2. It appears that Furtick wants to teach his congregation that he won’t teach them. Clever.

It amazes me how this line of thinking is so easily bought. Again, shouldn’t the natural conclusion be: don’t go to church. Just download a podcast, read a blog, read a book?

It’s like a chef telling people: “Beginning tomorrow I won’t be cooking. Oh, but be sure and come back.” Which begs the question: why come back?

2. Furtick does “teach.” Where does the bible say the pastor of the church is solely responsible for the “deep” teaching? Ever heard of the priesthood of the believer?

As you say (rightly) there are tons of sermons, commentaries, and books that can be consumed.

You could, in fact, argue that Furtick’s comments really mean he should do his best to dismantle Elevation services. Why have them? After all, it’s the Apostles’ teaching, not Furtick’s, that are in view in the passage above.

you both make good points. wish i could carry this conversation on in person. the biggest problem i think here is not that furtick totally twists the scripture (which of course is huge. perhaps he should read “exegetical fallacies” by D.A. Carson.), but it is the heart/attitude of the man. of course the pastor cannot do everything, but he should do everything he can to faithfully obey the entire council of God in regard to pastoral ministry. Furtick’s use of scripture doesn’t neccessarily show ignorance (although it might) but i think reveals a sinful attitude toward God’s Word. He refuses to do the work of a faitihfl elder. So therefore, He has to read something into the text inorder to justify his CEO pastor mindset in the fine-tuned machine that is Elevation. (I mean him and his staff…not neccessarily every single person who attends there). The best image that the Bible has given is a shepherd. The shepherd loves the sheep, chases them when they wander, serves them, nurtures them, protects them, seeks those that are lost, brings them back to the fold, and need be, kills the wolves. For the pastor, it is not about vision or numbers or success, but it’s about loving Jesus and caring for the sheep He has entrusted to us according to the Bible.

I’m not saying this is the best approach to church. I don’t think “deep” and “relevant” are polar opposites and some of the sermons that I enjoy and are relevant to me are the “deepest” ones. Also, I not really a fan of super-cool Furtick, so this isn’t really a defense of him. But it does seem that people on here believe a pastor at any church is responsible for meeting every conceivable “need” of every person at his church. I agree that the church should meet the congregation’s need for teaching, exhortation, care and prayer for illness, etc., etc., etc. I don’t believe that the senior/lead/sole pastor is the one that has to do all that himself. Moses appointed judges below him when his workload became to great. The apostles appointed deacons to help with benevolence administration. Paul (mostly) and Jesus (completely) delegated baptism to others. I think today’s pastors can do the same.

That doesn’t mean that I think they always do it wisely. For example, in a lot of church plants, “deeper teaching” is delegated to small groups with leaders who may not have much training or insight, and who may not understand even the basic doctrines of the faith. And its personally off putting to me to hear some pastors I’ve listened to online boast about how unlikely they are to visit the sick in the hospital, or to listen to concerns about the church, or do other traditional “pastor things”. It often sounds condescending and arrogant, to be honest. But I don’t go to a pastor’s church and if his congregants are ok with that, that’s their business.

And – Should a shepherd spend more time feeding the sheep, or finding ways to justify not feeding the sheep?