View Full Version : Mooney Guns for "Secret" Meeting in Detroit?
Paul Harvey
07-07-2009, 06:59 PM
Assistant General Superintendent, Paul D Mooney (IN), last night, at the Mississippi Camp meeting(most notably known for Greg Godwin and Borat) has seemingly railed- as perceived by some of his ministerial peers who have heard this message - against the recent invitation-only ministerial fellowship meeting that took place several weeks ago in Pontiac (Detroit) Michigan asking "who holds secret meetings?"
Mooney who recently headed a committee appointed by General Superintendent Kenneth Haney called the Committee For Inquiry of the Emerging took a page from the committee's recommendation to "affirm the Apostolic doctrine and Biblical holiness positions in campmeeting and conferences throughout the UPCI" in his sermon entitled "Intentional Confrontation".
This message is hailed by some already for its aggressive defense and/or offense for "the message".
What is unclear from the tone of this message is if Mooney is in step with another committee recommendation which states: "Establish a caring atmosphere within the UPCI in which individual Pastors are encouraged to maintain Apostolic doctrine."
Mooney alludes to the actions of some brethren as "cunning","conniving", "crafting" and that God is testing the Church in these last days with "dreamers" and "false prophets".
This on the heels of his recent Twitter post the day before the Detroit meeting in which he stated: "Good things, honest things, meaningful things, positive things, pure things, ethical things, are never done in secret ..."
Last night's preaching can be accessed here. Listen attentively towards the end of his message:
http://web.me.com/scottaphillips/Site_2/FullProof_Podcast/Entries/2009/7/7_Intentional_Confrontation.html
Other notable quotes towards the end of this message include:
Pentecost is at a place where you will have to have "intentional confrontation" with their children.
He refers to "people" (in this case, sons of ministers) who take churches and "destroy them" - "thieves".
"Either you stand for this or confess you are liar all your life."
To learn more about Mooney's involvement in heading the "Emerging" Committee, click here:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24736
RevDWW
07-07-2009, 08:53 PM
This on the heels of his recent Twitter post the day before the Detroit meeting in which he stated: "Good things, honest things, meaningful things, positive things, pure things, ethical things, are never done in secret ..."
[
"Never" is not a word to use lightly:
Mat 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
Mat 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Mat 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Mat 6:14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
Mat 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Mat 6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;
Mat 6:18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.
Parkbench
07-07-2009, 08:53 PM
Doesn't sound like God is going to tell Mooney to grow a beard.
oletime
07-07-2009, 09:08 PM
bro mooney is one of the finest most sincere men you will ever find, he is way above reproach without question imo
OnTheFritz
07-07-2009, 09:13 PM
http://twitter.com/pauldmooney
RevDWW
07-07-2009, 09:13 PM
bro mooney is one of the finest most sincere men you will ever find, he is way above reproach without question imo
He is an exceptional preacher!
Hoovie
07-07-2009, 09:26 PM
He is an exceptional preacher!
I have generally enjoyed hearing him.
Paul Harvey
07-07-2009, 09:27 PM
In linking the Emerging Church movement to the new generation of believers, even within the Apostolic church movement, Mooney speaks against those who say the Holy Ghost and water baptism is not necessary. He says of those drifting that Pentecost must come to the point to, and be prepared to, "cut it's losses".
He also links the loss of holiness and righteousness to the "dumbing down of America", and the inability to grasp "big ideas", and demonic activity.
Mooney states that one cannot go to sleep with "snakes in the house". He proclaims that false prophets "are among us."
He asks "Who are these "progressive" theologians who are wanting to lead us away from Pentecost? ... I'm not going with you!"
Paul Harvey
07-07-2009, 09:41 PM
http://twitter.com/pauldmooney
When one takes the Mooney quote on the June 17th on Twitter
"Good things, honest things, meaningful things, positive things, pure things, ethical things, are never done in secret or in corners"
and his suggestion last night with his statement that the "Apostles never operated in corners" and the argument that "false prophets" will try to entice you secretly, it seems very plain to some that he seeks to paint this meeting as some clandestine demonically influenced conspiracy to overturn Pentecost and "the message".
This would appear to be very inflammatory and contentious to some considering that the lineup of the invitation only meeting in Detroit consisted of TF Tenney, Rex Johnson, and others.
One minister on a ministerial forum stated that he spoke to Mooney after this sermon and it was clear to him based on this discussion that Mooney had this meeting in his cross hairs.
Papabear
07-07-2009, 10:31 PM
I am Scott Phillips. I posted the message linked here on this page.
I can speak from a man under 40, Minister in the UPC, he spoke to the issues and mirrored my feelings precisely.
If you don't like the UPC, Acts 2:38, Holiness Lifestyle, just leave.
And if these cool brilliant talents boys who have one claim to fame and that being nepotism, why take a church who was built on this foundation... and STEAL IT because daddy don't have the guts to tell you no...
And go prove your method's on their merits, rather than piggy backing your doctrine and leading good people into darkness.
Mooney is a Good Man of God who is standing against this evil, dark, deceptive spirit of compromise.
The difference between Satans' Words to Eve and God's were three letters, one small word.....
NOT
And that little twist stole paradise and damned humanity to hell. Trying to use a philosophical approach to spiritual, biblical matters demonstrates the father of the doctrines born of such.
If your interested in my personal thought process, you can read my blog... I have been quite fervently dealing with these issues over the past few months.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.com
oletime
07-08-2009, 05:29 AM
If the meeting did include tft and rj then it is becoming clear what we are talking about, you can call them progressive thinkers or consensus builders. I choose to call them compromisers, IMO, great speakers, orators, whatever . If they want to do this, then start their own org. dont corrupt the one youre in.
GraceAmazing
07-08-2009, 07:12 AM
I, personally, am not surprised by Mooney's message. If you remember, he had the Steadfast conference at his church...that conference was all about holiness and keeping the Apostolic message.
However, I do not think that a campmeeting was the place for this...what about the people who came to be uplifted and encouraged by the Word of God???? I would have left depressed and felt like I had just been railed at! No thank you, I left that stuff a long time ago!!!
Michael Phelps
07-08-2009, 07:30 AM
In linking the Emerging Church movement to the new generation of believers, even within the Apostolic church movement, Mooney speaks against those who say the Holy Ghost and water baptism is not necessary. He says of those drifting that Pentecost must come to the point to, and be prepared to, "cut it's losses".
He also links the loss of holiness and righteousness to the "dumbing down of America", and the inability to grasp "big ideas", and demonic activity.
Mooney states that one cannot go to sleep with "snakes in the house". He proclaims that false prophets "are among us."
He asks "Who are these "progressive" theologians who are wanting to lead us away from Pentecost? ... I'm not going with you!"
Does anyone know that the attendees of this "secret" meeting (Which apparently is not so secret anymore) are actually denying the necessity of the Holy Ghost and water baptism?
In fact, does anyone, including Bro. Mooney (A man that I highly respect, by the way) know for a fact what was discussed at this secret meeting? Was anyone involved in the bashing of these men actually at the meeting?
I have no skin in this game, since I left the UPC years ago, but it seems that there is a monumental amount of "conclusion jumping" going on here.
From what I see, it's assumed that these "daddy's boys" are going to deny Acts 2:38, lead their churches down the path of unrighteousness, pull the churches out of the organization, and even possibly become serial killers.
Not sure that's what's happening at all.
tstew
07-08-2009, 07:33 AM
I, personally, am not surprised by Mooney's message. If you remember, he had the Steadfast conference at his church...that conference was all about holiness and keeping the Apostolic message.
However, I do not think that a campmeeting was the place for this...what about the people who came to be uplifted and encouraged by the Word of God???? I would have left depressed and felt like I had just been railed at! No thank you, I left that stuff a long time ago!!!
Grace, I know what you're saying. However, often whenever I hear people talking about being upset because they really just wanted to be uplifted and encouraged and not feel railed at, it sometimes makes me think of 2 Tim:
3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
4:
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
I do not know you well enough to even begin to accuse you of this personally, and I do recognize that we must be careful in how we apply and preach the Word. However, at the end of the day, the Bible is very clear that it is to be used in ways that often include rebuke and chastisement. That goes against what we want sometimes, and certainly flies in the face of where the church is headed, but I just get nervous whenever I hear people getting upset because all they wanted was uplifting messages and did not want rebuke or correction.
Again, I' not accusing you in particular, this post just kind of touched on what I hear a lot these days.
Michael Phelps
07-08-2009, 07:39 AM
Grace, I know what you're saying. However, often whenever I hear people talking about being upset because they really just wanted to be uplifted and encouraged and not feel railed at, it sometimes makes me think of 2 Tim:
3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
4:
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
I do not know you well enough to even begin to accuse you of this personally, and I do recognize that we must be careful in how we apply and preach the Word. However, at the end of the day, the Bible is very clear that it is to be used in ways that often include rebuke and chastisement. That goes against what we want sometimes, and certainly flies in the face of where the church is headed, but I just get nervous whenever I hear people getting upset because all they wanted was uplifting messages and did not want rebuke or correction.
Again, I' not accusing you in particular, this post just kind of touched on what I hear a lot these days.
I would have to agree with GA on this one, TS.
Reason being - a collective meeting of folks from different churches, with different idiosyncracies is not the place to be preaching your gripes, as it were.
I would daresay that most of the people in that meeting had NO idea there was a secret meeting, and probably didn't even care.
In my humble opinion, a camp meeting is not the place to preach standards, personal convictions, or personal vendettas. It's a place to go for encouragement, uplifting, and general reinforcement of one's faith.
There's a WHOLE lot of Bible one can preach and be anointed, and the standards should be preached by individual pastors in their respective churches, and the railing against a group of men who are "going charismatic" should be reserved for the boardroom.
Again, in my humble opinion......
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 07:52 AM
Grace, I know what you're saying. However, often whenever I hear people talking about being upset because they really just wanted to be uplifted and encouraged and not feel railed at, it sometimes makes me think of 2 Tim:
3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
4:
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
I do not know you well enough to even begin to accuse you of this personally, and I do recognize that we must be careful in how we apply and preach the Word. However, at the end of the day, the Bible is very clear that it is to be used in ways that often include rebuke and chastisement. That goes against what we want sometimes, and certainly flies in the face of where the church is headed, but I just get nervous whenever I hear people getting upset because all they wanted was uplifting messages and did not want rebuke or correction.
Again, I' not accusing you in particular, this post just kind of touched on what I hear a lot these days.
Don't you think these verses apply to actual sin? Adultery, fornication, stealing, cheating, lying, etc? Paul dealt with churches that were putting up with adultery and fornication and doing nothing about it.
Too often our pulpits are used as places for men to air their personal opinions and grievances. If someone had brought a sinner to this meeting, hoping to introduce them to Jesus, do they need to hear about the in-squabbling of an organization? That might have been the only opportunity some people ever had to be introduced to a Pentecostal church. Hopefully they got a good impression.
I agree that campmeetings are not the place for this.
tstew
07-08-2009, 07:52 AM
I would have to agree with GA on this one, TS.
Reason being - a collective meeting of folks from different churches, with different idiosyncracies is not the place to be preaching your gripes, as it were.
I would daresay that most of the people in that meeting had NO idea there was a secret meeting, and probably didn't even care.
In my humble opinion, a camp meeting is not the place to preach standards, personal convictions, or personal vendettas. It's a place to go for encouragement, uplifting, and general reinforcement of one's faith.
There's a WHOLE lot of Bible one can preach and be anointed, and the standards should be preached by individual pastors in their respective churches, and the railing against a group of men who are "going charismatic" should be reserved for the boardroom.
Again, in my humble opinion......
MP, I understand some of what's being said here. I was trying to discuss this in a broader sense than the specific example given here. I was not there, nor have I heard what all was said. Perhaps I should not have responded in this particular thread.
However, I do strongly feel that in a general sense, we do run the risk of forgetting what 2 Tim says the Bible was intended for in Chapter 3...and what it will be used for in Chapter 4.
I do not know that personal gripes and vendettas were preached. I never want to hear that at a campmeeting or anywhere else for that matter.
What I do have a problem with is the notion that we should be telling men of God what "type" of message to preach at a given place. I much rather men of God have the freedom to preach what God laid on their hearts and what was borne out of prayer and fasting and sudying. If it should correct and reprove me as opposed to making me feel good, there is certainly a chance that that may be what is needed. It certainly would not be unBiblical.
tstew
07-08-2009, 07:55 AM
Don't you think these verses apply to actual sin? Adultery, fornication, stealing, cheating, lying, etc? Paul dealt with churches that were putting up with adultery and fornication and doing nothing about it.
