found him unable to lead ABWE in the future? I know the information is scanty, but I would think you'd come up with what ABWE's needs were, first, and then see if you have the administration in place to meet those needs, rather than getting rid of your leader first and then coming up with what the needs of the administration will be.

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4280
Why?

Bro. Charles- what in the wording made you think they got the cart before the horse? It looked to me like they considered their needs and then decided they needed a new president. In light of recent events, perhaps they do need a top down overhaul, and they are being tactful and circumspect in how they represent what they are doing.

JohnBrian's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 637
surprised

I am surprised he resigned before http://www.netgrace.org/index.asp?str_string=Home~none~none ]GRACE finished their investigation!

full disclosure: Mike and I are MK 'cousins.' We both grew up in Jamaica as BMM MK's.

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 412
The information regarding the

The information regarding the interim appointee, Dr. Al Cockrell, includes the following:

Quote:
Al has also served as a Senior Consultant with “Injoy”, an organization founded by John Maxwell to help churches develop leadership and direction for their future.

This statement regarding the new leader indicates an association with a person and organization that is very left evangelical in the theological spectrum. Maxwell is one who has been, and often is, associated with the ministry of Robert Schuller and has a similar theology. He has been a regular speaker at the Crystal Cathedral. I do not know of any Fundamentalist or conservative Evangelical who would consider association with John Maxwell or his organization called Injoy. Why would ABWE even consider such an appointment?

Wickepedia has the following statement regarding John Maxwell:

[quote wrote:
For over thirty years, Maxwell has led churches in Indiana, Ohio, California, and Florida. After serving as senior pastor for 14 years, in 1995, he left Skyline Church, near San Diego, to devote himself full-time to speaking and writing. However, in 2004, he returned to ministry at Christ Fellowship in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, where he is currently a teaching pastor. On November 16, 2008, Maxwell began serving as a guest pastor at the world-famous Crystal Cathedral, in Orange County, California. Maxwell's mentor, Robert H. Schuller, has had a variety of noted evangelical pastors preach at his megachurch since his son, Robert A. Schuller, resigned as senior pastor in 2008. Maxwell has returned to preach at the Crystal Cathedral several times, and his messages are broadcast worldwide on the Hour of Power television program, seen by an estimated 20 million viewers.[6 ]

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 396
Susan R wrote: Bro. Charles-

Susan R wrote:
Bro. Charles- what in the wording made you think they got the cart before the horse? It looked to me like they considered their needs and then decided they needed a new president. In light of recent events, perhaps they do need a top down overhaul, and they are being tactful and circumspect in how they represent what they are doing.

Loftis had to leave either becasue he did something wrong which the letter made clear was not the reason, or because the board did some strategic planning and found that Loftis was not the leader ABWE needed going forward. I'm finding fault with the statement the letter made that the board would be assessing the needs of the administration. Shouldn't they already have done this before letting Loftis go?

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4280
I see

Jonathan Charles wrote:
Susan R wrote:
Bro. Charles- what in the wording made you think they got the cart before the horse? It looked to me like they considered their needs and then decided they needed a new president. In light of recent events, perhaps they do need a top down overhaul, and they are being tactful and circumspect in how they represent what they are doing.

Loftis had to leave either becasue he did something wrong which the letter made clear was not the reason, or because the board did some strategic planning and found that Loftis was not the leader ABWE needed going forward. I'm finding fault with the statement the letter made that the board would be assessing the needs of the administration. Shouldn't they already have done this before letting Loftis go?


Right- it's like they said "We want something different and you (Loftis) ain't it", but are now actually putting together a 'presidential profile'. It leaves me with the impression that they are employing a new broom strategy.

Dan Burrell's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 6/11/09
Posts: 404
Al Cockrell

Bob...I've known Al Cockrell for over 20 years. He is an Independent Baptist. He is a theological fundamentalist in the historic sense. He has never marched to the drum of a "camp". He is not historically GARB. He served on the board of directors for the Florida Association of Christian Colleges and Schools with me and when I became President. His time at Injoy was during a time after he had been treated very poorly by a church and he was in between ministries. He's a good man with a great reputation. He's a perfect choice as an interim director. Granted, he's not as hard right as you -- but he never has been. For those of us not searching for a "new evangelical" under every twig and leaf, he's a logical choice.

