-  He “allegedly” received favorable treatment and a sweetheart deal on some land holdings near his coastal property. 

- He “allegedly” received campaign finance contributions in ways he shouldn’t have.

- He “allegedly” received free use of an SUV, even after leaving office. 

- He “allegedly” received free air transportation, having his rich, liberal, democrat cronies fly him around the state & country in their private planes in return for favors.  One example is “allegedly” giving high-ranking executive posts in the Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources and other places in return for those favors.

- His wife received a $170,000 a year job an NC State University for chairing some group to bring in big name speakers, oh which she did not (really) do. 

- He “allegedly” received free home repairs in return for more favors.  With all the money and power a guy like Easley has, you’d think he’d be willing to spend a little of it to fix up his house, right?  Nope.  The cheap SOB calls in favors to get that work done as well. 

Today started the State Board of Elections hearing on the Easley mess.  31 witnesses are tee’d up and ready to smack Sleasley down the fairway.  The day did not start well, either.  McQueen Campbell, a former buddy of Easley testified that he would be repaid for repairs he had done on the Easley home with campaigns from the Easley campaign fund.  That’s a big no-no!

The point in all this is how ugly and sleazly politics is.  I saw this firsthand living in Cleveland, which is under going its own huge federal corruption case as I write this.  From a casual perusal, it looks like fully half the city of Cleveland’s politicians are in some form of trouble and more than 2/3 of their contracts were done in a good ‘ol boy way…meaning illegally.

Same thing here in North Carolina.  This state has some cleaning up to do, and Jim Black (serving a 63 month federal sentence) might soon have a new inmate to talk to if any of this holds up.

Renovatus is a growing church of about 350-strong and was looking for a new location after meeting in an elementary school for the last three years.  Another goal was to be more cross-cultural and connect with the lower-income and those of different nationalities. 

By locating themselves in the heart of a neglected and depressed area, they are working to connect and reach those who have the least and need hope.   Instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) on land and a building, they have chosen a different way.  While it is obvious are all not called to pursue this path, it is refreshing to see a church and congregation take God’s call to minister to the ‘least of these’ seriously.  

Other local church plants searching for land and/or a building should pause and consider if Charlotte really needs another multi-million dollar church building when there are many buildings already built that can be retro-fit and leased out for much less cost than acquiring land & building a brand new church.

This is a great example of a church being missional and placing others’s needs before their own.  It is so easy to be a church that looks for ways to comfort themselves (with a new building, an addition to current building, etc.) rather than be outward facing to the community.  Good stuff…

Read the whole story here

“After all, programs are the means by which we draw people into our churches. Once they’re in, we get them involved by participating in or leading our programs. Participation in programs becomes the way we judge how “involved” people are – if they’re engaged in our programs, we call them “committed.” Programs become a means by which we judge our effectiveness as ministers – we can know we’re doing a lot for Jesus, because we’re running so many successful programs. In some churches, it appears the congregation exists to serve the church’s programming.”

Is it really the best way to judge someone’s spiritual maturity by looking at their level of church involvement?

Recently I read yet another lament of evangelicalism’s “consumerist” approach to spiritual matters. Such critiques usually say that evangelicals encourage people to shop around to find the kind of church that meets their spiritual “needs.” This needs-centered understanding of the Christian life has fostered a widespread breakdown of denominational and congregational loyalty, critics say. Faithfulness to a specific theological or ecclesiastical tradition has been replaced by “church shopping.” . . .

Read the whole thing here

H/T @moviepastor & @michaelhyatt

H/T Andrew Sullivan

Leonard Sweet offers a different take on how seminaries need to evolve.  In the March/April 2008 edition of Rev! magazine he makes a compelling argument for the transformation of what a seminary education looks like.

While most seminaries now offer online classes, so do most local community colleges.  Sweet argues much more needs to be done to train future leaders of the church.  Read ‘Not Your Fathers Seminary’ (link opens .PDF document on Sweet’s site).

Sweet argues that much of the learning going on in today’s schools prepares students for a world that just is no longer there.  For example, while most all in seminary understand the need & reason why we write 15 page research papers many wonder if they will ever use that skill again.  Yes, it builds critical thinking & writing skills, of course.  But the method & delivery to impart those skills needs updating for a ‘Google’ world.   What if we were able to deliver our research and show we’ve learned our skills through other resources?   Why not utilize the 5 major media sources we have today: print, audio,  video, internet or software?   What if for my church history class I developed a interactive website that guided people through an interactive guide to the Reformation, highlighting the work of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin?  What if a video project was done that illustrated the different church planting movements through the ages?  Or how the Inquisition impacted the people of that time?

What’s really intriguing is the impact projects like these could have on the world outside seminaries.  Most research papers, once graded will never see the light of day again.  Projects like what I mentioned above could be used in many ways to educate & inform those not in seminary.  For example, using the video project in teaching a small group or discipleship class.

Sweet continues on to say the “accumulation of knowledge does not lead to the formation of the person.  The accumulation of courses does not lead to the formation of a pastor.”  By significantly transforming the shape of a student’s approach to learning and what the core curriculum looks like much different results will happen.  While not neglecting the standard parts of a curriculum such as theology, church history, and a core knowledge of the Bible a larger focus is placed on leadership development, character, missional passion & spiritual authenticity.

This all ties into Sweet’s overall belief in the need for a more fluid approach to ministry (see Sweet’s book AquaChurch 2.0).   There are many logistical questions raised by this approach to seminary education, but due to the financial concerns raised by the USA Today article it may be time to rethink the approach in the future.