Leadership Change at ABWE

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.

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)

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.

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

Joel stated:

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:

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.

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

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.