Honestly this is the way I have always viewed it. I am a graduate of ABC by the way. Dr. Comfort started the school because he felt like God was calling him to do so and no one has the right to question that because they are not him. He is an evangelist, not a pastor. Who is it that starts churches? Pastors. So why would he start a church. Well he didn't but what he did do is start a local church minded school. You see many of the schools that are based out of local churches may be "Local Church" because they are based out of a local church but when you view the churches they are there to only build their own local church when there are plenty of local churches around that really would like the help of college students. The truth of the matter is where do those colleges get most of their students from? Not their local church! No they get them from other peoples local churches, so I ask you is it truly a local church school if not all the students come from that local church?
You see not to long ago I had the same question about mission boards and mission agencies who call themselves local church, but when it came to my local church sending me, my local church had no authority. Yes the mission board was based out of a local church, but the truth of the matter is they truly aren't local church in philosophy. I wanted an agency that would support my local church to get me to my field. Praise the Lord I found one!
So think of this in a college setting. Shouldn't schools be concerned about building the local churches of the kids coming to school? How you may ask? Let them get into churches and serve and learn the ministry. Can't they do that in a church based out of a local church? Yes, but they are limited to how much they can do because when you have that many students they cannot get a full aspect of serving in the ministry. So why shouldn't Local Church based schools allow their students to go and serve other local churches in the surrounding area? The answer is they should. I saw a local church based school just the other day they requires their freshman to stay in the Local church but after their freshman year they are allowed to serve in other churches. If it is a local church school, this is the way it should be done. If it is not a "local Church" based school, don't criticize because their are some that are very local church oriented and ABC is one of them
Is not PCC local church oriented? There is a church associated with the college and a sizable percentage of the membership consists of people from the surrounding towns. It can be argued, I suppose, that it is not a true local church in that, it is my understanding, Dr. Horton selects/hires the pastor.
The church that PCC runs (notice how I phrased that) is only there because the college is there. There are SOME local members, but just about everyone is associated with the college in some way. The college (Dr. Horton) pull the strings of that "church". No college, no church. The church doesn't run the school, the school is running the church.
The church that PCC runs (notice how I phrased that) is only there because the college is there. There are SOME local members, but just about everyone is associated with the college in some way. The college (Dr. Horton) pull the strings of that "church". No college, no church. The church doesn't run the school, the school is running the church.
Even if everything you say above is true, is it a problem? If you do have a problem with it, do you have Biblical basis for your disagreement? I hear many people criticize the Campus Church "setup" and even steer kids away from PCC for this one reason, but I have yet to hear any Scriptural basis for their disagreement.
Also, what would you suggest PCC do? Call a pastor to come in and start a church that would grow enough to run the school? or restructure Campus Church so that the church "runs the school"? That would be ludicrous. Dr. and Mrs. Horton did what God called them to do - start a college. At worst, Campus Church is simply part of the college ministry - at worst.
Fact is, it's been very successful, is a tremendous help to students and staff, and in no way undermines anyone's relationship with their "local church."
It's a convenient way for those with political disagreement with PCC to try to make their politics sound spiritual. Unfortunately, for something to be spiritual, it must be based upon scripture, and the campus church complaints are not based on the Word of God - they're based upon someone's personal opinion and agenda.
__________________
Burnin' Daylight
Take the first, take the last, take the good and take the rest ... Here I am, all I have, take it all.
I attended PCC for a couple years, and there were limited opportunities for the student body to develop "local church" skills. When I was there, Campus Church had AWANA on Sunday nights. This opportunity for ministry was only open to experienced AWANA workers. I got involved in Children's Church on Sunday mornings because a friend invited me. We had (I think) five workers, perfectly adequate, but there were three THOUSAND students enrolled.
IF three thousand Christian young people could be scattered over the churches in Pensacola and its environs, there would have been plentry of room for everyone to participate in the sort of church ministries they have back home.
__________________
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
[quote]Even if everything you say above is true, is it a problem? If you do have a problem with it, do you have Biblical basis for your disagreement? I hear many people criticize the Campus Church "setup" and even steer kids away from PCC for this one reason, but I have yet to hear any Scriptural basis for their disagreement.[quote]
Well, I don't know if we should move this to the PCC Threads, but since it's here, I'll debate it here.
You know, you're right, I can't find a Biblical reason for a church not to be associated with a college. I don't like it, for many reasons, but I can't find Scripture saying that is is wrong.
