2014 BOTT Quote in Context

[n david]

I mentioned months ago I was going to do this, so here it is.

I finally got the DVD of a message at BOTT and was able to watch the message. In this message, there was a quote argued over several months ago from this year's BOTT. One minister publicly called another an idiot for something he said in this message.

The theme of BOTT was "Revive," and one minister was given a topic to speak on the minister's personal revival. His title was: "The First Trip Behind the Veil." The text was taken from Lev 16:6, 11, 17:

And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.

And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself:

And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.

The theme of the message was that Pastors and leaders must revive themselves before they can see revival in their homes, churches and communities.

Some quotes:

There are reasons for things. If your church is dead, there's a reason. If your people don't pray, there's a reason. If your church isn't making disciples, there's a reason. If you don't have it, they won't have it. If you won't do it, they won't do it. If you don't show it, they won't show it. If they don't see it, they won't seize it.

We cannot lead anyone until we lead ourselves.
We cannot lead anyone into the holy of holies until we've gone ourselves.

You cannot impart what you do not possess.
You cannot give what you do not have.
You cannot attract what you want, only what you are.

40 minutes into the message comes the quote which caused the other minister to call him an idiot:

If you've been at a church, and if I've been at a church that I've served more than 3 years, it's an indictment on me and not on the saints when I complain about how carnal they are. How dead they are. How prayerless they are. How lukewarm they are. Because if I don't have a revival, the (name of a church) church isn't going to have revival.

IMO, when taken in context with the whole message, it's a valid statement. I've seen it time and again, where you have a Pastor who has no vision or direction -- the church is not growing. And where you have a Pastor who is evangelistic and has vision -- the church is growing and engaged.

Now, is it the Pastor's fault that a few saints may be carnal, backslidden jerks? No, not at all. Here's the thing, that's not what was said. He was speaking of the church as a whole. If after 3 years the Pastor is complaining about how dead his church is...how prayerless the church is...how carnal the church is...people follow the leader.

Instead of understanding the quote in context and as a whole, this other minister got offended and complained about not being guilty because people "take their clothes off," "go do drugs and porno stuff." "I will not be blamed for that!"

Now, two things strike me in the statements seen in the short clip where he blasts the other minister and tells him, "You're an idiot."

1) If by "people" he means his whole church are "taking their clothes off, doing drugs and porno stuff," then good Lord, yes there's a problem him as the Pastor and leader of that church! Even if half of the people attending that church regularly are still going out and doing those things...it warrants some reflection and prayer as to why they're not being influenced and changed by the spirit of God or the messages being preached.

2) If by "people" he means a one, two or a few, then he completely missed the context and point of what the other minister said, twisted it to suggest something else and used a straw man.

After listening to the message by this minister, and hearing the context of his full quote, I agree with him and stand by my initial criticism of the other minister who called him an idiot.