Too often our pulpits are used as places for men to air their personal opinions and grievances. If someone had brought a sinner to this meeting, hoping to introduce them to Jesus, do they need to hear about the in-squabbling of an organization? That might have been the only opportunity some people ever had to be introduced to a Pentecostal church. Hopefully they got a good impression.
I agree that campmeetings are not the place for this.
Again, I go back to the idea that I am making a general statement here. I have never been a proponent of in-squabbling over the pulpit. However, I am also not of the opinion that the purpose of preaching is to always make everybody feel good and to leave good impressions. It just worries me that that is where we are headed.
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 08:01 AM
Again, I go back to the idea that I am making a general statement here. I have never been a proponent of in-squabbling over the pulpit. However, I am also not of the opinion that the purpose of preaching is to always make everybody feel good and to leave good impressions. It just worries me that that is where we are headed.
I agree with you there, completely. Sin must always be preached against (true sin, not opinions :) ). Our society, including the Christian world, is getting much too tolerant of fornication, perversion, and not insisting that Christians live an honest and upright life. This must always be preached, and reproof will come into it when people begin living their lives in this way.
I think the 'itching ears' he refers to applies to people who no longer want to hear true sin preached against. "If my daughter wants to move in with her boyfriend, it's nobody's business." That type of attitude.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 08:05 AM
I am Scott Phillips. I posted the message linked here on this page.
I can speak from a man under 40, Minister in the UPC, he spoke to the issues and mirrored my feelings precisely.
If you don't like the UPC, Acts 2:38, Holiness Lifestyle, just leave.
And if these cool brilliant talents boys who have one claim to fame and that being nepotism, why take a church who was built on this foundation... and STEAL IT because daddy don't have the guts to tell you no...
And go prove your method's on their merits, rather than piggy backing your doctrine and leading good people into darkness.
Mooney is a Good Man of God who is standing against this evil, dark, deceptive spirit of compromise.
The difference between Satans' Words to Eve and God's were three letters, one small word.....
NOT
And that little twist stole paradise and damned humanity to hell. Trying to use a philosophical approach to spiritual, biblical matters demonstrates the father of the doctrines born of such.
If your interested in my personal thought process, you can read my blog... I have been quite fervently dealing with these issues over the past few months.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.comI understand the bolded statement, but always hate to see it too.
From what I understand these men do like the UPC and they do preach Acts 2:38 and a holiness lifestyle, so why do they need to leave?
n david
07-08-2009, 08:09 AM
I agree with both sides ...
Ministers shouldn't be forced into a certain subject box where they can't preach certain things, even a word of rebuke.
However, I also agree that family conferences or campmeetings are no place for ministers to get on a soapbox and air dirty laundry.
IF PM's words were meant for the Detroit meeting, then I'm disappointed. Not only was he not present to know what was discussed, but to just blindly blast away with a shotgun at a campmeeting where the majority probably didn't even know there was a "secret meeting" is simply wrong.
Imagine being at the campmeeting, looking forward to hearing a message from God ... the UPC's already been split with the tv issue, and you may still be tender from that - possibly losing friends, etc ... and now the minister gets up and starts dropping bombs about some secret meeting and false prophets, etc.
Even better, imagine knowing about it, knowing that TFT and RJ were in attendence, then have PM come along to desparage these men who you've had a high opinion of in the past ... now what do you think? They've been labled false prophets ...
Bad judgement from PM, imo. It's one thing to speak against something you know of personally ... but to just shoot blind without knowing what was said/done there shows terrible judgement.
Just another reason I'm glad to be away from the UPC. Tired of officials and ministers using the pulpit as a louisville slugger against those they don't agree with.
tstew
07-08-2009, 08:12 AM
I agree with you there, completely. Sin must always be preached against (true sin, not opinions :) ). Our society, including the Christian world, is getting much too tolerant of fornication, perversion, and not insisting that Christians live an honest and upright life. This must always be preached, and reproof will come into it when people begin living their lives in this way.
I think the 'itching ears' he refers to applies to people who no longer want to hear true sin preached against. "If my daughter wants to move in with her boyfriend, it's nobody's business." That type of attitude.
Again, I'm not sure if I should have responded in this particular thread; however, let me also say that I have a tremendous amount of respect for Bro. Mooney as well.
I'm just saying that I think we need to reexamine how we feel about preaching that we don't feel like is palatable. There are some pretty strong examples of things said in the Bible that may possibly rub people the wrong way.
We have Biblical examples of what the Apostles did when they felt false teachers came up among them. Paul singled them out by name.
1Timothy 1:18 – 20. This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may fight the good fight, keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered over to Satan, so that they may be taught not to blaspheme.
In Titus 1, the duties of an elder include:
He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
Michael Phelps
07-08-2009, 08:21 AM
MP, I understand some of what's being said here. I was trying to discuss this in a broader sense than the specific example given here. I was not there, nor have I heard what all was said. Perhaps I should not have responded in this particular thread.
However, I do strongly feel that in a general sense, we do run the risk of forgetting what 2 Tim says the Bible was intended for in Chapter 3...and what it will be used for in Chapter 4.
I do not know that personal gripes and vendettas were preached. I never want to hear that at a campmeeting or anywhere else for that matter.
What I do have a problem with is the notion that we should be telling men of God what "type" of message to preach at a given place. I much rather men of God have the freedom to preach what God laid on their hearts and what was borne out of prayer and fasting and sudying. If it should correct and reprove me as opposed to making me feel good, there is certainly a chance that that may be what is needed. It certainly would not be unBiblical.
I should have specified a bit more, was trying to listen in on a conference call while I typed, lol.
I completely agree that any preaching against sin should always be unfettered at any gathering, whether a local assembly, or a corporate gathering.
My comments were directed toward the voicing of personal vendettas or disagreement with the direction the organization may or may not be going.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 08:24 AM
Mooney was well within in his bounds to say what he did and it wasn't overboard. This is all of our church, and if he thinks this is false doctrine, then he had every liberty to say what he did.
However, I would remind Mooney that some pretty honest and noble things have happened in secret, and that often times it's more appropriate for leaders to be able to communicate about something in secret, before slopping it openly in public. Keeps things above reproach.
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 08:25 AM
As if the UPC isn't already fighting an uphill battle with their unorthodox doctrine they have to make things worse by consistently bashing each other.
The reason for the "secret" meeting should be obvious. The UPC does not allow open debate or discussion about their "identifying" doctrines. The young generation coming up has the Internet and every resource at their fingertips. Keeping folks ignorant just doesn't work anymore. The problem is that once you get people to start thinking for themselves God starts to control people's lives instead of the Priest.
Kim Komando
07-08-2009, 08:26 AM
I am Scott Phillips. I posted the message linked here on this page.
I can speak from a man under 40, Minister in the UPC, he spoke to the issues and mirrored my feelings precisely.
If you don't like the UPC, Acts 2:38, Holiness Lifestyle, just leave.
And if these cool brilliant talents boys who have one claim to fame and that being nepotism, why take a church who was built on this foundation... and STEAL IT because daddy don't have the guts to tell you no...
And go prove your method's on their merits, rather than piggy backing your doctrine and leading good people into darkness.
Mooney is a Good Man of God who is standing against this evil, dark, deceptive spirit of compromise.
The difference between Satans' Words to Eve and God's were three letters, one small word.....
NOT
And that little twist stole paradise and damned humanity to hell. Trying to use a philosophical approach to spiritual, biblical matters demonstrates the father of the doctrines born of such.
If your interested in my personal thought process, you can read my blog... I have been quite fervently dealing with these issues over the past few months.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.com
The denigration of these men continues by their peers, in my opinion.
They insist to call a meeting, by invite only, (which is common place) "secret". Using scripture to malign it and cast aspersions to equate the word "secret" with darkness, lies, false doctrine, and inspired by the devil, etc.
Now the tact as we read from Rev. Phillips, and somewhat from PM, is to claim the this group did not achieve successes in their ministry on their own merits but on the coattails of their daddys.
Truth be told, many of these men who attended are first generation Pentecostals. Many of them started as home missionaries or have started their works from the ground up. While a handful, of course, have inherited churches from their family, just like many throughout the UPC.
The charge that they have stolen churches from their fathers to destroy them is an egregious one. I can think of one pastor that these "defenders of the faith" may be targeting with this type of rhetoric but the broad brushing is insincere, inaccurate and inflammatory.
What's the deal with calling his peers "cool, brilliant boys"?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 08:26 AM
I should have specified a bit more, was trying to listen in on a conference call while I typed, lol.
I completely agree that any preaching against sin should always be unfettered at any gathering, whether a local assembly, or a corporate gathering.
My comments were directed toward the voicing of personal vendettas or disagreement with the direction the organization may or may not be going.
If that direction is more specific, and has to do with meetings that he feels and senses (and God knows what else he knows about the meeting) are leading the church astray, why would he not say something. There was more in the NT about keeping doctrine, rebuking false doctrine, etc... than there was rebuking sinners or sin.
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 08:41 AM
Mooney was well within in his bounds to say what he did and it wasn't overboard. This is all of our church, and if he thinks this is false doctrine, then he had every liberty to say what he did.
However, I would remind Mooney that some pretty honest and noble things have happened in secret, and that often times it's more appropriate for leaders to be able to communicate about something in secret, before slopping it openly in public. Keeps things above reproach.
Remember that Mooney is using this as a fear technique to keep the people of Mississippi scared of anything new. This is par for the course around here. By talking about secret meetings and possible false doctrine and snakes and whatnot you get all the little old ladies in Mississippi all fired up and headed back to their churches to enforce the doctrine on the young folks and make sure the pastor keeps the church in line.
I have a friend who is church of God (believe me the church of God has their own share of Pentecostal craziness going on) who went to one of the night services during the Mississippi youth camp and was completely horrified. From his descriptions they basically scared the little kids to death with talk of backsliding and sin and drugs and body tattoos and how one little sin could be all it takes to send you to hell (we are talking 8 year olds) till they all went screaming down to the altar to get the Holy Ghost. He said folks were everywhere praying with little kids trying to get them to speak in tongues and of course they were crying with all their heart because they wanted to be saved. I don't know if other state's youth camps are like this but I went to youth camp when I was a kid and it was about the same.
MomOfADramaQn
07-08-2009, 08:43 AM
All the preachers and these organizations are beginning to seem like a bunch of 5 year olds on a playground.
Kim Komando
07-08-2009, 08:46 AM
Papabear,
By slamming your own peers online on a public forum as being thieves, "cool brilliant boys", and alluding to them being motivated with an "evil, dark, deceptive, spirit of compromise" -
How do you reconcile this with your signature on the Affirmation Statement that you believe and embrace that you will "not contend for the different views to the disunity of the body.”
Do you stand by the Fundamental Doctrine's unity statement and your own affirmation? Is this not a matter of integrity for all sides?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 08:49 AM
Remember that Mooney is using this as a fear technique to keep the people of Mississippi scared of anything new. This is par for the course around here. By talking about secret meetings and possible false doctrine and snakes and whatnot you get all the little old ladies in Mississippi all fired up and headed back to their churches to enforce the doctrine on the young folks and make sure the pastor keeps the church in line.
I have a friend who is church of God (believe me the church of God has their own share of Pentecostal craziness going on) who went to one of the night services during the Mississippi youth camp and was completely horrified. From his descriptions they basically scared the little kids to death with talk of backsliding and sin and drugs and body tattoos and how one little sin could be all it takes to send you to hell (we are talking 8 year olds) till they all went screaming down to the altar to get the Holy Ghost. He said folks were everywhere praying with little kids trying to get them to speak in tongues and of course they were crying with all their heart because they wanted to be saved. I don't know if other state's youth camps are like this but I went to youth camp when I was a kid and it was about the same.
You hate to think that, but at times that's what it appears to be.
Papabear
07-08-2009, 08:50 AM
Just a few points, I don't make a habit of posting on AFF.
PM is not without knowing what happened or what was said or who was there. He knows because he has spoken to those there and understands the tenor of some at this meeting.
1. There has been no released agenda, no released CD's, DVD's, ect. Why would you not record a meeting like this? Why the prolonged secrecy... and now that it is causing such issues, why not release it to set any feelings at ease?
2. The issue at hand is some are not denying Acts 2:38, but doubt it's neccessity.
3. All of them gathered are not beneficiaries of Nepotism... (I am not against it, I have three sons ) however when fathers pass churches to sons & inlaws who have a history of questionable character, ethics and/or doctrinal stability. It is a significant percentage... and then add that to men who pastor churches they are just one of dozens in the history of the church, a church whose history has been one of holiness and Apostolic doctrine... In both cases, these men should go prove the validity of the "NEW revelation" rather than using the platform .. foundation of another and take it away.