(However, I do think it is misleading to have a "church" and call it a "church" , such as the case with the Campus Church at PCC, when in reality it is not operatored like a real church. It has a "pastor" and "deacons", but it is common knowledge that the church is run by the college or should I say, the Hortons. Is that really a N.T. church? Plus, most of the "members" of that church are forced to be members. Many of the students and all of the faculty and staff and required to join the church. Did you get that? If you want to work at PCC, you MUST join the Campus Church. Is that right??? Kind of sounds like Dr. Horton is building himself a little empire. Not only does he control your job but he also controls your church membership. Now I do have a lot of problems with that, and I would also go as far as to call that un-Biblical. Am I wrong? Besides, what is wrong with having the students attend local churches? BJ, AMBASSADOR (this is suppossed to be the real college at question here) and many others do this and it seems to be working for them. Maybe it's because PCC wants absolute control over every aspect of their students and faculty's lives, that they refuse to do this.)
I think schools like Ambassador and even BJ have a good Biblical concept of allowing their student to attend or join local churches in the surrounding communties without pledging alligence to any one particular Indp. Baptist Church. Ambassador is Local Church and teaches their students to be Local Church and I think the best way for them inforce what they are teaching is to have their students actually get involved in local churches. Doesn't that make good sense? I guess we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to do here. Are we trying to promote Big College Empires or do we want to encourage the N.T. local church philosophy, which is Biblical.
Last edited by servinghim; 01-30-2008 at 09:58 PM.
[QUOTE: servinghim]Well, I don't know if we should move this to the PCC Threads, but since it's here, I'll debate it here.
You know, you're right, I can't find a Biblical reason for a church not to be associated with a college. I don't like it, for many reasons, but I can't find Scripture saying that is is wrong.
(However, I do think it is misleading to have a "church" and call it a "church" , such as the case with the Campus Church at PCC, when in reality it is not operatored like a real church. It has a "pastor" and "deacons", but it is common knowledge that the church is run by the college or should I say, the Hortons. Is that really a N.T. church? Plus, most of the "members" of that church are forced to be members. Many of the students and all of the faculty and staff and required to join the church. Did you get that? If you want to work at PCC, you MUST join the Campus Church. Is that right??? Kind of sounds like Dr. Horton is building himself a little empire. Not only does he control your job but he also controls your church membership. Now I do have a lot of problems with that, and I would also go as far as to call that un-Biblical. Am I wrong? Besides, what is wrong with having the students attend local churches? BJ, AMBASSADOR (this is suppossed to be the real college at question here) and many others do this and it seems to be working for them. Maybe it's because PCC wants absolute control over every aspect of their students and faculty's lives, that they refuse to do this.)
I think schools like Ambassador and even BJ have a good Biblical concept of allowing their student to attend or join local churches in the surrounding communties without pledging alligence to any one particular Indp. Baptist Church. Ambassador is Local Church and teaches their students to be Local Church and I think the best way for them inforce what they are teaching is to have their students actually get involved in local churches. Doesn't that make good sense? I guess we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to do here. Are we trying to promote Big College Empires or do we want to encourage the N.T. local church philosophy, which is Biblical.
The criticisms you're making now apply to most IFB colleges - and especially "church-run" colleges.
Quote:
You know, you're right, I can't find a Biblical reason for a church not to be associated with a college.
I'm not sure I understand - are you against a church being associated with a college? That would make you against nearly every college on this board.
Quote:
I don't like it, for many reasons, but I can't find Scripture saying that is is wrong.
Guess the discussions over then - unless I'm just arguing with someone I don't even know about what they like and don't like.
Quote:
However, I do think it is misleading to have a "church" and call it a "church" , such as the case with the Campus Church at PCC, when in reality it is not operatored like a real church. It has a "pastor" and "deacons", but it is common knowledge that the church is run by the college or should I say, the Hortons. Is that really a N.T. church?
Do you really want to go there? So you question whether Campus Church is really a N.T. church. My question for you is - what church is "really a N.T. church"? Where is "church" defined in the Bible according to its particular structure? If you apply strictly Biblical prinicples to modern-day churches, then practically every church in America is "misleading" people by calling their operation a "church." Truth is, the Bible does not give a lot of specifics about church organization and structure. You have an idea in your mind of what a "real" church is and Campus Church doeesn't fit your definition. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but you have no Biblical basis for it. Sorry to keep bringing the Bible into this, but, you know . .
