Freedom in Worship

In this article, from May, 1974, Ken discusses freedom in Worship. He states that one of the things that draws people to the Charismatic Renewal is the free use of Spiritual Gifts in Worship. He goes on to exhort us to greater freedom. I think that the worship at First Baptist Church of Chula Vista in the mid '70s was marvelous. There was a freedom to share prophecies, a message in tongues, an insight or even to spontaneously start a song. If you haven't experienced such a time, it could sound like some form of chaos. This was not so. Everything was orderly; you just didn't know what to expect. We felt that this was the result of "not putting God in a box." We couldn't really order the service, this was the job of the Holy Spirit. Whatever one's feelings about this freedom of worship and the use of Spiritual Gifts in that worship, there was a sense of the presence of God in our worship.


First Baptist is a lot different now. Perhaps I shouldn't say "now", because I am not there now. I was essentially the pastor from 1980 until 2005. We moved away from that complete spontaneity. We became traditional in some ways, but we never completely lost our sense of worship. Part of this was that God had blessed us with wonderful musicians all through this period. When one "indispensable musician" left, another appeared. We always had good music. The style might change, but the worship was real. We also always had creative people in arts -- and later in Computer arts; we had dance (in the early days before the death of Becky Schoultz); and drama. I loved our worship right up until the day I left. I miss it still.


The picture is of Ken and Clay being prayed for before leaving on the missionary trip discussed in my last post. I can't identify all of the people, but the one on the left is Larry Clark, two unidentified, then Ken, Clay, Wallie Gray and Ed Dubois.

A World-Wide Ministry

As this issue of OLT was printed Ken Pagaard, Mona Pagaard and Clay Ford were preparing for a major trip. They were traveling to England, Zaire, Swaziland, and Columbia. Of course, this was not a journey for the sake of tourism. Ken had been invited to come and share about our life in community. Earlier, Ken had a major ministry in Zaire where a number of the missionaries had entered into the realm of the charismatic.


I think that the church was always somewhat uncomfortable with Ken's impact around the world. It wasn't that we weren't proud. We thought the world of Ken. We appreciated his ministry. We were glad that he was our pastor. But he was just, well Ken. He was our friend. We knew him. We took our life together as just the way it was. I think that it just kind of amazed us that others looked upon our life as something to be emulated.


The same thing was true with the way we looked at our newsletter, Our Life Together. I'm not really sure that we all read it. Most of us looked at various parts, but didn't necessarily really devour it. I remember attending one of our American Baptist Conventions and being approached by a Seminary President, holding his copy of OLT. He greeted me with, "I've just been reading this latest issue . . ." I was impressed and amazed. I don't think I had read it. As I look back I can see what an amazing thing that God was doing in our midst and I'm not sure that I really appreciated it. I was just more concerned with what was going on in my life and the lives of those around me.


Ken's article also pointed out the trust that he had for the Elders. Since I am a semi-retired pastor, I realize more than I did at the time how much it took to entrust his ministry to a group such as us. The eldership was an interesting group of men. Clay and Larry were theologically trained. The rest of us had strengths -- and weaknesses. Yet, God was able to use us in a way that emphasized our strengths and minimized our weaknesses. I was really privileged to belong to this group. Of course, at the time of this article, I was still in the Navy. My involvement in leading the congregation was pretty limited.

Jesus; Lord or Savior

This article from April, 1974 had wider implications than it seems on the surface. Ken's premise is that people need to take their conversion seriously. All too often conversion is the end result in Evangelicalism. Ken rightly states that we must take the Lordship of Jesus seriously. The end result is meant to be the creation of disciples, not merely converts. In 1971-1973, I was a member of a Bible Study that met on the Amphibious Base in Coronado. At one point a Commander joined the study. I asked him, "When did you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?" He said, "Oh, don't misunderstand. I have not accept Him as my Lord. I have just accepted Him as my Savior." My understanding is much like Ken's in the article, Lord and Savior are part of the same package. The article is a good discussion of this issue. It is also somewhat innocuous.