4. This either or approach to truth... my truth, your truth ... some truth is enough to qualify as truth is error.
5. PM was not airing dirty laundry.. he was stating clearly the direction and decision he has made. He was, "Intentionally Confrontational". He was contending for the faith once delivered. I believe our movement needs to come to grips with who we are, what we believe and recognize it. Those who are otherwise minded need to go join a Church for the Nations or some easy charismatic group and see the incredible church growth and revival they promise. They will be disappointed and find the cost was not worth the effort.... and the end product is bitterness and disappointment as demonstrated in many corners of used to be apostolic.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 08:53 AM
Papabear,
How do you reconcile where you are today from where things were when UPC merged?
Don't all things evolve? Could this direction just be a return back to how things were before?
Why doesn't anyone want to talk about that?
MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 08:57 AM
I agree with Bro. Mooney; the secretive meetings and gathering of people to discuss what "shall be done" about current issues is nonsense.
Let them line up in front of the general board and picket and expound and plead and publicly declare a preaching strike or whatEVER--but there is no need to be secretive unless you are trying to draw people away from the organization or work some mischief behind the backs of others.
MOST of the time, what is done in secret needs to be hidden for a reason. I certainly don't teach my children to be secretive or to conceal their thoughts, words and actions. So adults even moreso need to learn to be bold and express themselves forthrightly and honestly, without subterfuge.
I did NOT appreciate how the WPF handled their mess, and I don't appreciate anyone else who exercises dishonest tactics.
Now. That said. I have no idea what the secret meeting in Detroit was about, whether it had anything to do with the organization or not, and whether "secret" is the correct term for the event. "Exclusive" is not the same thing as "secret." But, it obviously wasn't public. I have to be a little suspicious of people who exclude anyone or any group who can offer dissension or an opposing viewpoint.
I hope the men who organized the meeting were prayerful and not divisive in any way. I hope they didn't negatively discuss their elders in any way. I hope they didn't deride or mock older men of God or their doctrines. I hope they were exceedingly respectful in their discussions or planning or whatever it was they were gathered to do. ...because to do otherwise would be to alienate God from the entire process, no matter what the core motive might be.
MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 09:06 AM
Remember that Mooney is using this as a fear technique to keep the people of Mississippi scared of anything new. This is par for the course around here. By talking about secret meetings and possible false doctrine and snakes and whatnot you get all the little old ladies in Mississippi all fired up and headed back to their churches to enforce the doctrine on the young folks and make sure the pastor keeps the church in line.
I seriously doubt that was Bro. Mooney's intent. And there is a time for elders to rebuke the saints and fellow ministers collectively. Camp meeting is the perfect time for such an action, if needed, because many of the saints are gathered in one place.
I have a friend who is church of God (believe me the church of God has their own share of Pentecostal craziness going on) who went to one of the night services during the Mississippi youth camp and was completely horrified. From his descriptions they basically scared the little kids to death with talk of backsliding and sin and drugs and body tattoos and how one little sin could be all it takes to send you to hell (we are talking 8 year olds) till they all went screaming down to the altar to get the Holy Ghost. He said folks were everywhere praying with little kids trying to get them to speak in tongues and of course they were crying with all their heart because they wanted to be saved. I don't know if other state's youth camps are like this but I went to youth camp when I was a kid and it was about the same.
I haven't been to Mississippi camp, but I have absolutely NO problem with fire and brimstone preaching. :)
One of my all time favorites: Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html) (Jonathon Edwards)
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 09:12 AM
Sometimes it makes sense for like-minded men to get together and discuss things before they make a public move. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that it would be foolish not to. If you want to bring an opposing viewpoint to the table, it only makes sense to have your viewpoints and thoughts organized first.
MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 09:18 AM
Sometimes it makes sense for like-minded men to get together and discuss things before they make a public move. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that it would be foolish not to. If you want to bring an opposing viewpoint to the table, it only makes sense to have your viewpoints and thoughts organized first.
Why? Your own personal viewpoints--fine. But why collude with others first? Men need to stand on their own two feet, and if there are others who are like minded, why don't they stand up publicly with a backbone and support those who are already speaking out?
What is (was) being planned or "organized" that can't be done publicly? Why not open the doors to anyone?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 09:26 AM
Sometimes it makes sense for like-minded men to get together and discuss things before they make a public move. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that it would be foolish not to. If you want to bring an opposing viewpoint to the table, it only makes sense to have your viewpoints and thoughts organized first.
I agree and I believe this to be exactly what happened. Nothing secret about it or we wouldn't all know about it.
The only exclusivity was the "like-mindedness" - - there's no coup d'état going on.
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 09:28 AM
I seriously doubt that was Bro. Mooney's intent. And there is a time for elders to rebuke the saints and fellow ministers collectively. Camp meeting is the perfect time for such an action, if needed, because many of the saints are gathered in one place.
I haven't been to Mississippi camp, but I have absolutely NO problem with fire and brimstone preaching. :)
One of my all time favorites: Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.html) (Jonathon Edwards)
I will listen to the message and see if that is his intent. My initial reaction is that it was because of past experiences.
The content of these messages was not about a sinful man needing a merciful God but about US keeping ourselves in right standing with God and an emphasis on the getting the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. Something you will not find in Jonathan Edward's messages. Preaching fire and brimstone has to include grace or all you end up with is a bunch of scared folks or folks hating God.
Why? Your own personal viewpoints--fine. But why collude with others first? Men need to stand on their own two feet, and if there are others who are like minded, why don't they stand up publicly with a backbone and support those who are already speaking out?
What is (was) being planned or "organized" that can't be done publicly? Why not open the doors to anyone?
MissB,
Your principles are great, and I cannot stand hidden agendas.
I didn't like it with the WPF, and I don't like it with this group.
However, I think you're missing the way things really work.
Since when is it a crime to hold a private meeting?
Should we create a new bylaw to prohibit private assembly without prior consent from the UPCI? To me, this is about control. Some men want to control the flow of information within the org, and want access to private meetings in order to manage the conversations and agenda.
That is borg theology. That is anti-Bible. That is wrong.
You say that these guys should push an agenda publicly?
How?
They are already being railroaded, demonized and castigated before they speak one word publicly. Can you imagine what would happen if they spewed their entire agenda?
Listen carefully, Sis.
Any movement that supresses critical thinking, prohibits private assembly and squelches inspection is in grave danger of becoming monolithic, cultic and irrelevant.
n david
07-08-2009, 09:37 AM
I agree with Bro. Mooney; the secretive meetings and gathering of people to discuss what "shall be done" about current issues is nonsense.
Let them line up in front of the general board and picket and expound and plead and publicly declare a preaching strike or whatEVER--but there is no need to be secretive unless you are trying to draw people away from the organization or work some mischief behind the backs of others.
MOST of the time, what is done in secret needs to be hidden for a reason. I certainly don't teach my children to be secretive or to conceal their thoughts, words and actions. So adults even moreso need to learn to be bold and express themselves forthrightly and honestly, without subterfuge.
Now. That said. I have no idea what the secret meeting in Detroit was about, whether it had anything to do with the organization or not, and whether "secret" is the correct term for the event. "Exclusive" is not the same thing as "secret." But, it obviously wasn't public. I have to be a little suspicious of people who exclude anyone or any group who can offer dissension or an opposing viewpoint.
I believe it was debated or bantered about why the meeting was conducted as "secret" or "exclusive" - that being the absolute circus that would ensue had these men gone to GC and try to bring this before the body of ministers - very little would have been done. It would have been a frenzy of arguments and debating and no agreement.
PapaBear - Some are just nursing hurt feelings for not being invited to the meeting. So they've created this aura about the meeting as though it was something it really was not.
Regardless of dirty laundry or not ... the campmeeting was not the place to air grievances against the men who were a part of the meeting, IF that was the case. And IF so ... does he really believe TFT to be a false prophet?
What does "Intentionally Confrontational" have to do with the Gospel of Christ? How many were baptized and filled with the HG after that message? More than likely, instead of building an atmosphere where people could receive the HG, it created confusion and anger.
Speaking of secret ... some complaining about these ministers having this meeting in secret; why don't they just come out and say what was said, etc...
IF PM was talking about the Detroit meeting and ministers from there being false prophets ... why doesn't he just name names? If he wants to be truly "Intentionally Confrontational" ... then by all means, do so ... name names instead of hiding behind innuendo.
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 09:43 AM
Just a few points, I don't make a habit of posting on AFF.
PM is not without knowing what happened or what was said or who was there. He knows because he has spoken to those there and understands the tenor of some at this meeting.
1. There has been no released agenda, no released CD's, DVD's, ect. Why would you not record a meeting like this? Why the prolonged secrecy... and now that it is causing such issues, why not release it to set any feelings at ease?
2. The issue at hand is some are not denying Acts 2:38, but doubt it's neccessity.
3. All of them gathered are not beneficiaries of Nepotism... (I am not against it, I have three sons ) however when fathers pass churches to sons & inlaws who have a history of questionable character, ethics and/or doctrinal stability. It is a significant percentage... and then add that to men who pastor churches they are just one of dozens in the history of the church, a church whose history has been one of holiness and Apostolic doctrine... In both cases, these men should go prove the validity of the "NEW revelation" rather than using the platform .. foundation of another and take it away.
4. This either or approach to truth... my truth, your truth ... some truth is enough to qualify as truth is error.
5. PM was not airing dirty laundry.. he was stating clearly the direction and decision he has made. He was, "Intentionally Confrontational". He was contending for the faith once delivered. I believe our movement needs to come to grips with who we are, what we believe and recognize it. Those who are otherwise minded need to go join a Church for the Nations or some easy charismatic group and see the incredible church growth and revival they promise. They will be disappointed and find the cost was not worth the effort.... and the end product is bitterness and disappointment as demonstrated in many corners of used to be apostolic.
Bro. Scott, I have been predicting for the last few years that the UPC's next conflict will be over the salvation message. There are too many resources and folks aren't afraid to question anymore. There are pastors that cannot preach what they consider a lie anymore and they don't care if they lose everything.
I do agree that they won't see the success that they think. God will raise up a church in a way that man can't receive the glory.
I was a part of a UPC church that you are familiar with. I had to leave everything I had always known. My family, many friends, and my wife's family. It was the hardest thing I ever did. I can look back now and I know that at the time my motives weren't always pure but I knew that I couldn't lie to new converts anymore. I know that God is trying to do a work in the delta and he wouldn't stand for the games anymore. Yes, it was painful but looking back at where we were and where we are now we know that our decision was right.
Like you I loved the UPC and it's doctrine. I could explain the doctrine and water baptism as good as anyone but it left me wanting more and with so many questions. I finally had to be honest with myself. I am glad we left instead of taking the church away from those who needed the building. But now they have lost it too so we really didn't help them that much.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 09:56 AM
Why? Your own personal viewpoints--fine. But why collude with others first? Men need to stand on their own two feet, and if there are others who are like minded, why don't they stand up publicly with a backbone and support those who are already speaking out?
What is (was) being planned or "organized" that can't be done publicly? Why not open the doors to anyone?
I'm having a hard time, Miss B, understanding the moral wrong about like-minded men meeting together to have a discussion about the church. I think we are being over-board about this. I'm sure attendees have no problem being candid with Mooney. I can't imaginge TFT not able to stand on his own two feet.
I don't want to open it up again, but I have no problem with WPF brothers meeting and leaving -- as long as they've given their ideas a chance in healthy debate first.
GraceAmazing
07-08-2009, 09:57 AM
Grace, I know what you're saying. However, often whenever I hear people talking about being upset because they really just wanted to be uplifted and encouraged and not feel railed at, it sometimes makes me think of 2 Tim:
3:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
4:
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
I do not know you well enough to even begin to accuse you of this personally, and I do recognize that we must be careful in how we apply and preach the Word. However, at the end of the day, the Bible is very clear that it is to be used in ways that often include rebuke and chastisement. That goes against what we want sometimes, and certainly flies in the face of where the church is headed, but I just get nervous whenever I hear people getting upset because all they wanted was uplifting messages and did not want rebuke or correction.
Again, I' not accusing you in particular, this post just kind of touched on what I hear a lot these days.
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt! I just don't think that Bro. Mooney's personal feelings should play into a campmeeting that should be positive! And yes, not all God's word is meant for "feel good" thinking and feelings. The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword and it cuts us deep sometimes, as it should! I'm all for good preaching and if that means stepping on my toes, then fine. However, why get up and devote an entire message about something that most of those folks probably didn't even know about??? Why not get up and talk about the power of holiness living if that's what he feels? Why go into talking about snakes among us and how they need to cut their losses???
