Category: Warren Throckmorton

 
If you are wealthy professional, Gateway Church in Southlake, TX wants you.
According to Associate Senior Pastor Bobby Bogard, Gateway has been given a “grace lane” by God to consider rich professionals as the bullseye for their recruitment efforts. Bogard told this to a group of pastors in January 2017 at the Linked International Network of Churches Equip Conference. Watch:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/8Z7B-zDkOx8[/youtube]
Transcript:

Gateway Church will be 17 years old this Easter.  We’re a spirit filled Charismatic church without the weird or the goofy.  I’ve seen the weird and the goofy, believe me.  In  my charismania days.  Um, we have over 30 thousand in attendance on a weekly basis.  That’s six campuses., with 26 services. I say all that to say this, big is not always better.  Big is not better. But what we are at Gateway Church is we’re healthy and I wanna talk to you about healthy church.  We’re healthy in so many different ways.  And health is probably one of the main ingredients of our success.  In all of the growth that we’ve taken place we’ve remained a healthy organization and a healthy church.  A healthy ministry.  A healthy people.  A healthy staff.  Healthy pace.  And so, part of our secret sauce is that we’re healthy.  Our goal is to become healthy, not to fill buildings with people.  Because here’s the deal.  If we can become healthy, we will see people filled with God, and then the principle of ‘healthy things grow’ right?  So that’s a value that we hold.  Healthy things grow.  And so church growth is really a byproduct of a healthy church.
Number two is people.  We’re all about people.  That’s our slogan, it’s been our slogan from the very  beginning.  I’m gonna drill down to some of this in just a minute.  I wanna fly by on a 30,000 foot view, okay?   But, we’r e all about people.  And the reason we’re all about people is because  God’s all about people. Am I right?  And so if we’re all about people because God’s all about people, it’s because we know God loves people, and if God loves people  we need to love people.  But how many of you know, sometimes, in our journey we love Jesus with all of our heart.   Right?  It’s just some of the people He hangs out with that we have a  problem.  C’mon somebody?  And so, God loves people.  I love what Johnny shared, man.  I love the fact that John Maxwell is passionate about a million souls, because souls are people.  People have problems.  People have  issues. People have transition.  But God loves them in every season of their life.  He never turns himself away from people.  And so, if you help people, God will send you more people, because God loves people.    I’ll say that again.  If you love people and you help people, God will send you more people.  Why?  Because God loves people.
And so as we, as we, look at health, and as we look at people, there are some considerations that we go after in preparing ourselves to be healthy and to love people.  And that’s number one is:
We’re always asking ourself, who is are target?  Who’s our bullseye?  Do you know who your bullseye is?  Your bullseye, not that you’re not gonna reach all people, because we’re gonna reach all people.  We’re gonna be all things to all people, to reach all people.  But there’s something that God has gifted you with.  There’s a Grace Lane that you have.  And that Grace Lane is directed to a bullseye.  And who is your bullseye?  Who are the people God’s called you to reach?
And so, as we look at our bullseye, God has called us, to reach professional people.  That’s our bullseye.  We’re still gonna help the down and out.  We do it every week.  We’re still gonna help single moms.  We do it every week.  We-we’re still going to uh, look and help marriages and blended families.  We’re gonna work through their issues.  But our bullseye is the business professionals.  Matter fact, in one of our depart- we have a whole department that’s built towards reaching business people.  I’m talking about people with influence and large capacities of wealth.  That’s our bullseye because we feel like that’s something God’s graced us to do.  And if we can reach our bullseye, it will create a ripple, if you will, so that we can reach the others more effectively.

Church Growth via Targeting Rich People

Bogard said these things in January 2017, the same month the church co-sponsored one of President Trump’s inaugural galas. January 2017 is also the same month that I reported that Gateway church started charging youth group kids $2 for pizza and water. In January, a Gateway youth leader went on Facebook to beg for donations from members to help pay for pizza for kids who couldn’t afford it.
Last month, Gateway began laying off staff (as many as 20-30%) and stopped paying some worship and tech staff. Bogard told the pastors’ conference Gateway was healthy but didn’t mention the layoffs and program reductions. However, Bogard did disclose that Gateway has a whole department geared toward reaching “people with influence and large capacities of wealth.” I wonder if anyone in that department got laid off.
 
See also:
Gateway Church Courts Business Leaders Via Exclusive Program

June 11, 1787
Summary: Today, the delegates voted on the 3/5 clause. They passed it with minimal discussion but revisited it on July 12 when discussion of taxation took place.
Again Britain was a model for Roger Sherman from CT.

Mr. SHERMAN proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the second branch, or Senate, each State should have one vote and no more. He said, as the States would remain possessed of certain individual rights, each State ought to be able to protect itself; otherwise, a few large States will rule the rest. The House of Lords in England, he observed, had certain particular rights under the Constitution, and hence they have an equal vote with the House of Commons, that they may be able to defend their rights.