The problem lay in what disciplers would become. Most observers of the church -- and many ex members -- believe that we had a problem with some people having too much authority. The idea of some people being trained in discipleship is actually an accepted part of Evangelical practice. However, in our venue, discipleship could take on more than merely indoctrination into living the Christian Life. It was not just the Eldership that may have stepped over the line. It also happened sometimes in this area of discipleship. Of course, some may remember the "Shepherding" Movement under Bob Mumford. The idea was that everyone had someone over them to shepherd them. It was almost like a military movement. Some of our discipleship looked a lot like this.


Having pointed this out, I don't believe that this became an overwhelming issue. The Eldership and Ken were aware of the problems. We attempted to "self correct" the problem before it became endemic.

The Church and the World, Part 4

Ken ends this article by quoting parts of the Magnificat. The entire scripture follows:

And Mary said:
"My soul glorifies the Lord
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
remembering to be merciful
to Abraham and his descendants forever,
even as he said to our fathers." (NIV)

The Magnificat is a beautiful song of praise to the Lord. Mary starts by praising the Lord for what He has done for her. She then goes on to praise him for his great mercy and for the great things he has done. The operative phrase is "the great things He has done." It is unfortunate that Ken used the words "personal revolution,"" political revolution,"" social revolution" and "economic revolution." The ideas expressed in the Magnificat are revolutionary, but they don't espouse starting revolution. God does things that are revolutionary when compared with the way human powers and authorities do things. Certainly God does these revolutionary things in the areas of our personal lives, politics, social structure and economics.


God does these things because these are God's values. He loves people. He is a just God. Christians should certainly have these same values. Therefore the Magnificat says something about how we attempt to live our lives. Jesus Christ came showing us how to live that kind of life. Jesus ministered by touching lives, mostly individually. He healed, he comforted, he taught. Yes, he also confronted when confrontation was needed. Should a Christian be involved in politics -- or even a revolution. Perhaps, but this is not the teaching of the Magnificat. Certainly it isn't a charter that we should have a certain kind of political/economic system. It is about God's action in the midst of human systems.

The Church and the World, Part 3

As we read these words, there is no doubt of Ken's understanding of the Sermon on The Mount as a call to a revolutionary way of living. But, as mentioned in previous posts, it is a revolution of the heart; a revolutionary way of thinking about our values that he is talking about. I have heard Ken teach on the Sermon on the Mount many times. He never (as far as I remember) advocated a position of rebellion against the government, or trying to force our will through political process; he did advocate a radical new way of thinking as we took seriously the teachings of Jesus.

I first became acquainted with the academic study of the Sermon on the Mount from my New Testament professor at Bethel Seminary, Bob Guelich. He wrote a great book, "The Sermon on the Mount," which is a study using the tools of Biblical and Literary criticism. It isn't a book of devotionals, but a study. I found myself becoming more interested. Then I discovered "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. This is more in line with what Ken seemed to believe. The teachings were to be followed by disciples of Jesus. Yet, Bonhoeffer wasn't advocating political revolution -- he was writing in Nazi Germany. He was advocating a radical discipleship of Christians. Finally, I read Dallas Willard's, "The Divine Conspiracy." Without going into a real review of the book, the basic principles echo Bonhoeffer and Ken Pagaard.

The Sermon in some ways is a reaction to the Jewish Law. It doesn't negate the law, it goes to the heart of the law. It can only be practiced if there is a change of heart. The problem with the law was that it didn't go far enough. Law can regulate behavior. Law can't regulate the human heart. Jesus came to give us new life and transform our hearts. The Sermon on the Mount expands the Law into the realm of a transformed heart. This is an area of life that can never be regulated by political means.

The Church and the World, Part 2

Ken and most of us in leadership at FBCCV looked to the early church as our model. This also seemed to be true for most of the Charismatic Renewal. Since Baptists weren't hooked into any specific liturgy, the spontaneity and liberty of the expressions of the Gifts of the Spirit were seen as signs of authentic worship, in the tradition of the early church. Of course, the liturgical church saw things a little differently, signs of life did not destroy the liturgy. But regardless of our view of liturgical or free, we all looked to the early church, before Constantine.