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 396
If there has been some

If there has been some strategic planning concerning the future of ABWE (there seems to have been enough to let Loftis go), at some point the board of ABWE should let churches know what their vision is concerning the board going forward. I'm familiar with some of the board members and can't imagine them doing a Cedarville. I don't think they need to publicize anything about Loftis, but at some point they need to publicize where ABWE is headed in light of recent thinking and prayer that led them to believe that where they are going, Loftis isn't the one to lead them there.

Offline
Since
Wed, 6/3/09
Posts: 396
ABWE also needs to make clear

ABWE also needs to make clear that Loftis' departure has something or nothing to do w/ his handling of the Donn Ketcham matter.

The blog set up concerning the abuse in Bangladesh has some comments made about this change in leadership along with other that some would like to see: http://bangladeshmksspeak.com/2011/06/abwe-announces-change-of-leadershi...

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 412
Dan Burrell wrote: Bob...I've

Dan Burrell wrote:
Bob...I've known Al Cockrell for over 20 years. He is an Independent Baptist. He is a theological fundamentalist in the historic sense. He has never marched to the drum of a "camp". He is not historically GARB. He served on the board of directors for the Florida Association of Christian Colleges and Schools with me and when I became President. His time at Injoy was during a time after he had been treated very poorly by a church and he was in between ministries. He's a good man with a great reputation. He's a perfect choice as an interim director. Granted, he's not as hard right as you -- but he never has been. For those of us not searching for a "new evangelical" under every twig and leaf, he's a logical choice.

Excuse me Dan, but your defense of a friend while trying to portray me as hard right for my concern is not very commendable. A biblical Christian cannot ignore the facts that point to a reason for concern here. Some of the best liberals I know are "good people" by human description. I do not know the overall personal character of this man and have not spoken to that. However, a past continuing association with John Maxwell in ministry is a very serious matter. The information on Wickepedia is fully accurate. There is no excuse for such an association by a biblical Christian leader from whom theological and ministry discernment would be expected. If this person wishes to give an explanation it should be coupled with a statement of recognition of error and of repentance. That would correct many concerns. What does being mistreated by a church have to do with such an association? If a church mistreats us are we to flee to the heretics for comfort and then become part of their ministry? I know of no moderate or conservative evangelical that would be associated with John Maxwell. Out here in the West John MacArthur and others (even Charismatics) have spoken harshly about Maxwell. I have heard Maxwell speak and have talked with him personally. Behind his public persona he is harsh and unloving toward all conservatives and berates those who defend the inerrancy of scripture. All true biblical Christians should find the self esteem, human potential gospel of John Maxwell and Robert Schuller something that is heresy and to be avoided completely. To not do so should bring questions about a persons discernment and depth of conviction I certainly now have a red flag about this person and the ABWE board and their discernment.

The reason good schools, churches, and mission agencies often gradually go bad is because of the indifference of many. The issue here is not the raising of the so called new evangelical issue. The issue here is blatant heresy, and a Christian leaders association with it. Is the ABWE board so naive as to think that a man associated with heresy as blatant as that advocated by Maxwell and Schuller could be stated in a letter and not give an explanation? Frankly, this is a far greater issue than if a person came to the ABWE from the Billy Graham association. This goes beyond the Fundamentalist and Evangelical issues. This goes to the issue of the Gospel and liberalism of theology. It involves the self esteem gospel and universalism of Schuller and Maxwell.

Someone needs to wake up and at least give some explanations. No good ole boy nice guy speeches.

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 4280
That's news to me

Quote:
The information on Wickepedia is fully accurate.

Everyone tells me not to believe anything on Wickedpedia.

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 412
Susan R wrote: Quote: The

Susan R wrote:
Quote:
The information on Wickepedia is fully accurate.

Everyone tells me not to believe anything on Wickedpedia.

I was referring to that which I had quoted from Wickepedia regarding John Maxwell which is also known by me from other sources and also generally well known and verifiable. John Maxwell is now an official visiting Pastor at the Crystal Cathedral and speaks there regularly. He was mentored by Robert Schuller and is in agreement with Schuller's theology and philosophy of church ministry.

Dan Burrell's picture
Offline
Since
Thu, 6/11/09
Posts: 404
Bob....I'm not defending Al

Bob....I'm not defending Al Cockrell because he's an old friend. If that was the standard, then I'd be defending Mike Loftis who is also an old friend. Furthermore, it doesn't take some sort of theological sleuth to deduce that you are indeed coming from a hard right position -- your frequent postings on this board and elsewhere provide ample evidence of that. I'm also fully aware that for those of you who hold yourselves to be secondary/tertiary separatists, you'll never be convinced by anyone of the wrong-headedness of your position.

ABWE has never been BIMI or GMU (I think that's the acronym of the BJU missions agency.) Michael Loftis got called out by some obnoxious KJVO extremist at a large conference of pastors where we were both speaking in a very rude way (yelling out from the audience) because he accidentally read a text from something other than the KJV from his notes. He was roundly criticized by the right wing of fundamentalism repeatedly for other issues. Al Cockrell represents no shift from the doctrinal position of Loftis or the one historically held by ABWE and neither are his associations nor his separatist practices all that different. Shoot....they both hung around the likes of me. That alone should be enough to get them banned in most circles.

So you can continue to try and make some sort of ridiculous innuendo about the "direction" of ABWE because Al briefly worked for an organization founded by a man who was associated with a guy of unsound doctrine or theology if you want, but if you knew Al Cockrell and many on the ABWE board, you'd realize its a specious suggestion. During those days, Injoy had at least a half dozen former Independent Baptist pastors on their team as they were doing fund-raising for multiple Independent Baptist churches. Lest there be any confusion, Injoy's Stewardship Branch was a business -- and a big money making one at that. Would you be as suspicious if Al had worked for Bank of America?

I'm finished with this thread, but I simply wasn't going to sit back and let you make insinuations about someone that I know to be a good man of sound doctrine simply because you want to play connect the association dots.

Dan Burrell Cornelius, NC Visit my Blog "Whirled Views" @ www.danburrell.com

Rob Fall's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 775
Not GMU

What you're thinking of is GFA (Gospel Fellowship Association). IIRC it was formed when non-Baptist BJ grads (Bible Church and CMA) could no longer go out under their existing mission organizations.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Joel Tetreau's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 643
Here we go again!

Bob,

I want to push back a bit. I'm not upset. You are my brother and I appreciate the fact that you have attempted to live faithful in your corner of the vineyard. Please let me give you a different view here.

I don't know Al Cockrell and so I have no "direct" or "first-hand" opinion as to if he is the right guy for ABWE. Of course if I understand it correctly this is a temporary assignment, and because I trust the board of ABWE and I trust Dan (in part because he is my friend and because he has proved to be a consistent Man of God), I have no trouble here.

I almost never respond to posts like yours any more in part because in large part, I've lost interest. For some reason I feel compelled to respond today. I'll not make this a habbit.

Your posts remind me often of the various "witch-hunts" of bygone era's. It's almost like you enjoy "stirring up" a kind of panic, hysteria if not a public call for lynching. Al Cockrell would not be your kind of a fundamentalist, that's pretty clear. Perhaps the Apostle Paul would not be your kind of fundamentalists also. He would for a time join himself in a "consultant" kind of a way with the synagogue (using the platform in the synagogue for the gospel's sake). Of course he learned that from Jesus. Here we're talking about a brother who in some way has served as a "consultant" with Maxwell's group.