Just a question: Why can't they just leave it alone and let God sort it out? Just curious.
And again, I'll agree with PapaBear here, if you don't like what the UPC stands for, don't agree with what the UPC believes in and you don't want to live or abide by their standards of dress and doctrine, then find another place to fellowship!
tstew
07-08-2009, 09:58 AM
I guess one thing to consider is whether an exclusive meeting is best when only "like-minded" people are there. Is it possible that the best way to approach this is to have exclusive meetings that incorporate various views and people who can openly and earnestly discuss matters to be sure that what emerges is balanced?
I happen to agree with my brother who pastors a UPc church. He says that he doesn't think you will ever find any organization that matches your personal opinions down to the minutest detail. In light of that, given the option, I personally prefer an organization that would tend to pull me a little farther right than left.
I got plenty of things around me and in me that can try to pull me way, waay, waay left.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 10:02 AM
I believe it was debated or bantered about why the meeting was conducted as "secret" or "exclusive" - that being the absolute circus that would ensue had these men gone to GC and try to bring this before the body of ministers - very little would have been done. It would have been a frenzy of arguments and debating and no agreement.
PapaBear - Some are just nursing hurt feelings for not being invited to the meeting. So they've created this aura about the meeting as though it was something it really was not.
Regardless of dirty laundry or not ... the campmeeting was not the place to air grievances against the men who were a part of the meeting, IF that was the case. And IF so ... does he really believe TFT to be a false prophet?
What does "Intentionally Confrontational" have to do with the Gospel of Christ? How many were baptized and filled with the HG after that message? More than likely, instead of building an atmosphere where people could receive the HG, it created confusion and anger.
Speaking of secret ... some complaining about these ministers having this meeting in secret; why don't they just come out and say what was said, etc...
IF PM was talking about the Detroit meeting and ministers from there being false prophets ... why doesn't he just name names? If he wants to be truly "Intentionally Confrontational" ... then by all means, do so ... name names instead of hiding behind innuendo.
A few problems with this post. Speculation about PM's "hurt feelings" is speculation at best. This was not an "airing of grievances" but an entirely appropriate confrontation for those of who you ironically see no distinction between clergy and saints.
Paul didn't "name names" when addressing the Judaizers (oh he did on occassion), but more often, it's better to address the situation, then to sniper out names. I think you would be on this forum posting how awful that would be if that had happened.
Lastly, I wasn't at the service, but not all times of instruction are intended to be a place for people are receiving the Holy Ghost. And Campmeetings tend to be more for the exhortation of the church. Just because they didn't have a prayer line doesn't mean PM was wrong with addressing problems in the church -- and as a Superintendent and elder, he was well within bounds.
Do I agree with him? That's different. But his conduct was well within permissible bounds.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 10:04 AM
FYI WPF held meetings where people of different opinions were present, if I recall correctly. The forum in Houston is one example. There was much debate and disagreement, from even people like DKB that showed up.
The brothers have a right to meet to discuss absolutely anything they want --and can invite their friends, or as appropriate, hold a public meeting.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 10:07 AM
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt! I just don't think that Bro. Mooney's personal feelings should play into a campmeeting that should be positive! And yes, not all God's word is meant for "feel good" thinking and feelings. The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword and it cuts us deep sometimes, as it should! I'm all for good preaching and if that means stepping on my toes, then fine. However, why get up and devote an entire message about something that most of those folks probably didn't even know about??? Why not get up and talk about the power of holiness living if that's what he feels? Why go into talking about snakes among us and how they need to cut their losses???
Just a question: Why can't they just leave it alone and let God sort it out? Just curious.
And again, I'll agree with PapaBear here, if you don't like what the UPC stands for, don't agree with what the UPC believes in and you don't want to live or abide by their standards of dress and doctrine, then find another place to fellowship!
He's addressing what he is either informed about, or perceived to be, dissension. AG I don't see a problem here.
Regarding these other brothers leaving the UPC -- why should they? Why not contend for the UPC flag? This thing started with PAJC and PCI, with a diversity of ideas under some very basic and common ones. Why should they cut and run? There is a survey out there about what the UPCI's constituents believe, and I'd be anxious to see how that boils down. We may be surprised how many licensed minister see the church differently.
MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 10:31 AM
As I said, I don't really KNOW anything about the Detroit meeting. But, generally speaking, I think open communication is the right way to go.
Secret communication can become sinful VERY quickly, if attitudes, words, innuendo and shared information isn't kept carefully in check.
For that matter, if they need to have a meeting to discuss concerns, why not invite Bro. Haney and other officials to the meeting so they can hear all the concerns first hand? (Maybe they did--I have no idea.)
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 10:34 AM
I don't believe the meeting was a secret to Bro. Haney.
Withdrawn
07-08-2009, 10:34 AM
I agree with Bro. Mooney; the secretive meetings and gathering of people to discuss what "shall be done" about current issues is nonsense.
Let them line up in front of the general board and picket and expound and plead and publicly declare a preaching strike or whatEVER--but there is no need to be secretive unless you are trying to draw people away from the organization or work some mischief behind the backs of others.
MOST of the time, what is done in secret needs to be hidden for a reason. I certainly don't teach my children to be secretive or to conceal their thoughts, words and actions. So adults even moreso need to learn to be bold and express themselves forthrightly and honestly, without subterfuge.
I did NOT appreciate how the WPF handled their mess, and I don't appreciate anyone else who exercises dishonest tactics.
Now. That said. I have no idea what the secret meeting in Detroit was about, whether it had anything to do with the organization or not, and whether "secret" is the correct term for the event. "Exclusive" is not the same thing as "secret." But, it obviously wasn't public. I have to be a little suspicious of people who exclude anyone or any group who can offer dissension or an opposing viewpoint.
I hope the men who organized the meeting were prayerful and not divisive in any way. I hope they didn't negatively discuss their elders in any way. I hope they didn't deride or mock older men of God or their doctrines. I hope they were exceedingly respectful in their discussions or planning or whatever it was they were gathered to do. ...because to do otherwise would be to alienate God from the entire process, no matter what the core motive might be.
MissB,
Your principles are great, and I cannot stand hidden agendas.
I didn't like it with the WPF, and I don't like it with this group.
However, I think you're missing the way things really work.
Since when is it a crime to hold a private meeting?
Should we create a new bylaw to prohibit private assembly without prior consent from the UPCI? To me, this is about control. Some men want to control the flow of information within the org, and want access to private meetings in order to manage the conversations and agenda.
That is borg theology. That is anti-Bible. That is wrong.
You say that these guys should push an agenda publicly?
How?
They are already being railroaded, demonized and castigated before they speak one word publicly. Can you imagine what would happen if they spewed their entire agenda?
Listen carefully, Sis.
Any movement that supresses critical thinking, prohibits private assembly and squelches inspection is in grave danger of becoming monolithic, cultic and irrelevant.
Is there any way I can agree with both of these posts? I know... I know... a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. :ursofunny
Seriously, though...
An exclusive meeting with ONLY like-minded people is not, in my opinion, a very productive meeting. If you're just looking for a bunch of "Amen"'s and pats on the back, then that's exactly what you'll get. The scripture says that iron sharpens iron... there needs to be some grating against each other for that to happen, though.
If, on the other hand, the purpose was to write a manifesto for the purpose of presenting their disputes to a broader audience (read General Board) then that would be an exception to the statement above, in my opinion.
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm not UPCI, and have recently been railroaded and lied against by the political machinery of both UPCI and ALJC. But understanding how things work, and that the status quo for these orgs is to NOT hear debate or opposing views, I would understand the need to create a working group to form the manifesto and get all the ducks in row before presenting to the great and awesome powers that rule all of God's Kingdom. But out with it now... let's hear what you have to say... no more secrecy.
Theophil
07-08-2009, 10:42 AM
I would have to agree with GA on this one, TS.
Reason being - a collective meeting of folks from different churches, with different idiosyncracies is not the place to be preaching your gripes, as it were.
I would daresay that most of the people in that meeting had NO idea there was a secret meeting, and probably didn't even care.
In my humble opinion, a camp meeting is not the place to preach standards, personal convictions, or personal vendettas. It's a place to go for encouragement, uplifting, and general reinforcement of one's faith.
There's a WHOLE lot of Bible one can preach and be anointed, and the standards should be preached by individual pastors in their respective churches, and the railing against a group of men who are "going charismatic" should be reserved for the boardroom.
Again, in my humble opinion......
:thumbsup This is true. this is wisdom. Exactly right.
n david
07-08-2009, 10:46 AM
Paul didn't "name names" when addressing the Judaizers (oh he did on occassion), but more often, it's better to address the situation, then to sniper out names. I think you would be on this forum posting how awful that would be if that had happened.
Then it's not an "Intentional Confrontation" ... more like "Intentional Innuendo."
IF true ... I'd be upset with PM labeling TFT, RJ and others from the meeting as false prophets - regardless if done by name or innuendo. I'd have more respect if done by name, however, instead of hiding behind innuendo.
Theophil
07-08-2009, 10:46 AM
The denigration of these men continues by their peers, in my opinion.
They insist to call a meeting, by invite only, (which is common place) "secret". Using scripture to malign it and cast aspersions to equate the word "secret" with darkness, lies, false doctrine, and inspired by the devil, etc.
Now the tact as we read from Rev. Phillips, and somewhat from PM, is to claim the this group did not achieve successes in their ministry on their own merits but on the coattails of their daddys.
Truth be told, many of these men who attended are first generation Pentecostals. Many of them started as home missionaries or have started their works from the ground up. While a handful, of course, have inherited churches from their family, just like many throughout the UPC.
The charge that they have stolen churches from their fathers to destroy them is an egregious one. I can think of one pastor that these "defenders of the faith" may be targeting with this type of rhetoric but the broad brushing is insincere, inaccurate and inflammatory.
What's the deal with calling his peers "cool, brilliant boys"?
:thumbsup You are right on!
MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 10:48 AM
MissB,
Your principles are great, and I cannot stand hidden agendas.
I didn't like it with the WPF, and I don't like it with this group.
However, I think you're missing the way things really work.
Since when is it a crime to hold a private meeting?
Should we create a new bylaw to prohibit private assembly without prior consent from the UPCI? To me, this is about control. Some men want to control the flow of information within the org, and want access to private meetings in order to manage the conversations and agenda.
That's a valid concern.
That is borg theology. That is anti-Bible. That is wrong.
Is that Star Wars talk? :blink
You say that these guys should push an agenda publicly?
How?
They are already being railroaded, demonized and castigated before they speak one word publicly. Can you imagine what would happen if they spewed their entire agenda?
Listen carefully, Sis.
Any movement that supresses critical thinking, prohibits private assembly and squelches inspection is in grave danger of becoming monolithic, cultic and irrelevant.
I agree completely with your last point completely. *sigh*
I understand that it's a quandary. And I'm not saying the meeting was bad just because it was secret. I just hope things were carefully monitored, because it can very quickly leave discussion of issues and become discussion of personalities, ergo, slander and backbiting.
Most of the time things are secret for a reason, and it seems to me that most of the time that reason isn't a noble one. However, there have been times when people have been oppressed or mistreated when being secretive was necessary, and I can understand that. And I KNOW there is reprisal against young ministers who speak their mind and consequently find themselves without a pulpit.
Theophil
07-08-2009, 10:49 AM
Papabear,
By slamming your own peers online on a public forum as being thieves, "cool brilliant boys", and alluding to them being motivated with an "evil, dark, deceptive, spirit of compromise" -
How do you reconcile this with your signature on the Affirmation Statement that you believe and embrace that you will "not contend for the different views to the disunity of the body.”
Do you stand by the Fundamental Doctrine's unity statement and your own affirmation? Is this not a matter of integrity for all sides?
Can anybody say, "hypocritical"? :thumbsup
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 10:54 AM
That's a valid concern.
Is that Star Wars talk? :blink
I agree completely with your last point completely. *sigh*
I understand that it's a quandary. And I'm not saying the meeting was bad just because it was secret. I just hope things were carefully monitored, because it can very quickly leave discussion of issues and become discussion of personalities, ergo, slander and backbiting.
Most of the time things are secret for a reason, and it seems to me that most of the time that reason isn't a noble one. However, there have been times when people have been oppressed or mistreated when being secretive was necessary, and I can understand that. And I KNOW there is reprisal against young ministers who speak their mind and consequently find themselves without a pulpit.
Knowing some that were involved I feel very assured that it was carefully thought out and in good ethics.
Looks like the slander and backbiting is happening on the outside toward those that attended.
MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 10:58 AM
Knowing some that were involved I feel very assured that it was carefully thought out and in good ethics.
Looks like the slander and backbiting is happening on the outside toward those that attended.
Oh, without a doubt!!!! I know that does and will continue to take place. :(
Scott Hutchinson
07-08-2009, 10:59 AM
None of my business,why is it,when like minded people meet that belong to a org. there is a fear some are pulling out of the org. ? Or others say they are being unethical ?
Theophil
07-08-2009, 10:59 AM
I don't believe the meeting was a secret to Bro. Haney.
Knowing some that were involved I feel very assured that it was carefully thought out and in good ethics.
Looks like the slander and backbiting is happening on the outside toward those that attended.
RG, you do know what you're talkin' about. :thumbsup
MomOfADramaQn
07-08-2009, 11:00 AM
None of my business,why is it,when like minded people meet that belong to a org. there is a fear some are pulling out of the org. ? Or others say they are being unethical ?
Because organized religion is man-made and not bible based :)
tstew
07-08-2009, 11:01 AM
Is there any way I can agree with both of these posts? I know... I know... a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. :ursofunny
Seriously, though...
An exclusive meeting with ONLY like-minded people is not, in my opinion, a very productive meeting. If you're just looking for a bunch of "Amen"'s and pats on the back, then that's exactly what you'll get. The scripture says that iron sharpens iron... there needs to be some grating against each other for that to happen, though.
If, on the other hand, the purpose was to write a manifesto for the purpose of presenting their disputes to a broader audience (read General Board) then that would be an exception to the statement above, in my opinion.
Again, I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm not UPCI, and have recently been railroaded and lied against by the political machinery of both UPCI and ALJC. But understanding how things work, and that the status quo for these orgs is to NOT hear debate or opposing views, I would understand the need to create a working group to form the manifesto and get all the ducks in row before presenting to the great and awesome powers that rule all of God's Kingdom. But out with it now... let's hear what you have to say... no more secrecy.
I agree with this. I just believe that sometimes we need to be sure we are balancing out and getting different perspectives when making major decisions or discussing serious matters. I'm not sure if this meeting in particular did or didn't include that, but in general, I've seen some pretty unbalanced things come out of a "bunch of like-minded people" carving a new path.
Now those of differing opinions would have to be open, honest, and earnest people in order to make any sort of progress. I'm sure that there are people like that on both sides of "the fence" in this situation.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 11:06 AM
Then it's not an "Intentional Confrontation" ... more like "Intentional Innuendo."
IF true ... I'd be upset with PM labeling TFT, RJ and others from the meeting as false prophets - regardless if done by name or innuendo. I'd have more respect if done by name, however, instead of hiding behind innuendo.
No, there are many ways to be confrontational, and both can be effective when used in the right way. Had PM went on a list of names, you'd really have yourself in a hizzy fit about what is appropriate for a campmeeting.
False prophet? Who said that? I think he warned about the damage, history and vulnerability of secret meetings. He made his point loud and clear, lest others are asked to participate in such meetings (and I'm sure that was his point).
Now, point aside, I'm not sure it was "secret", though certainly exclusive. But we've all been the kid without the birthday invitation at one time or another, right? :sad
2 issues are here on this post:
1) Was the Detroit meeting okay?
2) Was PM in-bounds with this comments at the MS campmeeting?
For me #1 depends on many factors that I simply don't know about the meeting. And #2 is yes, he was okay to do what he did at the campmeeting. Doesn't mean I agree with his judgement, but he was perfectly within bounds.
Aquila
07-08-2009, 11:08 AM
Organization worship doesn't please God. Good men should be able to allow for differing opinions on non-essentials.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 11:09 AM
I agree with this. I just believe that sometimes we need to be sure we are balancing out and getting different perspectives when making major decisions or discussing serious matters. I'm not sure if this meeting in particular did or didn't include that, but in general, I've seen some pretty unbalanced things come out of a "bunch of like-minded people" carving a new path.
Now those of differing opinions would have to be open, honest, and earnest people in order to make any sort of progress. I'm sure that there are people like that on both sides of "the fence" in this situation.
These conversations and debates have been had for years. With many of these progressives getting singled out and black-balled, them meeting together is only understandable. The unknowns: What was the intention of the meeting? Were intentions made before-hand? Is there talk of leaving, or just advice to each brother with how to co-exist and to not lose faith, or walk away from UPCI?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 11:10 AM
Organization worship doesn't please God. Good men should be able to allow for differing opinions on non-essentials.
But this is the subject, each person in the debate wishes to define.
Theophil
07-08-2009, 11:11 AM
Organization worship doesn't please God. Good men should be able to allow for differing opinions on non-essentials.
These conversations and debates have been had for years. With many of these progressives getting singled out and black-balled, them meeting together is only understandable. The unknowns: What was the intention of the meeting? Were intentions made before-hand? Is there talk of leaving, or just advice to each brother with how to co-exist and to not lose faith, or walk away from UPCI?
Great stuff! This is what I am praying for.
tstew
07-08-2009, 11:16 AM
These conversations and debates have been had for years. With many of these progressives getting singled out and black-balled, them meeting together is only understandable. The unknowns: What was the intention of the meeting? Were intentions made before-hand? Is there talk of leaving, or just advice to each brother with how to co-exist and to not lose faith, or walk away from UPCI?
I'm not talking about debate per se. Of course, there are those who would only show up to debate and there would be no real dialogue and prayerful discussion. I'm not talking about those people on either side of the issues (and they do exist on both sides)
I'm just saying that even among progressives there are a variety of viewpoints, concerns, and opinions. I'm just of the opinion that it is best to be sure that you include those people to keep discussions balanced. I know this sounds like a paradox, but there is sometimes danger when a bunch of "like-minded" people get together and discuss change.
Just my opinion.
n david
07-08-2009, 11:18 AM
Mooney states that one cannot go to sleep with "snakes in the house". He proclaims that false prophets "are among us."
He asks "Who are these "progressive" theologians who are wanting to lead us away from Pentecost? ... I'm not going with you!"
Mooney alludes to the actions of some brethren as "cunning","conniving", "crafting" and that God is testing the Church in these last days with "dreamers" and "false prophets".
False prophet? Who said that? I think he warned about the damage, history and vulnerability of secret meetings. He made his point loud and clear, lest others are asked to participate in such meetings (and I'm sure that was his point).
Read the above.
The more I think about it, the more I remember PM with a stage presence. Like Jeff Arnold, he has this platform personna he uses and part of that is the bravado and stuff in this message.
Question remains ... was it just his platform personna, or does he really believe these men to be thieves, liars, false prophets, etc...?
James Griffin
07-08-2009, 11:20 AM
There was never ANY talk of leaving the UPCI.
It was exclusive and not secret.
Like minded people meeting for fellowship and a communion service.
My Lord have mercy, how can you call anything "secret" that was the the subject of several threads on another forum weeks before the meeting.
As much as I love the UPCI it is its nature to rally AGAINST a perceived common enemy,( even when that enemy is a total straw man), ESPECIALLY when the main ones SOUNDING THE ALARM, are either incumbents or currently running for political office.
If the UPCI had spent a tenth the energy preaching what it is for, instead of what it is against (the last few decades especially) it would probably be ten times its present size.
D. Wright
07-08-2009, 11:21 AM
Strange that "the fear of God" is being preached at the MS camp meeting regarding their "own", but they let Borat slip right on in.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 11:23 AM
D.Wright - let's not even bring that up!
Scott Hutchinson
07-08-2009, 11:26 AM
Not to slam a Christian Elder but why was this mentioned in a campmeeting sermon,it seems out of place in one to me ? Of course what do I know ?
U376977
07-08-2009, 11:30 AM
Just a causual observer here. I'm not in UPC, never will be. When this "invite only" meeting was posted about here, now being called "secret" it was described as a "networking" meeting and that is was not a threat and they did not was to divide the UPCI, blah, blah, blah.
Now that Mooney has laid the "t..in the punch bowl" it seems like the "general board" has a lot of concerns. And that there was more to the meeting than what has been disclosed. One poster told me "the UPC is all about control;" how dare some of her preachers call a meeting without getting approval. They must be conspirators Brutus! In the name of God kill them all!
Kim Komando
07-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Strange that "the fear of God" is being preached at the MS camp meeting regarding their "own", but they let Borat slip right on in.
God in His providence has a sense of humor. Talk about "snakes in the house"!
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 11:34 AM
There was never ANY talk of leaving the UPCI.
It was exclusive and not secret.
Like minded people meeting for fellowship and a communion service.
My Lord have mercy, how can you call anything "secret" that was the the subject of several threads on another forum weeks before the meeting.
As much as I love the UPCI it is its nature to rally AGAINST a perceived common enemy,( even when that enemy is a total straw man), ESPECIALLY when the main ones SOUNDING THE ALARM, are either incumbents or currently running for political office.
If the UPCI had spent a tenth the energy preaching what it is for, instead of what it is against (the last few decades especially) it would probably be ten times its present size.
I couldn't agree with you more!
You don't need to use fear to rally the troops against those in your own circles!
Kim Komando
07-08-2009, 11:36 AM
Wow, 27 reading this thread!
Michael Phelps
07-08-2009, 11:36 AM
If that direction is more specific, and has to do with meetings that he feels and senses (and God knows what else he knows about the meeting) are leading the church astray, why would he not say something. There was more in the NT about keeping doctrine, rebuking false doctrine, etc... than there was rebuking sinners or sin.
How many people at the Mississippi camp meeting do you think were invited to the secret meeting?
HopePreacher
07-08-2009, 11:40 AM
I am a late comer to this fast moving discussion, but I do have a few things I would like to air out.
I read through enough of the posts on this thread to discover that there are some very serious differences among those who call themselves apostolic, and particularly those of the UPCI. My concern is not the UPCI, ALJC, IMA, GNCM, ABofC, etc, etc. My concern is the body of Christ and the attitudes I see prevelant among disciples of denominations.
The spirit of intolerance that I see among many runs counter to everything I have read in the Bible, except when it is talking people who are of a spirit other than Christ. Here are some things I want to respond to:
- First I want to respond to those who feel that the son of a man of God who follows in his father's pulpit has stolen or hijacked that pulpit. That is the pulpit (presumably) that God has placed him in and unless he gained that pulpit through immoral, unethical or illegal means, it was not stolen or hijacked. That pulpit does not belong to any organization except the local congregation and they can certainly take whatever action is appropriate for them.
In that vein; I have never heard any of those who complain about the way the young generation are changing address the way that the onesteppers and rigid holiness standard preachers hijacked the UPC from the early founders. As far as I can see these younger men are not trying to tell others how to preach the message they are just saying let us preach it the way the founding fathers of the UPC preached it.
- Many (like 30) years ago a group of young ministers met in an "invitation only" meeting in California. There were some very liberal men among us and some very conservative men. Among them were several presbyters. We intentionally invited presbyters because we wanted the board and others to have an accurate account of what was discussed.
Not one man there talked about leaving the UPC; there was no discussion about starting another organization; we didn't talk about changing the UPC. We only talked about how we could more effectively minister within the body of believers that we all loved. Every man there believed in Acts 2:38, though most of us sided with the PCI position of salvation by grace. Every man there believed and preached holiness, but we weren't standards focused.
Even with the precaustions we took the rumor mill had it that we were a group of compromisers who were forming another organization. We were all branded as rebels and compromisers. That brand became a self-fulfilling prophecy because today all of those men are out of the UPC.
The reason for my post is this: If I love my brother, and I am concerned about his walk with God, as I am my own, then why don't I grant him the same grace and love that Christ showed other sincere believers?
It has been my observation that many who espouse the more radical application of the message and holiness have not understood the essence of truth in either and have created more offense in the body than any other group that they would call heretic.
My conclusion is that there is something inherrently wrong with a system that produces such bitterness, backbiting and judging as this system does.
I will tell you that I am still hurt over hurting brethren who are trying to live out the faith that God has placed in their heart but who are misunderstood by those they have loved and respected. I will also confess that I am angry at the enemy who will use the message of Christ and sanctified living as a means to divide the body of Christ and cause irreperable damage to believers.
Here me saints, God is not pleased with those who would cause division among whichever side of this issue we stand. We are called to love our brethren not to judge them by the standards of men.
I've said enough this time.
Kim Komando
07-08-2009, 11:40 AM
Michael, I don't think Craft was invited - although PM takes note of him at the campmeeting in his message. Would this be the same Craft that is part of 2 organizations although the UPC, and the General Board of which PM is a part of, has said this can't be done?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 11:51 AM
How many people at the Mississippi camp meeting do you think were invited to the secret meeting?