In this article, Ken discusses the "fall of the church" after Constantine. While the fortunes of the church seemed to improve under Imperial favor, the fervor of the church actually declined. Ken even looked at the creeds, such as the Nicene, with a little jaundice. It isn't necessarily the creed that was bad. It was the fact that the church was beginning to ossify rather than remain malleable under the move of the Spirit. He ends this paragraph with the statement, "It is significant that none of the creeds say anything like 'I believe in living by the Sermon on the Mount.'"


Here again, Ken emphasizes the fact that the church is not to be something used by the government. Whatever your understanding of Constantine and his conversion, Constantine did use the church to forward his political aims. Ken thought that it is important to keep the church free of such use. Separation of Church and State was extremely important. Of course, how this seems now to be interpreted by those in power is another issue. The church is to stand alone. The church is composed of a people committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. They are good citizens. They may be involved even in the governing, but the church stands apart. Therefore the church can speak as a moral source into the life of the government. As we will discuss in the next post, the constitution of the church is the Sermon on the Mount.

The Church and the World, Part 1

This article by Ken Pagaard created quite a stir when uploaded to facebook. The issue was this, was Ken advocating political change or was he advocating personal, heart change. I will be discussing this for this and, at least, one other posting.

The problem was caused by the way Ken wrote the article. It was a good article, but he discussed the fallacy of Political change on page one, then on page two, while discussing the Magnificat, he mentions political revolution. This posting, and the one(s) to follow will be a commentary on this article. Since I was a part of the eldership at this time, I will also try to present some of the ideas on this issue that Ken discussed with us.

The article starts with a prophetic utterance presented by Tom McCulloch which called on the church to be different than the surrounding society. We should live by a different set of standards. This was the basis for Ken stating, "The quality of life in the Kingdom is clearly defined in the Sermon on the Mount, and the Lord seems to be directing our attention to this."
The Sermon on the Mount is seen as the key to Christian living by many down through the years. My favorite theologian is Dietrich Bonhoeffer who in "The Cost of Discipleship" sets out these basic principles. A more modern author is Dallas Willard who wrote a similar work "The Divine Conspiracy."

A key to understand where Ken was coming from in this article is given in paragraph two. "Liberals have tried to legislate the Kingdom into existence, imposing its standards upon unregenerate hearts and social structures." He also discusses those who follow other theological constructs. Ken was not a dispensationalist. He believed that scripture was normative. Of course this included the Sermon on the Mount. It was not for a future period. But, even though it was for today, it was not something that could be legislated. It could only come to those who had regenerated hearts. Ken was primarily looking toward a heart change. Therefore his words were primarily for the church -- not just First Baptist of Chula Vista -- the Church -- worldwide.

Ken believed that what we were learning at FBCCV was normative for Christianity. This included the Charismatic and Community. But this was not enough. Even though we had come a long way, we had to grow into a deeper life ourselves. This would lead to more submission -- which is another point of contention. For Ken, submission always started with submission to the Lord. Submission to one another or to the eldership was always based upon submission to the Lord first of all.

The Elders Chosen; Some Reflections

As I look at the list now, I see how fallible human memory is. I didn't remember that there were 17 elders, I remembered 13. I was almost correct on the senior elders, except that I remembered Lehnis Lyons as being one of them. Actually, Lehnis was one of the first people generally recognized as an elder, but he had already left the church by the time this selection took place. I also didn't remember Tom Scott and Dolan Wolford. How could I forget? Of course I didn't forget them as people; it was just that as I remembered the list, I left them out.

The list of emerging elders is also interesting. The only one that "emerged" was Art Alari. Many of the others really did emerge into other leadership positions. Dan Stolebarger became one of the Heads of Household and later he and I became co-pastors of the church. Mike Shaw is an elder at the church currently. Certainly most of these men have continued to be leaders in the church (not necessarily FBCCV) right up until this time.