You seem to assume that because Al has served in some capacity as "consultant" with Maxwell that he is to be "found guilty" with all that you find theologically if not philosophically "bad" with Maxwell. I actually have enjoyed some of what Maxwell has written. I also have concerns and disagreements and so if I were a board member of ABWE I might ask a question or two. My guess is the board of ABWE because they are a sharp group have asked the questions they need to ask. My brother - using your kind of logic we would have to place IBC, Bob Jones University, Marantha and the rest of our schools that have sought accreditaton with either TRACTS or Regional accreditation, "under the bus." Our schools that recieve accreditation will have a vareity of Protestant types connected to TRACTS who will aid in the academic evaluation process of these ministries. You'll have Wesleyan, Presbyterians, Pentacostals, and a host of other "evangelicals" serving as a type of "consultant" to both TRACTS.

You would also have to accuse most of our FBF, GARBC, IFCA, AGC and other solid Fundamental Military Chaplains "under the bus" because of their consultation work in the military that places them in parnterships on the giving or receiving with John Maxwell and other "types."

You would also have to accuse many of our fundamentalist' seminary, university and Bible College Prof's who interact with the ETS on a semi-regular basis. Some of them have even presented paper's and have made theological if not organizational recommendations for ETS as a national organization. I promise you, there are plenty of Maxwell types and even "more left" within ETS. Does that make our guys automatically guilty by way of association? I think not!

Bob - also your note to Dan is a full of fallacies:

You assume Dan's defense of Al is disingenuous or spurious because of his friendship with Al. This is a great example of what's called the "fallacy of the single cause" (some call this the "fallacy of oversimplification"). This may also be something of a Red herring fallacy. Dan has responded well and to remove the clear-headed answer of Dan, you pull out "Well - he's your friend" arguement. This may also be a fallacy of presupposition - namely that Dan's relationship with Al disqualifies him because of the subjectivity of his view. Why cannot it not be just the opposite. Dan's relationship actually gives him a platform of objectivity!

You seem to imply that Al reminds you of "liberals?" (I understand you are saying you don't like Dan's arguement that "Al is nice" - your response "liberals are nice"). You've missed Bob's point - which is Bob's confidence in Al's character, not personality. Bob, I'm suspecious of your using "liberal" as an example here. I wonder if you are making a side point. I don't know that, but I'm suspecious.

Please understand this - Many of us (I hope I could say "most" but I don't know that - so I'll say "many") don't agree with your "a-priori" premise. You seem to think that a historic fundamentalist can have zero connections with groups that are not as separated as you think they must be. This is another fallacy - the fallacy of the excluded middle - either you separate from everyone - or your not a good fundamentalist! It is very possible that man of God can have integrity and that alone makes it so that he is invited by places he might not totally agree with. If memory serves me right - there were many times when Dr. Bob Jones Sr. as well as other fundamentalist evangelists of that era's would go to a church for a week of meetings that they might not have full agreement with, to accomplish various ministry that those ministries were open to. Would you also throw them "under the bus?"

Sir, I know you are passionate about a pure gospel. I know you are desperate to keep a young generation from making the same mistakes the newevangelicalism did from the 1950's onward. I have no doubt, your motive is God-glorifying there, and I'm grateful that you desire a Biblical purity within what you understand as fundamentalism. I don't mean this to be mean-spirited but frankly your arguements seem hallow because I know they are front-loaded with an anti-attitude anyway. It's clear - you don't like ABWE and you disagree with any fundamentalist ministry that I've called "Type B" or "Type C" because for you (like other Type A fundamentalists), it's "all" or "nothing" when it comes to agreement/unity - disagreement/separation. Bob, I hope you'll be active for Christ' Kingdom in ways other than tearing down groups like ABWE or brothers like Al. They have done much for Christ's body while remaining true to the gospel vis-a-vis eccuminicalism. Speaking only for myself and no one else here at SI, your view's at best seem schismatic.

My fear is you start off with the assumption that if a ministry is different they are disobedient. The Scriptures depict a different approach. The Scriptures paint a view that if another ministry loves the same Jesus, preaches the same Gospel and believes the same doctrine I can have some level of cooperation even if they are different in some level of methodology. (A few thoughts from the shadow of the hot AZ desert! The Lawn 4000 is inside today! Smile )

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Baptist Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Anne Sokol's picture
Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 841
i'm kind of disappointed about this move

If I had to resign motherhood for making (even repeated) mistakes and sinning every day, I would be long gone from this job.

