Chris Rosebrough does an EXCELLENT analysis of Dan Southerland's Transitioning Seminar.
This is a MUST HEAR for those who are concerned about the seeker sensitive or purpose driven takeover of their own church.
I might remind you that in 2007, about 3 years after this seminar was recorded (judging by some current events he mentions in the process of the seminar, which may not be included in Chris's clips here) one of their foremost transitionists Roddy Clyde was arrested for embezzling money (at least $500,000) from his church. Well I guess he had a vision from God!
Worship of Mass Dysfunction is a book written about this whole development.
Regarding the book, this is from a comment on blog post I found:
"kim said...
Please read “Worship of Mass Dysfunction”. This book details the events leading up to and the events following Pastor Roddy Clyde’s embezzlement and subsequent arrest. The book provides a harrowing account of how purpose driven concepts can cause harm. www.wmdthebook.com." (the website is no longer in service)
I have no idea of this book but it sure could be interesting to see how Church Transitions Inc handled all this.
A few things I have noticed (besides what Chris says in this analysis):
12:09 "There are four major movements of God in the world today"
1. Cell church
2. Contemporary Worship movement
3. Seeker church movement
4. Purpose Driven Church
About the Purpose Driven Church movement he says:
"The fourth movement of God in the world today, this is interesting to me, is the one that Billy Graham says is the biggest movement of God in the world today. At Amsterdam 2000 he proclaimed that this movement is the biggest movement of God in the world today. It is the Purpose Driven Church Movement..."
I can find no evidence that BILLY GRAHAM EVER SAID anything like what Dan Southerland is attributing to him having said at Amsterdam 2000. If Billy Graham had said this I would think it would be everywhere reprinted in support of Purpose Driven. Where is it?
BILLY GRAHAM was NOT AT Amsterdam 2000. He was home ill! It was not just a misspeak because he reiterates Billy Graham's age that he would have been in 2000 (Chris left that out of the audio).
In addition Dan southerland's musical training claims do not add up. Says he is classically trained organist but later says can't read music very well (may not be included in the audio clip)? This does NOT seem likely.
It makes it sound like he's exaggerating his classical music affinity/ability/investment to show how much he has 'given up' for the sake of his "God-given" agenda. Almost like people saying "I really enjoy washing dishes and doing house work, so I'm giving up all that for Lent." I would love to see some video of him playing the organ. It just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
Then there is the segment is where Dan describes his 'Shootout At The OK Corral' meeting. I have read the book myself, and remember this part. However every time I actually listen to his voice describing it with such arrogance, condescension, and holier than thou attitude, I am as incensed by his smug self assured assault on the church as if I was hearing it for the first time.
Dan spends plenty of time castigating his opponents for being friendly to him and allowing their kids to play together even while planning to ambush him (planning ahead to make a stand and oppose him). Now, is that not EXACTLY what he is doing in this seminar? Teaching pastors to plan ahead mostly behind closed doors with your inner circle of 'vision sharers' to take over power of the church? The man didn't bother to be Biblical, therefore Dan is allowed to be unbiblical?
In addition he abused Robert's Rules of Order, while saying "If you're gonna have [Robert's Rules of Order] you need to know it, cuz you can use it."
and took a point of privilege that was illegal according to Roberts Rules of Order.
POINT OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE: A Point of Privilege may be made when the rights and privileges of a member of PMC have been violated. If the Point is appropriate, the Chair will undertake corrective measures.
Points of Parliamentary Privilege are commonly called for in only two situations. First, when a delegate slanders another or grossly misrepresents his or her position while speaking or if a delegate cannot hear the speaker, has to get a drink, or must otherwise attend to personal business.
Point of Privilege did not apply here. He was opening for discussion at this point , not taking a point of privilege. (and he did not actually allow much discussion, having basically drawn a line in the sand in the course of responding to this deacon.
I have heard the audio, and after this in the story, Dan forces everyone to vote for or against him publicly, not by secret ballot. This sounds like the recent attempt to take away the secret ballot from unions.
Our ex pastor Todd Ertsgaard did something exactly like this, forcing people to vote for or against him by raising of hand, with him in the room, after having humiliated one person for an offhand comment that he disagreed with. You see he never had a problem with jumping in and strongarming people when he found it going a way he disagreed with. So his attempts to tell us that the reason he was uninvolved with how the Executive Committee was mishandling us and stringing us along, lying to us and shutting us out, was because he didn't feel it was his place.
The other thing I wonder is how he knew that the other two pastors would resign in the morning so surely that he could speak FOR them in their absence?
Could it be because he planned ahead to make a power play? Hmmm....
But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt 20:25-28
Dan goes on right toward the end explaining how you must shoot these wolves in your church (never mind that he himself is the Alpha Wolf here!),
"Why doesn't it say watch out for the mountain lion in wolves' [sic - sheep's] clothing? Mountain Lions hunt solo. Wolves hunt in packs."
Chris does some excellent analysis here. But I would also point out that Dan and his cronies are again doing exactly what he is castigating here. He is teaching these pastors how to hunt in packs. He and Glen Sartain just finished explaining how you should never handle opposition alone. They have meticulously described throughout this seminar how to assemble your pack and infiltrate the sheep fold. They have described how to prepare for the first sheep to bolt at the smell of false teaching, and how your consequent slaughter of that sheep can then look like you transitioning hostile takeover pastors did not instigate anything. Oh we were just shooting a wolf in sheep's clothing!
IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU.