Looking at this whole process now, it seems mechanical and even a little trite. But at the time it was anything but mechanical and trite. It was an awesome time, particularly for those of us under consideration. I didn't know that I was the last man selected (see my last post). I was just happy to be a part of this group. The experience of being selected as an elder ranks close to the top of honors that I have received in my whole life. The eldership was far from perfect. Our mistakes grew as time went on. But this was a group that loved God and wanted to serve him with everything that they had. I am very proud to have been a part of the eldership of the First Baptist Church of Chula Vista in the 1970s.

Choosing the Elders; the Process

When I saw this article, it brought back a lot of memories. I have written about this selection process in an earlier post. I was basically correct, but I was a little foggy on some of the details. I also must confess that I thought that this selection had occurred much earlier, before OLT began to publish. I really thought that the selection took place in early 1973, possibly even late 1972. Of course, when I think about my life events, the date of March, 1974 makes more sense.

You could look at this process and say that it really is an election. I wouldn't argue with that. Of course, the elders were elected. But, the people were very serious about this process. There really was prayer and fasting. Most people didn't just "vote" for favorites. They tried to discern the will of God. Did they succeed? That depends upon your point of view. We had some elders fall by the wayside. There were probably some who should have been elders but weren't selected. In my opinion though, the congregation did pretty well.

I don't know whether I have mentioned this before but it always amazes me that I was selected. I wanted to be an elder. I felt that God had called me, but I felt that I was very inferior to those others -- particularly those who became senior elders. Years later, after I became pastor. I was seated at Ken's old desk (no mine) and began to look through the drawers. I found the old tally sheet for this selection. I found out that most of the people felt pretty much the same way about me that I felt about myself. I was selected -- but just barely. When the selectees were listed in order of score -- I was the bottom one selected. I don't disagree with the score. Yet, I find it ironic, that I was the one who ended up as pastor of the church. For those who may not know, I was pastor for 25 years. It pretty much started here.

Choosing an Eldership

I know that I have mentioned this before, but prior to the selection of the elders, we had an open eldership. Anyone who sensed God's call to eldership attended elders meeting. Most of us attending the meeting weren't individually labeled as elders, but the group was identified as the eldership. This was a nervous time for many of us. I didn't know whether I would be selected or not. But I really enjoyed being a part of the group. The meetings were wonderful. There wasn't a lot of business conducted. Mostly we worshipped and prayed! I didn't want to be non selected as an elder because then I would no longer be able to attend the meetings.

Eldership; My Experience

My experiences of eldership and community were generally positive. I have already mentioned that I was affected by some of the unintended consequences of misunderstanding regarding submission, but I don't feel that I was purposely abused in any way.

I particularly loved the fellowship with the other elders. I really felt that I belonged. I had belonged to other groups; the officers aboard a Destroyer, for example, were quite close. But the closeness among the elders was unique. Where did I have to submit in a tangible way? My resignation from the US Navy was one of the biggest decisions in my life. I had served for 15 years (only 20 were needed for retirement), I was a Lieutenant Commander being considered for promotion to Commander,and was told that I had a responsible job in Washington D.C. waiting for me. Why did I want to get out? I sensed God's call. I wanted more out of life. But, I got out in the end because the elders confirmed that decision. I made it -- but I wouldn't have done it without confirmation by the elders. Who made the decision? With the exception of the loss of retirement pay, I have no regrets -- and yes, I loved the Navy -- I like going to sea.

The next big decision was made only by Linda and I. We wanted to move into community. Of course I discussed this with Ken Pagaard and the elders, but Linda and I made the decision. It was the Heads of Household who made the decision of where we were to live. We moved into the Westby House (headed by Ken Pagaard) in Oct. '74 and moved out in June '81. It was a great experience overall. Anyone living in community realizes that some times were better than others. In fact some days were terrible.

Tough decisions in community revolved around financial items. I had some great life insurance through the Military. We were counseled to give this up. I'm not sure that this was the Lord; perhaps I am suffering another unintended consequence. When I resigned my commission from the Navy, I was offered a commission in the Navy Reserve, which I accepted. I could have become a week-end warrior and received retirement pay at age 62. I was not encouraged in this, and my duties at the church didn't allow for the time involvement. I was OK with this, but perhaps this led to another unintended consequence.