I really know nothing about the background behind the decision, but I kind of wish Mike Loftis was in the state of grace and of mind to say, "I'm sorry, I've made some big mistakes, I've sinned, I'm just like you. Can we make it right and I can humbly grow as a leader?" Mr. Loftis is a good leader, and no one, not even Moses, was faultless, even in major ways in front of the whole crowd. I don't see this as an uncorrectable sin or disqualifying situation.

That's my two cents from the popcorn crowd.

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 412
Joel part 1

Part 1 for Joel (two parts as post was over 7500 words)

Joel, let me state up front that I am very disappointed in what you have just posted. IMO it lacks clear thinking, biblical discernment, and has historical and factual confusion. The very attitude and arguments that you have just made gave the liberals victory in the old denomination battles and gives continued victory to those whose compromises and indifference to major doctrines has caused many evangelical schools and institutions to compromise on doctrines and ministry philosophy. I am not talking just about Fundamentalism but Evangelicalism also. Schools such as Wheaton, Biola, Cedarville and others have compromised because those who would point out problems were met with opposition by those who themselves may have held sound doctrine but were indifferent enough to criticize not those who needed to be confronted but those who would dare point out possible problems. Joel, you are a classic historic indifferentist. This is not some argument regarding fundamentalist separation. It involves the basic gospel and tenets of liberal theology.

You confuse all sorts of issues and categories for associations. Non are relevant.

First, obtaining academic accreditation is not ministry entanglement. Accreditation organizations are not in ministry. Not even close to the issue I expressed some concern about.

Second, I have served four years in the military you have not served any! The Chaplaincy is set up so as not to require entanglement with theology or practices the Chaplain does not agree with. His association as a military commissioned officer is not a religious association. There are times when there have been issues that Chaplains and others have had to protest that some have tried impose. Some Fundamentalist and Evangelical chaplains do compromise do to lack of real conviction. Some are of strong conviction and do not. I worked with chaplains while in the military and later while a college student involved in military ministry. I was acting director of the Bremerton Servicemen's Center, Bremerton, WA, for one year.

Third, such relationships as with ETS can be a problem. However, again that is not a ministry relationship but an academic dialogue, and supposedly for only Evangelicals. However, some fundamentalist academics do have a problem with ETS and make a choice of not participating. There also is no continuing relationship such as with serving on a faculty.

Fourth, Paul going into synagogues was not a compromise of the gospel. The jews had the true oracles of God and the message of salvation until the Messiah came. It was a transition time. There may have been OT saints that needed to add the Messiah to their belief. There were unsaved Jews still in ignorance of the Messiah. In Galatians, Paul takes a strong stand against other gospels. This today would include Maxwell, Schuller, health and wealth, and some others.

Your post infers a witch hunt. There are no witches just a liberal who has the same basic theology as Robert Schuller. Do you have any idea as to what Schuller believes? Do you have any idea what Maxwell believes ? Both would claim to be Evangelical. Maxwell is a little better at camouflaging and hiding some of his liberalism than Schuller. Both deny a literal hell, the depravity of man, and salvation only through Christ. They both espouse a gospel of human potential and self esteem. Perhaps you do not appreciate what occurred at the Crystal Cathedral. The differences that Robert Schuller had with his son had at its core the theological issue of the gospel. The son was a graduate of Fuller when it still had many moderate evangelicals. The son was actually preaching the real gospel in his short term as Crystal Cathedral Pastor. He gave a couple invitations. I noticed this right off as did some other pastors in this area. The TV program comes on here in multiple time slots, including Saturday, so some other Pastors occasionally watch. The son was preaching the real gospel but it happened to coincide with when the funds coming in started to sink. The Father was offended by the son going away from the self esteem gospel and equated the reduced offerings with that. The result was a conflict where the son was forced out. It turns out the loss of income was not tied to the son but their lack of appeal to a new generation of TV audience. Now, why explain this to you? Because Schuller, who was offended by the ministry of his own son, then turned to a man of like gospel. That man was John Maxwell. You do not seem to get the fact that the issue with Maxwell is his basic theology and Gospel. He is a Neoliberal in evangelical clothing. Most every pastor I know in California who has had a couple decades exposure to Maxwell has come to place him outside of even left wing evangelicalism. With Maxwell the issue is the Gospel. Entanglement with him is worse than being involved with Hagen or Benny Hinn and the health and wealth gospel. To any conservative evangelical or any kind of Fundamentalist, it should be of more concern than being on the Billy Graham staff, Campus Crusade staff, or on the staff of Bill Hybels or Rick Warren. It is a concern that should be evident to any pastor who is reasonably well read, and has some awareness of the religious scene today.

Now here you come, raising issues that are not relevant and merely cloud the main issue. You even claim my concern is a witch hunt. You seek to equate my concern with all sorts of irrelevant association of a different kind. You then take a reference out of context to indicate I equated Cockrell with liberalism. I did not do that. I do equate Maxwell with liberalism. More accurately with what some call neoliberalism.

Please excuse my directness but perhaps it is needed here. Seeking to attack me and mischaracterize both me as a person and my other posts is exactly what the liberals and indifferent evangelicals did in the old liberal conservative battles of the denominations. It is exactly the type of attack that the New Evangelicals used against the fundamentalists and more conservative Evangelicals in the fifties and sixties. I heard the same kind of rhetoric at Biola in the sixties and Fuller in the seventies. It continues today against those who would stand for some doctrines they consider important such as creationism or against the Charismatics. (continued)

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 412
To Joel part 2

Joel, part 2

I have stated clearly that I am not familiar with Cockrell or what he believes. I assume he has a theology that would be considered mainly sound and even Fundamentalist. However the revealed statement concerning him that came from ABWE indicated he was involved for a time with John Maxwell and Injoy. They revealed the information I did not seek it out. The ministry of John Maxwell and Injoy is well known. I have heard John Maxwell in person twice and have talked with him personally. The fact that he is not sound in doctrine, gospel, and ministry philosophy, is fairly well known. I do not think you would find Rick Warren out here getting entangled with Maxwell or his philosophy of ministry. I can pretty well guaranty you that John MacArthur would not be involved with him, and you have said you are an admirer of JM. The issue here however is the gospel. To be involved with Maxwell and Injoy would normally mean acceptance of his ministry and ministry emphasis. Maxwell talks and writes a lot about leadership. He does so using secular principles and psychology. He adapts it to Evangelical terms. The broader context is his human potential and self esteem theology. I studied management under Peter Drucker (one course), and took a course in Organizational Behavior at a secular university. IMHO both had more real substance and useful ministry application than Maxwell's stuff. But the real problem is Maxwells gospel and theological beliefs. If I may give a personal example of improper association. I served on the adjunct faculty of Talbot school of theology. I was recommended by another and approached by them and sort of persuaded. I was also flattered. However, I later realized I really would not recommend the school for certain reasons. Today I tell people that I served, was wrongly entangled, and repent of having done so. Talbot is still a fairly sound school with good theology but compromise in Women in ministry, creationism, the Charismatic issues, and some other issues. However, they do still affirm the full inerrancy of scripture and the true gospel. Maxwell denies the inerrancy of scripture and the full truth and uniqueness of the gospel.

IMO any discerning pastor of normal theological awareness should have some questions for the ABWE board. It goes to the boards present understanding and convictions. Surely they do not want the philosophy of ministry advocated by Maxwell and the Crystal Cathedral as leaking into their church planting ministry. Surely any candidate for their mission who had such a past entanglement would raise warning signs and cause some serious questions of the candidate. Well, how about their interim administrator? A simple;"he did, he disagreed, he was wrong, he does not endorse that philosophy" would be sufficient. We will take him at his word. Then we know they had concern and they do have discernment and convictions.
Several times I have heard the statement about boards that they are good men and have convictions and do not worry. Thats nice but it does not always end as being the whole truth.

I say agin. I do not question integrity or personal character of anyone at this point. I have no knowledge of that. The singular issue is a fact which was part of the ABWE letter. Lets not get sidetracked with personal attacks, opinions about people, or irrelevant issues of another kind.