Quote:
Plus, most of the "members" of that church are forced to be members. Many of the students and all of the faculty and staff and required to join the church. Did you get that? If you want to work at PCC, you MUST join the Campus Church. Is that right??? Kind of sounds like Dr. Horton is building himself a little empire. Not only does he control your job but he also controls your church membership. Now I do have a lot of problems with that, and I would also go as far as to call that un-Biblical.
Every "church run" college I know of requires staff/students to join/attend their church. Guess the pastor of the church is trying to build himself a little empire. The ones that don't at least limit the choices and don't let people just go wherever they want. Guess they're trying to control their students'/staff's church membership. And according to you, it's unBiblical - maybe it goes against the principle laid it II Opinions chapter 2 . . .
You'll get no argument from me about PCC being an overly controlling institution, but don't pretend they're the only ones who require their students/staff to join a particular church or least to join one of a limited number of churches.
Quote:
Am I wrong? Besides, what is wrong with having the students attend local churches? BJ, AMBASSADOR (this is suppossed to be the real college at question here) and many others do this and it seems to be working for them. Maybe it's because PCC wants absolute control over every aspect of their students and faculty's lives, that they refuse to do this.)
Ambassador and BJ are anamolies and are not "local church run." I thought we were discussing whether a college should be run by a local church - BJ and Ambassodor are examples of colleges not run by a local church - kinda like PCC. And you're the one who decided to criticize PCC (on the Ambassador board) for not being "church run."
Quote:
Ambassador is Local Church and teaches their students to be Local Church . . .
And PCC does not - they teach their kids to be anti-Local Church. They teach them to be Out-of-Town-Church, para-church, empire-builder, Campus Church-only, Beka-Book Church, Horton Empire Church, Satanic Church, Church of Monday Night Football . . .
Quote:
BJ, AMBASSADOR (this is suppossed to be the real college at question here) and many others do this and it seems to be working for them.
Name me one of the "many others" who do this. Also, Campus Church has been "working" very well for PCC, so why can't they do it that way? It's "working for them."
Quote:
Maybe it's because PCC wants absolute control over every aspect of their students and faculty's lives, that they refuse to do this.
Can't argue too much with that.
Quote:
I think schools like Ambassador and even BJ have a good Biblical concept of allowing their student to attend or join local churches in the surrounding communties without pledging alligence to any one particular Indp. Baptist Church.
I like that idea, and as I said, Ambassador and BJ are different from most IFB colleges in this respect.
Quote:
Are we trying to promote Big College Empires
Maybe PCC, maybe not, but definitely some others I know. To build big empires - you tell kids all over the nation that only your college is God's will. Then you use your college students for 15-20 hours a week of church work so you can say you have thousands in attendance and millions "saved."
Quote:
I guess we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to do here.
Exactly - PCC is trying to offer many different college and masters degrees in many different fields - all in a godly, baptist-style environment. Their constituents are very strict parents who don't want their kids to get in trouble (or have too much fun - just kidding) while in school. The Campus Church fits perfectly into what they're trying to do. I attended PCC, was not a ministry major - and the Campus Church was absolutely great for me.
I understand it wouldn't be great for everybody - God's goodness allows us many choices here in America. But I detest this pious, "local church" argument that tries to pretend that PCC and Campus Church is somehow wrong or unBiblical just b/c the setup is different from the Blessed Hope-Full Assurance-Wayside-Shining Light-Trinity-Victory-Calvary-Mountaintop-Jackson Road-First Baptist Church-type place most of us grew up in (and still attend).
It's OK - just admit - you don't like PCC and Campus Church . . . but you have absolutely no Biblical support for the idea that it's "wrong."
__________________
Burnin' Daylight
Take the first, take the last, take the good and take the rest ... Here I am, all I have, take it all.
---Third Day
Last edited by Burnin' Daylight; 02-01-2008 at 09:44 PM.
Reason: Add a paragraph.
Wow, this has certainly produced a lot of passion! Not to mention that it has opened so many cans of worms that I'm not even sure were to start. I guess it would be best to stick to the topic at hand (I will address the ["My question for you is - what church is "really a N.T. church"? Where is "church" defined in the Bible according to its particular structure?"] at another time)
Should teaching and training Christian leaders be the responsibility of the local church or a parasite...oops...para-church organization such as a Bible college or university?
The answer is simple - the Church
The only authority that is given for spiritual training was given to the Church. Paul instructed Timothy and the other Elders in Ephesus to find faithful men and train them II Tim 2:2. Ephesians 4 teaches that the church was given spiritually gifted men to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry. There is no mention of outside organizations doing that work, and they certainly would have known about theological Schools, remember Paul was a graduate. So I think it is safe to say that the intent Biblically is for the Local church to do the training, or at least to govern that training.
Unfortunately most churches have dropped the ball, so today we find ourselves dependant on autonomous Bible Schools and Seminaries. I personally would love to see every church move in the direction of teaching and training our pastors and other church leaders right within the church.
The Bible does not speak against Bible colleges other than silence. My biggest concern would be the School run churches - that is getting the cart before the horse! The church is the authority, not the school!
Didn't Paul spend "certain days" with Ananias and the disciples at Damascus before he preached the Gospel in the Synangogue? And then spent time in Arabia before going to the church in Jerusalem?
Also, doesn't Paul train Timothy and Titus etc. while he travels? This training cannot be completely associated with one local church but to an individual.
Although I completely agree with you that our local churches should do a better job in training men for the ministry and I wish many of our older pastors would take younger men under their wings, I do not know that we can conclude that the local church is the only place of training for the ministry.
Wow, this has certainly produced a lot of passion! Not to mention that it has opened so many cans of worms that I'm not even sure were to start.
Wasn't tryin' to open a can of worms, just trying to get a legitimate Scriptural objection to "school run churches" such as the Campus Church.
Quote:
I guess it would be best to stick to the topic at hand (I will address the ["My question for you is - what church is "really a N.T. church"? Where is "church" defined in the Bible according to its particular structure?"] at another time)
Should teaching and training Christian leaders be the responsibility of the local church or a parasite...oops...para-church organization such as a Bible college or university?
This is a very general question. When you say "Christian leaders" do you mean ministry professionals? or all Christians in every profession who desire to have an impact for Christ? I assume you mean ministry folks, b/c surely you don't think the church should "train" the next generation of engineers, businesspeople, financiers, doctors, lawyers, etc. Even if they also may happen to be "Christian leaders."
Without Christian colleges ("parasite" organizations you say in an attempt at humor), Christians who are called these professions are left to be trained by the world (non-Christian universities . . . houses of porn and scorn as Michael Savage would say). What's wrong with getting trained in "secular" professions at an institution with God and the Bible as its foundation for all knowledge? What's wrong with going to a place that seeks to keep college kids away from the drugs, sex, humanism, political correctness, socialism, evolution, drunkenness and other such debauchery while they train for their profession??
Quote:
The answer is simple - the Church
Yep that's a simple answer, just don't think it answers any particular question.
Quote:
The only authority that is given for spiritual training was given to the Church. Paul instructed Timothy and the other Elders in Ephesus to find faithful men and train them II Tim 2:2. Ephesians 4 teaches that the church was given spiritually gifted men to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry. There is no mention of outside organizations doing that work, and they certainly would have known about theological Schools, remember Paul was a graduate. So I think it is safe to say that the intent Biblically is for the Local church to do the training, or at least to govern that training.
Do you think that the home plays any role in spiritual training? You said the "only authority" was given to the church - could not disagree more. Ever read a book written by an author not from your local assembly? Ever listen to Christian radio? Were you or someone you know trained in spiritual things by a parent or grandparent?
Quote:
Unfortunately most churches have dropped the ball,
You and I are very close to agreement on this point. Most faithful church folks know precious little about basic Bible doctrines and probably couldn't quote all 10 commandments or explain the true "fundamentals" of the faith. They're probably up on all the latest gossip though, they'll know a lot about the church/school sports teams, and they may even know that certain Christian colleges are "liberal."
Quote:
so today we find ourselves dependant on autonomous Bible Schools and Seminaries. I personally would love to see every church move in the direction of teaching and training our pastors and other church leaders right within the church.
This would probably be a good thing, but then IFB colleges couldn't have their networks and political connections and empires. They couldn't put down other similar colleges by saying that the other college's church is school run rather than vice versa. They couldn't say other colleges are "liberal."
Quote:
The Bible does not speak against Bible colleges other than silence. My biggest concern would be the School run churches - that is getting the cart before the horse! The church is the authority, not the school
PCC Local Church Oriented
Linear Mode
