Rev Keith Clark

[n david]

Originally Posted by returnman

That's because of his radical legacy I guess. It comes and goes with the territory and doesn't die when we do.

It's one thing to be at odds with someone when they're alive or have passed some time ago. It's something else to be lobbing insults at someone who's barely in the ground with family and friends still grieving.

I get that legacies never die and those who are passed are still the subject of debate over their beliefs. But it's way too soon. At least let a little time pass for family to mourn.

I'm not saying there should be a ban on debate of Rev. Clark's legacy ... just a bit of Christian decency while his family and friends mourn their loss.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by returnman

That's because of his radical legacy I guess. It comes and goes with the territory and doesn't die when we do.

Radical is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by n david

It's one thing to be at odds with someone when they're alive or have passed some time ago. It's something else to be lobbing insults at someone who's barely in the ground with family and friends still grieving.

I get that legacies never die and those who are passed are still the subject of debate over their beliefs. But it's way too soon. At least let a little time pass for family to mourn.

I'm not saying there should be a ban on debate of Rev. Clark's legacy ... just a bit of Christian decency while his family and friends mourn their loss.

I agree this thread should not turn into one criticizing the deceased.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by CC1

I agree this thread should not turn into one criticizing the deceased.

I watched one of his sermons online.

Can a person be sensitive to the Holy Spirit and operate in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit WITHOUT having other views and beliefs that many would find to be erroneous?

Or, will being so sensitive to the Holy Spirit and being used to operate in the Gifts of the Holy necessitate that one has the mindset that will lead that person to have views and beliefs that many will find erroneous?


I often wonder about people like Billy Cole, William Seymour, Smith Wigglesworth, John Wesley-- how were they received among their contemporaries? How were they received among the people in their circles who were believers but not a part of leadership? How were they perceived by the lost?

Did these questions ever matter to them?

What ended their influential ministries-- earthly death? Sin? The vanishing back into the masses they were one time called out from in order to be used in a spectacular way? Every day life? The Will of God and His specific Timing?

Where or what are the remnants of their earthly ministries? What was or is their legacies?

[returnman]

Originally Posted by n david

It's one thing to be at odds with someone when they're alive or have passed some time ago. It's something else to be lobbing insults at someone who's barely in the ground with family and friends still grieving.

I get that legacies never die and those who are passed are still the subject of debate over their beliefs. But it's way too soon. At least let a little time pass for family to mourn.

I'm not saying there should be a ban on debate of Rev. Clark's legacy ... just a bit of Christian decency while his family and friends mourn their loss.

I absolutely meant no disrespect to him nor his family and apologize. He no doubt preached what he believed to be necessary for the times based on his convictions. Just by coincidence, several years ago on a flight I sat next to the brother of a man of the same persuasion as bro. Clark. Very well known in the conservative ranks. He talked about what a radical nut his brother was the whole flight.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by returnman

I absolutely meant no disrespect to him nor his family and apologize. He no doubt preached what he believed to be necessary for the times based on his convictions. Just by coincidence, several years ago on a flight I sat next to the brother of a man of the same persuasion as bro. Clark. Very well known in the conservative ranks. He talked about what a radical nut his brother was the whole flight.

Wow.
Do you realize how the above sounds?
You apologize and then slam him again in the same paragraph.
You should have ended after the first two sentences.

[n david]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

Wow.
Do you realize how the above sounds?
You apologize and then slam him again in the same paragraph.
You should have ended after the first two sentences.

"I sat next to the brother of a man of the same persuasion as bro. Clark."
"He talked about what a radical nut his brother was the whole flight."

I don't believe he was referring to Bro. Clark.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

"I sat next to the brother of a man of the same persuasion as bro. Clark."
"He talked about what a radical nut his brother was the whole flight."

I don't believe he was referring to Bro. Clark.

No, but by proxy, Returnman insulted Bro. Clark.

Returnman, we have to keep ourselves in check. I don't think you are a rude person in real life.

But why, on an Apostolic Forum, on a thread dedicated to the announcement of the passing of an Apostolic preacher, would any of us bash a recently deceased and rather known Apostolic preacher BY NAME and why would any of us bash his beliefs that he held very dearly on this SPECIFIC thread?

Former poster Dan Alicea accused the "ultra cons" of eating their own. That should not be "named among us" as professing Christians.

Comparing him to a "radical nut" is still insulting, given the CONTEXT of this SPECIFIC thread about his recent death.

Bro. Clark deserves much more respect than this-- and you would hope that people would be respectful of you, your family, and your loved ones at the time of your eventual death if Jesus Christ does not return before hand.


This is not the first time something like this has happened here on AFF, but it should be the last.

It reflects poorly on the Christians we say we are to continue to do this.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Whatever my thoughts are about the "ultra cons" of the Apostolic movement or their beliefs, it wouldn't be classy to publically berate them or their beliefs on a thread dedicated to the announcement of one of their deaths.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

No, but by proxy, Returnman insulted Bro. Clark.

Returnman, we have to keep ourselves in check. I don't think you are a rude person in real life.

But why, on an Apostolic Forum, on a thread dedicated to the announcement of the passing of an Apostolic preacher, would any of us bash a recently deceased and rather known Apostolic preacher BY NAME and why would any of us bash his beliefs that he held very dearly on this SPECIFIC thread?

Former poster Dan Alicea accused the "ultra cons" of eating their own. That should not be "named among us" as professing Christians.

Comparing him to a "radical nut" is still insulting, given the CONTEXT of this SPECIFIC thread about his recent death.

Bro. Clark deserves much more respect than this-- and you would hope that people would be respectful of you, your family, and your loved ones at the time of your eventual death if Jesus Christ does not return before hand.


This is not the first time something like this has happened here on AFF, but it should be the last.

It reflects poorly on the Christians we say we are to continue to do this.