The question is, "how many knew of the so-called 'secret' meeting?" It's preventative medicine, and he used his position to make his feelings on that loud and clear.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 11:54 AM
Michael, I don't think Craft was invited - although PM takes note of him at the campmeeting in his message. Would this be the same Craft that is part of 2 organizations although the UPC, and the General Board of which PM is a part of, has said this can't be done?
Yes, interesting how he is involved with both the WPF and UPCI. Good man though, so I'm sure this speaks more toward the inconsistency of the UPCI's stance than anything.
Withdrawn
07-08-2009, 12:15 PM
I am a late comer to this fast moving discussion, but I do have a few things I would like to air out.
I read through enough of the posts on this thread to discover that there are some very serious differences among those who call themselves apostolic, and particularly those of the UPCI. My concern is not the UPCI, ALJC, IMA, GNCM, ABofC, etc, etc. My concern is the body of Christ and the attitudes I see prevelant among disciples of denominations.
The spirit of intolerance that I see among many runs counter to everything I have read in the Bible, except when it is talking people who are of a spirit other than Christ. Here are some things I want to respond to:
- First I want to respond to those who feel that the son of a man of God who follows in his father's pulpit has stolen or hijacked that pulpit. That is the pulpit (presumably) that God has placed him in and unless he gained that pulpit through immoral, unethical or illegal means, it was not stolen or hijacked. That pulpit does not belong to any organization except the local congregation and they can certainly take whatever action is appropriate for them.
In that vein; I have never heard any of those who complain about the way the young generation are changing address the way that the onesteppers and rigid holiness standard preachers hijacked the UPC from the early founders. As far as I can see these younger men are not trying to tell others how to preach the message they are just saying let us preach it the way the founding fathers of the UPC preached it.
- Many (like 30) years ago a group of young ministers met in an "invitation only" meeting in California. There were some very liberal men among us and some very conservative men. Among them were several presbyters. We intentionally invited presbyters because we wanted the board and others to have an accurate account of what was discussed.
Not one man there talked about leaving the UPC; there was no discussion about starting another organization; we didn't talk about changing the UPC. We only talked about how we could more effectively minister within the body of believers that we all loved. Every man there believed in Acts 2:38, though most of us sided with the PCI position of salvation by grace. Every man there believed and preached holiness, but we weren't standards focused.
Even with the precaustions we took the rumor mill had it that we were a group of compromisers who were forming another organization. We were all branded as rebels and compromisers. That brand became a self-fulfilling prophecy because today all of those men are out of the UPC.
The reason for my post is this: If I love my brother, and I am concerned about his walk with God, as I am my own, then why don't I grant him the same grace and love that Christ showed other sincere believers?
It has been my observation that many who espouse the more radical application of the message and holiness have not understood the essence of truth in either and have created more offense in the body than any other group that they would call heretic.
My conclusion is that there is something inherrently wrong with a system that produces such bitterness, backbiting and judging as this system does.
I will tell you that I am still hurt over hurting brethren who are trying to live out the faith that God has placed in their heart but who are misunderstood by those they have loved and respected. I will also confess that I am angry at the enemy who will use the message of Christ and sanctified living as a means to divide the body of Christ and cause irreperable damage to believers.
Here me saints, God is not pleased with those who would cause division among whichever side of this issue we stand. We are called to love our brethren not to judge them by the standards of men.
I've said enough this time.
POST OF THE DAY!!!
:yourock:highfive:yourock:highfive
Withdrawn
07-08-2009, 12:17 PM
It's amazing to me how we put aside the commandments of Christ to love one another when it comes to politicizing our agendas and destroying those who view some things differently.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:18 PM
It's amazing to me how we put aside the commandments of Christ to love one another when it comes to politicizing our agendas and destroying those who view some things differently.
You know the rebuttal here, Jaamez. Paul, telling Judaizers to mutilate themselves wasn't exactly "brotherly love." When it comes to what one believes is false doctrine, the gloves are off.
MissBrattified
07-08-2009, 12:19 PM
I am a late comer to this fast moving discussion, but I do have a few things I would like to air out.
I read through enough of the posts on this thread to discover that there are some very serious differences among those who call themselves apostolic, and particularly those of the UPCI. My concern is not the UPCI, ALJC, IMA, GNCM, ABofC, etc, etc. My concern is the body of Christ and the attitudes I see prevelant among disciples of denominations.
The spirit of intolerance that I see among many runs counter to everything I have read in the Bible, except when it is talking people who are of a spirit other than Christ. Here are some things I want to respond to:
- First I want to respond to those who feel that the son of a man of God who follows in his father's pulpit has stolen or hijacked that pulpit. That is the pulpit (presumably) that God has placed him in and unless he gained that pulpit through immoral, unethical or illegal means, it was not stolen or hijacked. That pulpit does not belong to any organization except the local congregation and they can certainly take whatever action is appropriate for them.
In that vein; I have never heard any of those who complain about the way the young generation are changing address the way that the onesteppers and rigid holiness standard preachers hijacked the UPC from the early founders. As far as I can see these younger men are not trying to tell others how to preach the message they are just saying let us preach it the way the founding fathers of the UPC preached it.
- Many (like 30) years ago a group of young ministers met in an "invitation only" meeting in California. There were some very liberal men among us and some very conservative men. Among them were several presbyters. We intentionally invited presbyters because we wanted the board and others to have an accurate account of what was discussed.
Not one man there talked about leaving the UPC; there was no discussion about starting another organization; we didn't talk about changing the UPC. We only talked about how we could more effectively minister within the body of believers that we all loved. Every man there believed in Acts 2:38, though most of us sided with the PCI position of salvation by grace. Every man there believed and preached holiness, but we weren't standards focused.
Even with the precaustions we took the rumor mill had it that we were a group of compromisers who were forming another organization. We were all branded as rebels and compromisers. That brand became a self-fulfilling prophecy because today all of those men are out of the UPC.
The reason for my post is this: If I love my brother, and I am concerned about his walk with God, as I am my own, then why don't I grant him the same grace and love that Christ showed other sincere believers?
It has been my observation that many who espouse the more radical application of the message and holiness have not understood the essence of truth in either and have created more offense in the body than any other group that they would call heretic.
My conclusion is that there is something inherrently wrong with a system that produces such bitterness, backbiting and judging as this system does.
I will tell you that I am still hurt over hurting brethren who are trying to live out the faith that God has placed in their heart but who are misunderstood by those they have loved and respected. I will also confess that I am angry at the enemy who will use the message of Christ and sanctified living as a means to divide the body of Christ and cause irreparable damage to believers.
Here me saints, God is not pleased with those who would cause division among whichever side of this issue we stand. We are called to love our brethren not to judge them by the standards of men.
I've said enough this time.
Good post and good points! :thumbsup
HopePreacher
07-08-2009, 12:20 PM
You know the rebuttal here, Jaamez. Paul, telling Judaizers to mutilate themselves wasn't exactly "brotherly love." When it comes to what one believes is false doctrine, the gloves are off.
Yes, but Paul didn't offer to do the cutting. and remember, he was addressing the leagalists. today it seems the legalists are the ones with the knife.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:22 PM
It has been my observation that many who espouse the more radical application of the message and holiness have not understood the essence of truth in either and have created more offense in the body than any other group that they would call heretic.
And I quote.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:22 PM
Yes, but Paul didn't offer to do the cutting. and remember, he was addressing the leagalists. today it seems the legalists are the ones with the knife.
My point being, with matters of doctrine, inflammatory words and confrontation are expected.
Withdrawn
07-08-2009, 12:24 PM
You know the rebuttal here, Jaamez. Paul, telling Judaizers to mutilate themselves wasn't exactly "brotherly love." When it comes to what one believes is false doctrine, the gloves are off.Right... but is it really false doctrine? Is this really about essentials or technicalities? What is even being debated? Does anybody even know for sure? Or is this all just hyperbole?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:28 PM
Right... but is it really false doctrine? Is this really about essentials or technicalities? What is even being debated? Does anybody even know for sure? Or is this all just hyperbole?
The irony is that this is the debate in its entirety. Some are insisting on matters as essentials, and others insist they are nonessentials. Not all of this is standards (much of it is), but some of it even pertains to soteriology, namely Acts 2:38 doctrine, which is most assuredly doctrinal.
No, I have no idea what was discussed at the meeting. They didn't invite me :foottap
Withdrawn
07-08-2009, 12:29 PM
My point being, with matters of doctrine, inflammatory words and confrontation are expected.There was no confrontation. This was not an example of Mooney confronting those he disagreed with or accused of being false prophets. There was no opportunity for the accused to confront their accusers or respond to Mooney's railings. This is not a confrontation at all. It's political posturing, gossipping, fear-mongering and propaganda.
It's setting the stage for a kangaroo court trial and subsequent public lynching in order to make example of anyone who would do the same. I've seen it done MANY times over the years - notably over the 1992 affirmation statement.
Justin
07-08-2009, 12:32 PM
The irony is that this is the debate in its entirety. Some are insisting on matters as essentials, and others insist they are nonessentials. Not all of this is standards (much of it is), but some of it even pertains to soteriology, namely Acts 2:38 doctrine, which is most assuredly doctrinal.
No, I have no idea what was discussed at the meeting. They didn't invite me :foottap
Has anyone thought about contacting those who were rumored to be involved about obtaining information or meeting minutes...?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:33 PM
There was no confrontation. This was not an example of Mooney confronting those he disagreed with or accused of being false prophets. There was no opportunity for the accused to confront their accusers or respond to Mooney's railings. This is not a confrontation at all. It's political posturing, gossipping, fear-mongering and propaganda.
It's setting the stage for a kangaroo court trial and subsequent public lynching in order to make example of anyone who would do the same. I've seen it done MANY times over the years - notably over the 1992 affirmation statement.
Paul didn't invite his antagonists (in his letters) to come defend themselves. He told the churches to kick them out. Nothing has moved this particular situation to that point, so instead, he was making it clear of his disapproval for so-called secret meetings -- and avoided name-branding or specifics to make that clear. If, he in fact said "false prophets", I think there needs to be more supportive evidence for saying such things in a public setting.
Was it the wisest thing to do? I don't know, the survey is out. But, he most definitely had every right to do it.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:34 PM
Has anyone thought about contacting those who were rumored to be involved about obtaining information or meeting minutes...?
No. Are you volunteering? :whistle
James Griffin
07-08-2009, 12:39 PM
Posted on another thread but certainly on point for this one.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24979
Recently there has been genuine fear and resulting backlash among some of the leadership elite in the UPCI.
Young ministers especially (of which there are so precious few left) are no longer satisfied with the two pat answers given when they have questions about “standards’ and procedures. Namely:
1 Because I said so.
2 Because that’s the way we have always done it.
IF certain “standards” are heaven or hell issues then why are they not deemed as such in “The Manual”?
Isn’t that a legitimate question?
The truth is in times past such ministers did simply leave the organization.
This time it is different. One thing that out of touch leaders have failed to note is that there has been a MAJOR shift of the center within the UPCI over the past decade or so, and this time there are men who refuse to be driven off from the organization they love and have spent their life working within.
And as has been pointed out in other threads and other forums the lament from certain leaders is “why oh why don’t they just go away like all the others did?”
The simple answer is they are actually aligned with the current mainstream of the UPCI, and if they hang around they WILL eventually be elected to offices were they WILL represent the true feelings and principles of the rank and file.
This scares certain factions who are used to saying “boo” and watching men scatter.
That is the Great Fear, it is not working this time.
There is nothing subversive going on.
Good men, spiritual men, who believe that Acts 2:38 is the only correct response to the gospel are coming together. Not to question the Bible but to discuss mindless dicta from out of touch leaders, and how to deal with it in a godly manner.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:40 PM
Posted on another thread but certainly on point for this one.
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24979
Recently there has been genuine fear and resulting backlash among some of the leadership elite in the UPCI.
Young ministers especially (of which there are so precious few left) are no longer satisfied with the two pat answers given when they have questions about “standards’ and procedures. Namely:
1 Because I said so.
2 Because that’s the way we have always done it.
IF certain “standards” are heaven or hell issues then why are they not deemed as such in “The Manual”?
Isn’t that a legitimate question?
The truth is in times past such ministers did simply leave the organization.
This time it is different. One thing that out of touch leaders have failed to note is that there has been a MAJOR shift of the center within the UPCI over the past decade or so, and this time there are men who refuse to be driven off from the organization they love and have spent their life working within.
And as has been pointed out in other threads and other forums the lament from certain leaders is “why oh why don’t they just go away like all the others did?”
The simple answer is they are actually aligned with the current mainstream of the UPCI, and if they hang around they WILL eventually be elected to offices were they WILL represent the true feelings and principles of the rank and file.
This scares certain factions who are used to saying “boo” and watching men scatter.
That is the Great Fear, it is not working this time.
There is nothing subversive going on.
Good men, spiritual men, who believe that Acts 2:38 is the only correct response to the gospel are coming together. Not to question the Bible but to discuss mindless dicta from out of touch leaders, and how to deal with it in a godly manner.
:hijacked
Have not read all of this thread but it is clear Bro Mooney's message is being missed by most!
I echo Pappa Bears feelings, God has been dealing with me about the same issue!
Everyone should hear it!
Encryptus
07-08-2009, 12:54 PM
????
It looked pretty much on point to me. But I am glad he qualified as to "certain" leaders, I think the ones here in the South Texas District are doing a great job.
Encryptus
07-08-2009, 12:59 PM
Have not read all of this thread but it is clear Bro Mooney's message is being missed by most!
I echo Pappa Bears feelings, God has been dealing with me about the same issue!
Everyone should hear it!
Unfortunately Ron, Scott is way too broadbrush. A lot of the ones I personally know who were there (and are second or third generation) have gone out and started new assemblies on their own. It seems like a whole lot of attempts to grasp at straws to discredit these guys. Sad really.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 12:59 PM
????
It looked pretty much on point to me. But I am glad he qualified as to "certain" leaders, I think the ones here in the South Texas District are doing a great job.
South Texas has been involved in the same rumor mill.
moniker
07-08-2009, 01:01 PM
"No one can join that organization if he does not keep within the borders of their set doctrines. If one should go ahead of their creed, as he is led by the Holy Spirit, he is cast out and proclaimed dangerous."
Andrew D. Urshan The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ 125-6
Encryptus
07-08-2009, 01:02 PM
South Texas has been involved in the same rumor mill.
I really have not seen that from Bernard or his Asst Shaw. They also had their own small meeting to discuss concerns with young ministers in West Houston at Scott Lewis's church recently. BTW deliberately small.
Encryptus
07-08-2009, 01:05 PM
"No one can join that organization if he does not keep within the borders of their set doctrines. If one should go ahead of their creed, as he is led by the Holy Spirit, he is cast out and proclaimed dangerous."
Andrew D. Urshan The Almighty God in the Lord Jesus Christ 125-6
And which set DOCTRINES are not being kept? Which legacy is been violated? When men are seeking to return to the original agreement in 1945 who is truly betraying the founders intent and who is continuing to move the landmarks?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 01:09 PM
I really have not seen that from Bernard or his Asst Shaw. They also had their own small meeting to discuss concerns with young ministers in West Houston at Scott Lewis's church recently. BTW deliberately small.
Secret meetings? :bigbaby
Some of them Houston/San Antonio/Austin churches causes friction in the Lonestar state?
Unfortunately Ron, Scott is way too broadbrush. A lot of the ones I personally know who were there 9and are second or third generation) have gone out and started new assemblies on their own. It seems like a whole lot of attempts to grasp at straws to discredit these guys. Sad really.
Bro Scott wasn't preaching---Bro Mooney was & he knocked it out of the park.
What Bro Scott was saying was the same things Bro Mooney was Preaching in the message (it was awesome) was the exact things that God had already been speaking to him about.
God has been doing the same for me.
Have you listened to the message?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 01:13 PM
Has anyone thought about contacting those who were rumored to be involved about obtaining information or meeting minutes...?
Why? Is it really everyone's business?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 01:15 PM
:hijacked
Not at all -- it's exactly what we are talking about here!
MikeinAR
07-08-2009, 01:19 PM
I clicked on the link to hear the sermon and I don't see any way to access it. Has it been removed?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 01:20 PM
And which set DOCTRINES are not being kept? Which legacy is been violated? When men are seeking to return to the original agreement in 1945 who is truly betraying the founders intent and who is continuing to move the landmarks?
The restorationists will tell you that the true landmarks are Pentecost, and that we are changing and moving closer to that. They wouldn't use 1945 as their benchmark.
Encryptus
07-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Bro Scott wasn't preaching---Bro Mooney was & he knocked it out of the park.
What Bro Scott was saying was the same things Bro Mooney was Preaching in the message (it was awesome) was the exact things that God had already been speaking to him about.
God has been doing the same for me.
Have you listened to the message?
RON, if you had read I was responding to YOUR post about SCOTT'S POST. Yes I did listen to the message, overall magnificently done as usual. There were some accusations made and things implied toward the end that were unfortunate. Broadbrush and politics as usual. The man is campaigning for GS I get that. And of the candidates out there may be the best. Who knows.
But this fearmongering- about false prophets and false doctrines among us. In a real sense I suppose it has never been the case that there were not some, in that sense how can it be a great revelation? If he is however trying to tie it into some new Illuminati, some new secret society looking to destroy the UPC from within. Well that is sad, no matter how great a man he is.
And as Griff pointed out, that would place him out of touch with what is really going on with the rank and file.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Why? Is it really everyone's business?
Sounds like it is. Aren't we talking about it?
I clicked on the link to hear the sermon and I don't see any way to access it. Has it been removed?
This link?
http://web.me.com/scottaphillips/Site_2/FullProof_Podcast/Entries/2009/7/7_Intentional_Confrontation.html
MikeinAR
07-08-2009, 01:23 PM
This link?
http://web.me.com/scottaphillips/Site_2/FullProof_Podcast/Entries/2009/7/7_Intentional_Confrontation.html
Yeah all I see is an empty file box, but I've been having problems with QuickTime so it could just be my pc. Is it still accessible to you, Bro Ron?
RON, if you had read I was responding to YOUR post about SCOTT'S POST. Yes I did listen to the message, overall magnificently done as usual. There were some accusations made and things implied toward the end that were unfortunate. Broadbrush and politics as usual. The man is campaigning for GS I get that. And of the candidates out there may be the best. Who knows.
But this fearmongering- about false prophets and false doctrines among us. In a real sense I suppose it has never been the case that there were not some, in that sense how can it be a great revelation? If he is however trying to tie it into some new Illuminati, some new secret society looking to destroy the UPC from within. Well that is sad, no matter how great a man he is.
And as Griff pointed out, that would place him out of touch with what is really going on with the rank and file.
Well you are missing the point of the message which was had so little to do with meetings.
I think you missed the point of the message.
U376977
07-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Has anyone thought about contacting those who were rumored to be involved about obtaining information or meeting minutes...?
J. it was posted here by people who knew people at the meeting that it was a "network" meeting. Not subversion. Obviously based on Mooneys reaction it was perceived as much more than that,...
Why do preachers, when they feel threatened or challenged, call the other preachers "false prophets?" I have never seen it fail. "You whispered to another preacher in the corner, you must have been talking about me, I always knew you were a false prophet!"
Yeah all I see is an empty file box, but I've been having problems with QuickTime so it could just be my pc. Is it still accessible to you, Bro Ron?
Yes!
It is in QT so if you have problems with QT that may be the reason!
James Griffin
07-08-2009, 01:25 PM
Has anyone thought about contacting those who were rumored to be involved about obtaining information or meeting minutes...?
Justin it was not that type of meeting.
It was closer to round table discussions and fellowship.
moniker
07-08-2009, 01:29 PM
I really feel that if the UPCI exerts internal pressure on these men they will respond with legal charges. The Manual has too many loopholes.
Many of them are tired of threats and intimidation.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 01:32 PM
Well you are missing the point of the message which was had so little to do with meetings.
I think you missed the point of the message.
Ron, I don't believe anyone has missed the point of his message. We really aren't discussing it, but what was said at the end of his message.
Encryptus
07-08-2009, 01:32 PM
J. it was posted here by people who knew people at the meeting that it was a "network" meeting. Not subversion. Obviously based on Mooneys reaction it was perceived as much more than that,...
Why do preachers, when they feel threatened or challenged, call the other preachers "false prophets?" I have never seen it fail. "You whispered to another preacher in the corner, you must have been talking about me, I always knew you were a false prophet!"
This post makes me want to hum. "paranoia runs deep, into your heart it will creep"
Kim Komando
07-08-2009, 01:33 PM
I clicked on the link to hear the sermon and I don't see any way to access it. Has it been removed?
There seems to be problems with the podcast when using FireFox. Are you using FireFox? If so, try IE.
Ron, I don't believe anyone has missed the point of his message. We really aren't discussing it, but what was said at the end of his message.
Right & that is why I say, "you missed the message!":thumbsup
There seems to be problems with the podcast when using FireFox. Are you using FireFox? If so, try IE.
I use Firefox & had no problem.
James Griffin
07-08-2009, 01:37 PM
I really feel that if the UPCI exerts internal pressure on these men they will respond with legal charges. The Manual has too many loopholes.
Many of them are tired of threats and intimidation.
Moniker, I believe the first step would have to be internal. Namely, they would have to be brought up on charges, and I believe they are allowed counsel there. I am not too familiar with the internal workings of those meetings (I left voluntarily in the 80s lol), perhaps Pastor Bernard or someone would have more illumination on that, but I would be surprised at any court action from either side until that remedy had been exhausted first..
commonsense
07-08-2009, 01:39 PM
It has been my observation that many who espouse the more radical application of the message and holiness have not understood the essence of truth in either and have created more offense in the body than any other group that they would call heretic.
And I quote.
Points well stated,( whoever deserves credit..)
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 01:39 PM
I can't imagine how sad all this has to make God!
moniker
07-08-2009, 01:44 PM
Mooney and others will attempt to push them out.
They will marginalize, intimidate, shun and otherwise dicredit those men.
However, I find it odd that Mooney would be so strident when Brothers Tenney, Rex Johnson and Royce Wilson spoke at that meeting.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 01:45 PM
link still works fine
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 01:47 PM
mooney and others will attempt to push them out.
They will marginalize, intimidate, shun and otherwise dicredit those men.
However, i find it odd that mooney would be so strident when brothers tenney, rex johnson and royce wilson spoke at that meeting.
p o l i t i c a l
Paul Harvey
07-08-2009, 01:49 PM
Right & that is why I say, "you missed the message!":thumbsup
The end was very much part of the message Ron when he ties in his thoughts linking Emerging Church with 3 temptations the Church faces.
If Mooney and the General Board can't get it's facts straight on Emerging Church and can't even accurately define it -
For example:
-PM stating authoritatively in his message that Erwin McManus is from Colombia when he's a native of El Salvador.
- Mark Jordan and the EC committee placing Driscoll in the EC crowd when he has spoken out against Emerging Church
- Mooney's committee linking saved by repentance, casual dress attire and preachers sitting while preaching as Emergent.
then I don't have any trust in his ability to effectively communicate truthfully what is transpiring, nor can I look passed the bias he has in seeking to label and demonize his own brethren and peers in his organization with a politically charged, convenient label.
I too smell a kangaroo court.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 01:49 PM
p o l i t i c a l
Ah yes, politics, an element that is inherent when humans get together, and completely avoidable. Sadly, it sometimes preempts our decisions. Whether or not, PM is guilty of that is up to those who the situation and him better. Definitely something to always consider in ministry -- politics and money.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:08 PM
BTW. 20 Million Minutes, the documentary mentioned in his preaching, is fabulous. Highly recommend this. Newt mentioned it also in a recent speech.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:10 PM
another quote (paraphrased) "Michael Jackson hasn't done anything to inspire goodness... or values." Do you agree? Not entirely Christian, but music like Heal the World and him being the biggest philanthropic pop star giver... do those mean anything to you?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:11 PM
"snakes in your house" now that I heard it, people here used it out of context. It wasn't directly applied to the gentlemen at the Detroit meeting. Separate remarks.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 02:14 PM
another quote (paraphrased) "Michael Jackson hasn't done anything to inspire goodness... or values." Do you agree? Not entirely Christian, but music like Heal the World and him being the biggest philanthropic pop star giver... do those mean anything to you?
No, it doesn't mean anything to most because "he's not in the church".
I think he tried very hard to "heal the world" - - not sure he could impact it very much, but he surely tried.
And, he GAVE tons of $$ - - that had to make a difference to some.
GP - talk about hijacking....lol!
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:16 PM
No, it doesn't mean anything to most because "he's not in the church".
I think he tried very hard to "heal the world" - - not sure he could impact it very much, but he surely tried.
And, he GAVE tons of $$ - - that had to make a difference to some.
GP - talk about hijacking....lol!
Haha! Just talking about the sermon that inspired this thread.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 02:17 PM
Haha! Just talking about the sermon that inspired this thread.