Offline
Since
Tue, 6/2/09
Posts: 412
To Joel again.

Sorry for the long replies but I think it necessary to make one more reply here.

Joel stated:

Quote:
I don't mean this to be mean-spirited but frankly your arguments seem hallow because I know they are front-loaded with an anti-attitude anyway. It's clear - you don't like ABWE and you disagree with any fundamentalist ministry that I've called "Type B" or "Type C" because for you (like other Type A fundamentalists), it's "all" or "nothing" when it comes to agreement/unity -

Joel this is somewhat typical of much of what you say. It is so convoluted and twisted as to be actually paranoid. It is imagining truth. Perhaps we need a new term for you. You may suffer from Fundaphobia: Irrational fear of anything that may be connected with Fundamentalism or separation.

First the issue is not ABWE it is a only a question about a past ministry association concerning one person.

Second, I like ABWE and its ministry. Churches (assemblies) I have been involved in have supported ABWE missionaries with great appreciation for being able to do so.

Third, I do not have the slightest idea of what or who you have labeled by your so called class A, B, and C labels and really have paid no attention to your categories. Some time back when you brought out those labels I and some others considered them completely inaccurate and false in their attempt to classify people and groups. I have not given any attention to them since.

Joel also stated:

Quote:
Bob, I hope you'll be active for Christ' Kingdom in ways other than tearing down groups like ABWE or brothers like Al. They have done much for Christ's body while remaining true to the gospel vis-a-vis eccuminicalism. Speaking only for myself and no one else here at SI, your view's at best seem schismatic.

This reminds me of what I used to hear Doc Clearwaters say the way liberals often accused those who would seek to point out their heresy. They never replied to the issues or spoke about their beliefs, They would instead attack those who raised questions and accused them of being schismatic. It is also the accusation often made against pastors and others who would seek to expose any with wrong belief or practice in the church. To stand against the Charismatics is schismatic. To stand for inerrancy of scripture is schismatic. To stand for creationism is schismatic. NOW to notice a statement regarding a man's past association with a group that was, and is, heretical is schismatic. Go look in the mirror Joel. It was you and one other who posted on here attacking and labeling a poster (myself). I initiated no attack and sought to label no other poster or to label Cockrell. I only pointed out an association, gave reasons for my concerns, and thought an answer would be in order. You have sought to make it into a larger issue and raise all sorts of other issues.

Joel Tetreau's picture
Offline
Since
Wed, 5/6/09
Posts: 643
Response

Bob,

I don't think I have anything else to say to you my brother. After watching you work here at SI over the years - I think my take on your approach is pretty accurate and my wording represents fairly how I view that approach. At this point, I'll stand by my earlier statements. I took a long time to write what I wrote - and I'm confident it was written in love with eye towards truth. I'll trust the Spirit of God to do what He wants with that. I pray God uses you for His purposes Bob.

Straight Ahead!

jt

Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Baptist Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;

Offline
Since
Thu, 6/4/09
Posts: 235
A side issue, but not without consequence

I'm not going to put words in people's mouths, but there is a point to what Bob brings out.
First of all, I don't know any one of these people personally. I've supported ABWE missionaries and had no problem with it. I have no dog in this fight.
I'm concerned about the "witch hunt" mentality of regular SI contributors when someone such as Bob legitimately question whether someone's documented associations qualify them for leadership. It seems like there is more "shouting down" voices and that, as much as we say we don't mind different viewpoints, we really do.
ABWE emphasized his service with Injoy and Maxwell, so to me, they are making it fair game. I'd much rather have seen them emphasize the man's work as pastor.
I agree with him that John Maxwell's writings and teachings are very clearly heretical. I would guess I would expect his organization to be the same. I also get that this man didn't spend a ton of time in Maxwell's organization. As a minimum, I would guess I would expect Dr. Cockrell to give some sort of repudiation of Maxwell's theology and practice.
He also has the "interim" tag, so it may or may not indicate anything about ABWE's future direction. But from what we have so far, we don't know that.
I don't think it is inappropriate to ask them for more clarification.