Perhaps the biggest financial decision had to do with selling our house. We purchase a new house in 1967. In 1977, the Wolfords were moving to West Virginia. The Heads of Household needed someone to purchase the Third Ave. House. Linda and I sold our home and used some of the proceeds to purchase Third Ave. House and gave the rest to the Community. Later, Third Ave. House was sold and all of the proceeds went to the Community. As far as I know, we were the only ones among the Heads to give away our home.

A side note to the housing problem which relates to another issue to be discussed below is that of corporate responsibility. The Woodends had been living in our house (Nolan Household). When the time came for us to sell, no one was there to make payments. Linda and I were concerned that the bank was going to foreclose and our credit would be tanked. The Heads were generally unconcerned. The house needed to be cleaned up and prepared for sale. The Heads gave me permission to do this. Thank God, enter Speedy (Art) Alari! He made the payments and the people to clean up and prepare the house for sale. Later the same things occurred at the sale of Third Ave. Again, Speedy saved the day! Thank you Art. I have never forgotten your kindness, generosity and encouragement.

As to corporate responsibility, I will just say that when everyone owns something, no one does. Individual responsibility evaporates. I know that when the Pletchers were in Michigan for a year, the house was used by the community. They were not happy when they returned. My only inheritance was a very nice Chevy El Camino and some good tools. My El Camino was trashed and my tools all disappeared. I moved into community with a house and two cars and a good job. I left community with no house, no car and a job that didn't even pay my rent. Oh, I forgot, I also had a gas credit card with over $1000 owing from purchasing gas for the household. Financially, living in community was the stupidest decision I have ever made. Spiritually it was the best decision I have ever made. I learned so much. The relationships formed still continue. Do I regret it? Absolutely not. Were there unintended consequences? Yes, there were.

Eldership; Abuses

The following excerpt from an article from Eternity Magazine in 1979, written by Ronald Enroth, and entitled "The Power Abusers", certainly caused a stir at First Baptist of Chula Vista. If you would like to read the entire article, google Ken Pagard and this is the number one search item. Most of it has nothing to do with us. There are several very interesting parts to the article. The little selection below is excerpted because it is the section that directly attributes abuse in the First Baptist Church of Chula Vista.

"The touchy issues of authority and submission are far from being fully resolved in evangelical circles, however. A well-known charismatic American Baptist church in Chula Vista California , for example, continues in a swirl of controversy over the alleged authoritarianism of its leadership, especially the pastor, Ken Pagard. The church, many of whose members live in communal households, has also been criticized for certain aspects of its "inner healing" ministry. Some ex-members have claimed that spanking of unsubmissive wives was not unknown and that any criticism of the pastor (occasionally referred to as "our apostle") and elders was interpreted as a "spirit of rebellion" and hence, the work of Satan. Many have left the communal lifestyle claiming that heads of households are "on a power trip." One disgruntled former member commented, "They will not let people mature; they want to keep people dependent on the head of the household." Others have left because of the strain on their marriages resulting from group pressures."

I think that the criticism of the Inner Healing ministry is somewhat valid. At its most basic understanding, Inner Healing was the concept that God wants to heal us, not only physically, but also emotionally. He can and will heal those painful memories that continue to hamper our maturity. Originally this involved mainly prayer for the person as they walked through these memories, but later things like re-parenting began to be introduced. These were controversial innovations. They were unproven in effectiveness and they did create a lot of unhealthy dependency. I suppose that this attitude didn't just stay in inner healing -- some felt (probably correctly) that they weren't allowed to mature.

I am aware of no particular incident of spanking "unsubmissive wives". I don't doubt that it occurred , but it certainly wasn't anything taught as a routine matter -- at least I am not aware of it. I also don't believe that Ken or the elders were as sensitive to criticism as the article claims. We were certainly aware that we were criticized. We did label some as having a "rebellious spirit". This could mean that they were just rebels at heart, or it could mean that we thought that they were demonically influenced. As to Ken being an apostle. There were others mentioned in scripture other than the twelve that had an apostolic ministry. Modern writers discuss missionaries and church planters as having an apostolic ministry. I confess that I was uncomfortable with this designation, yet, it is apostle with a small "a" that was meant. Ken was never thought to have the authority of the twelve.