Franklin also illustrated his thoughts with the example of Britain:

I recollect that, in the beginning of this century, when the union was proposed of the two kingdoms, England and Scotland, the Scotch patriots were full of fears, that unless they had an equal number of representatives in Parliament, they should be ruined by the superiority of the English. They finally agreed, however, that the different proportions of importance in the union of the two nations should be attended to, whereby they were to have only forty members in the House of Commons, and only sixteen in the House of Lords. A very great inferiority of numbers! And yet to this day I do not recollect that any thing has been done in the Parliament of Great Britain to the prejudice of Scotland; and whoever looks over the lists of public officers, civil and military, of that nation, will find, I believe, that the North Britons enjoy at least their full proportion of emolument.

Franklin later returned to this model:

“This mode is not new. It was formerly practised with success by the British government with respect to Ireland and the Colonies. We sometimes gave even more than they expected, or thought just to accept; and in the last war carried on while we were united, they gave us back in five years a million sterling. We should probably have continued such voluntary contributions, whenever the occasions appeared to require them for the common good of the Empire. It was not till they chose to force us, and to deprive us of the merit and pleasure of voluntary contributions, that we refused and resisted. These contributions, however, were to be disposed of at the pleasure of a government in which we had no representative. I am, therefore, persuaded, that they will not be refused to one in which the representation shall be equal.

The 3/5ths clause was then considered with very little commentary:

It was then moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. BUTLER, to add to the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words “according to the quotas of contribution.” On motion of Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, this was postponed; in order to add, after the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” the words following: “in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State” — this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. GERRY thought property not the rule of representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?

On the question, — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 9; New Jersey, Delaware, no — 2.

 

From multiple sources inside Gateway Church, I have learned that one of the topics of the monthly staff chapel several days ago was the recent layoffs at Gateway. In the meeting, a leader said the layoffs were a healthy “pruning.” Although I am aware that some of the support staff have experienced reductions in compensation (some went from being paid to volunteers), the staff were told that no pay cuts were planned.
Regarding news concerning the church, the leader told the staff that they should not be participate in blogs (specifically mine). For those who followed the Mars Hill Church and Gospel for Asia stories, that should sound familiar.
I welcome Gateway supporters and former members alike to express their views. I also call on Gateway to be more transparent about compensation, and where else the money goes.
I am hearing that some laid off staff are reluctant to speak because they signed non-disclosure agreements with a non-disparagement clause. This is another sound-alike from the Mars Hill days.

May 9, 1787
Summary: On this day in the Constitutional Convention, Elbridge Gerry from MA proposed to require the chief executive be elected by the state governors (state executives). This proposal failed.
The remainder of the time was spent debating how to fairly represent the small states in a national legislature. Primarily, the basis for opinion was each delegates sense of fairness and what the people of the states would accept. As in past sessions, the delegates did not appeal to religion, or Exodus to help them decide how best to represent the people. They grappled with a fair way to represent the large and small states.

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

What do Illinois Family Institute’s Laurie Higgins, National Review’s David French, fellow Patheos blogger Hemant Mehta (The Friendly Atheist) and I have in common?
We all believe Bernie Sanders was out of line to say he will vote against Trump’s Office of Management and Budget Deputy Director nominee Russ Vought because of Vought’s religious beliefs.
Mehta has gone out on a limb with his readers to take this position, but I believe it is the right one. Article Six of the Constitution states in part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

While Sanders may be disgusted by Vought’s religious beliefs, Sanders may not use those beliefs as a test for Vought’s service as an officer of the federal government. As Mehta said in his column (I urge you to read it, it may challenge your views about atheists), Sanders could have taken a different and appropriate approach:

The question Sanders should’ve asked is whether Vought’s beliefs about non-Christian people would ever influence his treatment of them under the law. Would he treat Muslims (or LGBT people, for that matter) the same way he treats Christians?

I want to know that as well. One of my concerns about dominionist Christians (not saying Vought is, I don’t know) getting into power is that they might favor Christians over others, using a Christian religious test. Perhaps Sanders inappropriate actions can serve as a caution to Christian politicians to consider the Golden Rule in choosing public servants – If you don’t like it when a religious test is used on your in-group, then don’t use one on members of out-groups.

No Religious Test

As far as I can tell, the “no religious test” clause was first suggested by Charles Pinckney, delegate from South Carolina to the Constitutional Convention. On May 29, 1787, Pinckney laid his plan before the Convention where it was sent to committee. Then much later on August 20, Pinckney was able to bring it to the floor. The religious test portion said:

No religious test or qualification shall ever be annexed to any oath of office, under the authority of the United States.

In his defense of the plan, Pinckney wrote:

The next Article l provides for the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus — the Trial by Jury in all cases, Criminal as well as Civil — the Freedom of the Press, and the prevention of Religious Tests, as qualifications to Offices of Trust or Emolument: The three first essential in Free Governments; the last, a provision the world will expect from you, in the establishment of a System founded on Republican Principles, and in an age so liberal and enlightened as the present. (p. 122)

Note that Pinckney believed that a “liberal and enlightened” age required freedom from religious test.
Some might question whether or not we live in an enlightened age. However, it is refreshing when agreement can be found across ideological lines and that agreement is based on the foundational principles of the Republic.
 

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here.  In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter