Back with some new perspective

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

And ILG, I am happy to clarify (or just provide more material for misinterpretation, as the case may be). Thank you for your gracious welcome back. I am certainly not deserving of it as I was a terror sometimes in the past.

No problem at all, Roxanne. Most of us who have left are also recovering Pharisees and would hold no angst.

[n david]

The Response - Part I

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

n.david, I must say, from what you have posted so far on this thread, you seem to exhibit the less desirable character traits of some (thankfully not all) preachers' kids I have known during my years in the UPC: rude, sarcastic, and and substandard reading and comprehension skills compensated for by insinuation and false accusation. But please, continue with your comments: I have some well deserved reaping to do from my former days on this forum, and you need to continue to exercise the skills you developed as a UPC PK: slandering, bearing false witness, and condemning others from the safety of your privileged position as the pastor's kid.
Every good story needs a peanut gallery; thank you for volunteering!

Rude. Sarcastic. "And And" (twice, really?) Substandard reading and comprehension skills. Insinuation. False accusation. Slandering. Bearing false witness. Condemning others.

That's a list! Of course, it's mostly complete balderdash. If you read my posts you'll find out I do frequently use sarcasm; and you're right, my post did seem a bit condemning. However, you needn't fear; my reading and comprehension skills are fine. I wasn't slandering, bearing false witness, falsely accusing, nor did I mean to be rude in my response to you.

Actually, it's ironic that you make a point of "rude," "sarcastic," and the lot all the while doing the very thing of which you're accusing me! The whole post above could be seen as sarcastic, rude, insinuating, false accusation, and so on...

Every story needs a victim. This is typical of people who post their revelations and then when something is questioned, they immediately resort to playing the victim. You stated from the beginning your intention was to "shake things up." You don't get to play the victim here. You knew very well there may be some who questioned things you wrote. Speaking of which, let's revisit a couple things you wrote, since you're accusing me of false accusation, slandering and bearing false witness.

I'm not the only one who questioned the timeline of the Pastor's revelation.

Originally Posted by Luke

Why did your family (you and your husband) and our pastor wait to ask these questions until there were new people attending your church?

Luke asked the question better than I. Whereas I tend to resort to sarcasm, he kept it straight and just asked the simple question. I'm wondering, are his reading and comprehension skills substandard as well, or could it be that he and I perfectly read and understood what you wrote, and you just don't like the question? Because here's what you wrote, copied and pasted straight from you posts:

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

My pastor, his wife, my husband, myself, our youth pastor and his wife were all finding ourselves asking: how do we truly and effectively communicate the gospel to our area? How do we reach people? Evangelizing ourselves is not fulfilling the Great Commission!
Then, people from the daughter work who came to visit our main Sunday services began to ask our pastor: why do the ladies in your church only wear dressed? Why do they not wear jewelry or use make up? Why do they not cut their hair? So my pastor set out to prepare good, sound, scriptural reasons to explain why our ladies looked as they did. He realized that he would be presenting these teachings to honest, well educated people who were seeing the Word of God through eyes and hearts not previously influenced by the 'holiness' culture that our church had, compliments of the denomination to which we belonged. He soon realized that he could not honestly make the scriptures say that these things were sinful.

In your first post above, the timeline is: "How do we effectively communicate the Gospel to our area?" "...people from the daughter work...began to ask our Pastor..." "So my Pastor set out to prepare good, sound, scriptural reasons to explain why our ladies looked as they did."

My response to that was this:

Originally Posted by n david

Your Pastor was good with standards until "well educated people" show up, then changes it because he suddenly had a revelation that it's not the truth? Ok

1) How long has your Pastor been a Pastor? 2) It took these "well educated people" to finally get your Pastor to study this himself and find out he didn't believe what he'd been preaching for however long he's been preaching?!?

Now, I understand you may take offense to the questions I posed, especially since it's your Pastor. But they're valid questions, regardless. Personal feelings aside, the way you wrote the narrative makes it appear your Pastor had been Pastoring however long he had been, then when well educated people showed up, he finally decided to look into it himself.

[n david]

The Response - Part II (Cue the cheesy inspirational music!)

Your later clarification in response to Luke actually contradicted what you wrote in your first post. Remember the timeline you wrote above, and then look at the clarification.

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

And at the same time, separately from the church outreach focus, my pastor was also doing a lot of personal study about just how Biblical these 'holiness standards' were; research beyond David Bernard's "In Search of Holiness" into church history, original Greek texts, etc.

I'm sorry. The clarification muddied the waters more because of this contradiction. Or perhaps you made mistake in writing your first post. First, you wrote people came, and then Pastor studied. Here you change the narrative that really changes the story: Pastor was already, separately, studying standards.

It's not that Luke or I have poor reading or comprehension skills, it's that you posted one thing, then changed it after the questions were asked.

So which story was it? It's one thing for a Pastor to be studying the Bible on his own and change his beliefs; it's a completely different thing for a Pastor to have people start asking questions before studying the issue himself.

Originally Posted by Roxanne Murphy

I also find the snide comments about money rather telling, because these very rumors have been circulated about my pastor and about our church by 'ministering brethren' who never once actually called to ask what was really going on.

Where there's smoke, there's typically.... Just saying.

[n david]

Originally Posted by ILG

I take it the insinuation must be that he had ulterior motives, such as wanting a larger congregation, and that is why he changed his views.

I wouldn't say he wanted a larger congregation, but he didn't want to lose the one's who had been coming. Like it or not, it is what it is. It's happened many times before, and continues to happen all the time.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by n david

I wouldn't say he wanted a larger congregation, but he didn't want to lose the one's who had been coming. Like it or not, it is what it is. It's happened many times before, and continues to happen all the time.

But what you assume is his motive, may not be his motive at all.

[n david]

Originally Posted by ILG

But what you assume is his motive, may not be his motive at all.

As it was written, before the questions made the story change, I was not the only one to notice the timeline and question the motive. When someone writes that a Pastor started studying after well educated people started asking questions...well, it causes questions about motive. Again, it is what it is.

And I'll be the first to admit, I could be wrong. It could be that she was wrong with the narrative from the beginning. I don't question the result. I'm just sad that from the narrative written, the Pastor had not taken time to study one of the most important issues of the organization with which he was licensed until after well educated people started asking questions about it.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by n david

As it was written, before the questions made the story change, I was not the only one to notice the timeline and question the motive. When someone writes that a Pastor started studying after well educated people started asking questions...well, it causes questions about motive. Again, it is what it is.

And I'll be the first to admit, I could be wrong. It could be that she was wrong with the narrative from the beginning. I don't question the result. I'm just sad that from the narrative written, the Pastor had not taken time to study one of the most important issues of the organization with which he was licensed until after well educated people started asking questions about it.

I'm just saying that it's kind of sad that his motive is questioned right off. Of course, it is expected when someone changes course, but sad nonetheless.

[n david]

Originally Posted by ILG

I'm just saying that it's kind of sad that his motive is questioned right off. Of course, it is expected when someone changes course, but sad nonetheless.

It wouldn't have been questioned if not written the way it was, before the story changed with the clarification.

Also, Pastor's motives are ALWAYS questioned around here, anyone here longer than a couple months have seen the threads about Pastors. It's nothing new. Ironically, I'm usually the one defending Pastors.

[hometown guy]

Originally Posted by n david

It wouldn't have been questioned if not written the way it was, before the story changed with the clarification.

Also, Pastor's motives are ALWAYS questioned around here, anyone here longer than a couple months have seen the threads about Pastors. It's nothing new. Ironically, I'm usually the one defending Pastors.

Lol.. I think the rule around here is that You are only allowed to question the motives of the conservative pastors...

[n david]

Originally Posted by hometown guy

Lol.. I think the rule around here is that You are only allowed to question the motives of the conservative pastors...

Right!