One of the things that I participated in that seems somewhat abusive in hindsight is that of 24 hour ministry. When someone couldn't seem to get over certain behaviors, an elder or other leader was assigned to be with them at all times to ensure proper behavior. I remember being assigned to perform 24 hour ministry with John Lee -- one of the men in our household. One of the humorous incidents was when we visited a non-resident household. I was visiting as one of the elders just to see how they were doing -- a pastoral visit. The people in the household assumed that John was an elder (he wasn't). A women who was having a hard time quitting smoking was asking for counsel and prayer. Before I could say anything, John went off, calling her a sinner on the way to hell. She was weak and deserved all the punishment that God could give her. It was pretty bad. I tried to explain to her that John wasn't an elder, but she left convinced that we elders were pretty mean!

I had the opportunity to talk to Dr. Enroth after this article was written. It was at a seminar on cults here in San Diego (another article needs to be accusations that we were a cult). Since I was in seminary, I was sent by the eldership to engage people who, we thought, mislabeled us. Dr. Enroth and I had a good talk. I didn't persuade him of anything, but I sensed that we both felt that we had a discussion between Christian brothers.

Finally, were we abusive. I think some of the accusations were valid, but this was not our intent. I think that we went to far in trying to carry out what we felt were honorable goals. I was asked whether I would do things differently today. The answer is that, knowing what I know now, absolutely yes. All I can really say is that those were some wonderful times -- yet they were also terrible times. As an elder, I whole heartedly apologize to anyone who was hurt in those days.

Eldership; A Specific Unintended Consequence

I first became aware that something was wrong in my second year of Seminary. We were given a battery of tests for Personality, Emotional and Mental Stability. Yes, I passed, but there was something unusual in my personality test. One of the elements studied was that of trust. Dr. King called me in to discuss the results and he stated his concern about my trust level. He actually said, "Trust is good, but you are so far above the scaled that I can only say that you are gullible." This actually upset me quite a bit. I was trained in the sciences (Zoology major -- a lot of Biochemistry). I had served as a Naval Officer -- most of it in Engineering. I was a "facts" person. I couldn't believe that Professor King said that I was gullible. I coped by deciding that the test was wrong.

The next year I had opportunity to gain a qualification allowing me to purchase and administer the Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (TJTA). This is a test of one's personality in seven different areas. It actually tests how you feel about yourself at the time of taking the test. It can and does change over time (not daily, but over months). I was interested in the test because it is useful in identifying areas needing help in Premarital counseling. One of the seven areas is called the Dominant/Submissive scale. A person is plotted on a percentile scale running from 1 (totally submissive) to 99 (totally dominant). The authors of the test have found that this scale really demonstrates the self-esteem of the person taking the test. I have given the test well over a hundred times. I have had people score all over the place. However, when I gave the test to people in the Ministering Community -- in the early 80's (including myself), the scores were extremely low. Certainly most were in the lower 25 percentile, many well below. The authors state that real health was shown in those well above the 50th percentile. Wow, were all of us in community of such a low opinion of ourselves?

After much thought, I don't think that these low scores had anything to do with our self-esteem. It had to do with how we understood the questions in this area of the test. For example (this is not an actual question -- but they were like this), there were two statements and the taker of the test must choose which one fits his/her personality:

• In most situations I prefer to make the decisions
• In most situations I prefer to follow another's direction

We were "programmed" to submit rather than take charge. This caused us to see the best alternative always to be in the submissive place. Of course this is not what the test was looking for. We always looked like we had poor self-esteem. But the real issue was our valuing the submissive position rather than the dominant position.

All of this could be purely academic except for the fact that all of us are required in life situations to take charge at some time. We really can't go through life in a purely submissive position. Of course many people in the world live just that way, but we usually call their position oppressive. Were we oppressed. I don't think so. But, our view of how life was to be lived seemed to have been skewed because our teaching in this area. By the way, I didn't really mention it, but the issue of my "gullibility" was very similar to the TJTA results.