I know - so it was kinda of on subject, but not the direction of the thread.
Just had to say something since you thought JG was hijacking and he wasn't at all.
Withdrawn
07-08-2009, 02:23 PM
Paul didn't invite his antagonists (in his letters) to come defend themselves. He told the churches to kick them out. Nothing has moved this particular situation to that point, so instead, he was making it clear of his disapproval for so-called secret meetings -- and avoided name-branding or specifics to make that clear. If, he in fact said "false prophets", I think there needs to be more supportive evidence for saying such things in a public setting.
Was it the wisest thing to do? I don't know, the survey is out. But, he most definitely had every right to do it.
Understood, and agreed. However, it's been repeatedly noted throughout this thread (and by you, also) that he was right to "confront" what he sees as threats or false doctrine.
If I'm spouting off what I think about some guy named GrowingPains (without using GP's name) in front of a group of people who may or may not know you or what I'm talking about... you're not there... can you call that a confrontation? Or is it really more like priming the pump, stacking the jury of public opinion so that when it comes time for the kangaroo trial, the applause for my actions and my political position will be that much greater?
A one-sided rant against someone else who is not present or granted a voice is defamation, not a confrontation. Again... not my word, but yours and others posting in this thread.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:25 PM
His last point, "Apostles did not operate in corners"
Areas of temptations
1) False Prophecy -- charismatic personalities
2) People in your family that no longer people
3) Certain Men, who secretly work (cunning, crafty)
-- last days, greatest gift to give world is Truth. Truth is inherently confrontational
Uses Hybel as his example, saying we can't have church without controversy, without confrontation, etc...
If we let his fire go out, other nations will come to this country and do what we should be doing. If we stand by and let the light go out, and won't hold it up, somewhere on this terra firm called earth, there will be some... statesman saying "democracy, freedom." It's the torch the people follow. Give it up... you know what will happen... some little preacher will rent a store front near you one of these days and you will discover it is the torch the people follow."
He most definitely doesn't agree with co-existing. I didn't catch the part about the secret meeting though.
mizpeh
07-08-2009, 02:26 PM
I am Scott Phillips. I posted the message linked here on this page.
I can speak from a man under 40, Minister in the UPC, he spoke to the issues and mirrored my feelings precisely.
If you don't like the UPC, Acts 2:38, Holiness Lifestyle, just leave.
And if these cool brilliant talents boys who have one claim to fame and that being nepotism, why take a church who was built on this foundation... and STEAL IT because daddy don't have the guts to tell you no...
And go prove your method's on their merits, rather than piggy backing your doctrine and leading good people into darkness.
Mooney is a Good Man of God who is standing against this evil, dark, deceptive spirit of compromise.
The difference between Satans' Words to Eve and God's were three letters, one small word.....
NOT
And that little twist stole paradise and damned humanity to hell. Trying to use a philosophical approach to spiritual, biblical matters demonstrates the father of the doctrines born of such.
If your interested in my personal thought process, you can read my blog... I have been quite fervently dealing with these issues over the past few months.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.comIt's obvious with this type of rhetoric why it had to be a secret meeting.
Why don't you engage your peers in dialogue about the issues they are concerned with Biblical evidence instead of inflammatory accusations?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:28 PM
Understood, and agreed. However, it's been repeatedly noted throughout this thread (and by you, also) that he was right to "confront" what he sees as threats or false doctrine.
If I'm spouting off what I think about some guy named GrowingPains (without using GP's name) in front of a group of people who may or may not know you or what I'm talking about... you're not there... can you call that a confrontation? Or is it really more like priming the pump, stacking the jury of public opinion so that when it comes time for the kangaroo trial, the applause for my actions and my political position will be that much greater?
A one-sided rant against someone else who is not present or granted a voice is defamation, not a confrontation. Again... not my word, but yours and others posting in this thread.
Jaamez, I know what you mean. The problem is that he wasn't seeking to indict, PM just isn't stupid. He knows there is a huge undercurrent of young ministers in the UPCI plotting their way. He's making a public statement, that in my opinion after hearing the sermon, was not specifically directed exclusively to the Detroit meeting, but rather to all who are being tempted by what he considers false doctrine. You better believe he is stacking the jury, and since this isn't a court of law, I'm not sure he's wrong to do it.
I don't agree with him. I'll say that again. Clarifying, I don't agree with what he considers false doctrine, but I think his comments are kosher.
The end was very much part of the message Ron when he ties in his thoughts linking Emerging Church with 3 temptations the Church faces.
If Mooney and the General Board can't get it's facts straight on Emerging Church and can't even accurately define it -
For example:
-PM stating authoritatively in his message that Erwin McManus is from Colombia when he's a native of El Salvador.
- Mark Jordan and the EC committee placing Driscoll in the EC crowd when he has spoken out against Emerging Church
- Mooney's committee linking saved by repentance, casual dress attire and preachers sitting while preaching as Emergent.
then I don't have any trust in his ability to effectively communicate truthfully what is transpiring, nor can I look passed the bias he has in seeking to label and demonize his own brethren and peers in his organization with a politically charged, convenient label.
I too smell a kangaroo court.
And I smell someone who likes to use Dead peoples names instead of coming out & saying who you are?
Who are you?
Hiding behind an anonymous name & making inflamatory statements is worse than anything!
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 02:32 PM
His last point, "Apostles did not operate in corners"
Areas of temptations
1) False Prophecy -- charismatic personalities
2) People in your family that no longer people
3) Certain Men, who secretly work (cunning, crafty)
-- last days, greatest gift to give world is Truth. Truth is inherently confrontational
.
People in your family that are no longer people??
Withdrawn
07-08-2009, 02:32 PM
Jaamez, I know what you mean. The problem is that he wasn't seeking to indict, PM just isn't stupid. He knows there is a huge undercurrent of young ministers in the UPCI plotting their way. He's making a public statement, that in my opinion after hearing the sermon, was not specifically directed exclusively to the Detroit meeting, but rather to all who are being tempted by what he considers false doctrine. You better believe he is stacking the jury, and since this isn't a court of law, I'm not sure he's wrong to do it.
I don't agree with him. I'll say that again. Clarifying, I don't agree with what he considers false doctrine, but I think his comments are kosher.
I think we'll agree to disagree, and I won't contend for my position toward the end of disunity. :lol
By the way... I respect your position and your standing in the brotherhood of the redeemed. My reference to ranting about "some guy named GrowingPains" was completely benign - for illustration only. I appreciate you and the dialogue that we have enjoyed recently. Iron sharpens iron! :friend
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:35 PM
:blushPeople in your family that are no longer people??
:blush Short-hand. Sorry.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:37 PM
I think we'll agree to disagree, and I won't contend for my position toward the end of disunity. :lol
By the way... I respect your position and your standing in the brotherhood of the redeemed. My reference to ranting about "some guy named GrowingPains" was completely benign - for illustration only. I appreciate you and the dialogue that we have enjoyed recently. Iron sharpens iron! :friend
Agreed. :praying
moniker
07-08-2009, 02:38 PM
The end was very much part of the message Ron when he ties in his thoughts linking Emerging Church with 3 temptations the Church faces.
If Mooney and the General Board can't get it's facts straight on Emerging Church and can't even accurately define it -
For example:
-PM stating authoritatively in his message that Erwin McManus is from Colombia when he's a native of El Salvador.
- Mark Jordan and the EC committee placing Driscoll in the EC crowd when he has spoken out against Emerging Church
- Mooney's committee linking saved by repentance, casual dress attire and preachers sitting while preaching as Emergent.
then I don't have any trust in his ability to effectively communicate truthfully what is transpiring, nor can I look passed the bias he has in seeking to label and demonize his own brethren and peers in his organization with a politically charged, convenient label.
I too smell a kangaroo court.
And I smell someone who likes to use Dead peoples names instead of coming out & saying who you are?
Who are you?
Hiding behind an anonymous name & making inflamatory statements is worse than anything!
Yeah, I'm sure talking to him like that will really make him own up to his identity.:smack
Inflammatory demonization?
Gee, that sounds like a sermon I heard recently.:ursofunny
Yeah, I'm sure talking to him like that will really make him own up to his identity.:smack
Inflammatory demonization?
Gee, that sounds like a sermon I heard recently.:ursofunny
Or you!:D
I just do not think anonymous names were meant for that purpose.
So anything inflammatory posted by people who refuse to reveal themselves is considered Gossip & Innuendo & we all know what the Bible says about that!:thumbsup
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 02:49 PM
:blush
:blush Short-hand. Sorry.
What was it supposed to say?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 02:50 PM
What was it supposed to say?
People in your family that are no longer believing. In other words, he's acknowledging and anticipating families to split over these issues, or talking to families that are already dealing with that.
Papabear
07-08-2009, 02:51 PM
MizPeh,
If you read my blog... I have been engaging my generation through writing and conversations...
I am not against these guys individually... I have a burden and desire to see them as young men find thier footing.
I will post one of the articles I have written in an effort to engage and reason with these that are in a place of being influenced.
My words were a little sharp... I regret that... however I do feel quite strongly about it and so my writing can be rather pointed and maybe a little sharper than I intend.
http://inbythroughhim.blogspot.com/2009/05/holiness-and-facebook-generation.html
moniker
07-08-2009, 02:52 PM
Or you!:D
I just do not think anonymous names were meant for that purpose.
So anything inflammatory posted by people who refuse to reveal themselves is considered Gossip & Innuendo & we all know what the Bible says about that!:thumbsup
I'm glad you don't do that on any of these forums, Brother.
moniker
07-08-2009, 02:53 PM
MizPeh,
If you read my blog... I have been engaging my generation through writing and conversations...
I am not against these guys individually... I have a burden and desire to see them as young men find thier footing.
I will post one of the articles I have written in an effort to engage and reason with these that are in a place of being influenced.
My words were a little sharp... I regret that... however I do feel quite strongly about it and so my writing can be rather pointed and maybe a little sharper than I intend.
http://inbythroughhim.blogspot.com/2009/05/holiness-and-facebook-generation.html
Many of these men are not young.
Several of them are older than you, Reverend.
I'm glad you don't do that on any of these forums, Brother.
Wether I have or have not is entirely relevant to my statements!
My username is who I am, it is the same name & picture on my Drivers License & my City is listed in my user profile.
One can know my name & my Church & if you like my Pastor & his phone # if you like.
I will stand behind my statements & not hide any accusations behind anonymous user names!:thumbsup
That is the point!
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 02:58 PM
Wether I have or have not is entirely relevant to my statements!
My username is who I am, it is the same name & picture on my Drivers License & my City is listed in my user profile.
One can know my name & my Church & if you like my Pastor & his phone # if you like.
I will stand behind my statements & not hide any accusations behind anonymous user names!:thumbsup
That is the point!
You have a picture of you and your wife on your drivers license??
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 02:59 PM
Or you!:D
I just do not think anonymous names were meant for that purpose.
So anything inflammatory posted by people who refuse to reveal themselves is considered Gossip & Innuendo & we all know what the Bible says about that!:thumbsup
Ron, seriously.
Some HAVE to post anonymously for a reason. You can't discredit what they have to say because of that. You have become very intolerant.
You have a picture of you and your wife on your drivers license??
And you don't???:foottap
freeatlast
07-08-2009, 03:00 PM
And I smell someone who likes to use Dead peoples names instead of coming out & saying who you are?
Who are you?
Hiding behind an anonymous name & making inflamatory statements is worse than anything!
You don't seem to like the anonymity of this forum Ron. It IS an anonymous forum...don't like it, leave it. :foottap
Theophil
07-08-2009, 03:00 PM
Many of these men are not young.
Several of them are older than you, Reverend.
This is true. Very true.
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:03 PM
Wether I have or have not is entirely relevant to my statements!
My username is who I am, it is the same name & picture on my Drivers License & my City is listed in my user profile.
One can know my name & my Church & if you like my Pastor & his phone # if you like.
I will stand behind my statements & not hide any accusations behind anonymous user names!:thumbsup
That is the point!
Ron, seriously.
Some HAVE to post anonymously for a reason. You can't discredit what they have to say because of that. You have become very intolerant.
For the same reason others need to keep some meetings secret.:thumbsup
Ron, seriously.
Some HAVE to post anonymously for a reason. You can't discredit what they have to say because of that. You have become very intolerant.
Renda, all I am intolerant of is this, I respect peoples right to disagree but I think it is a little sneaky to put it mildly that people would use an anonymous
user name to make accusations against people in particular men of God about thier motives & or try to interpret what or why they are saying it.
Same could be said of posting things from another forum in contravention of it's rules & then slap your hands together & say you did no wrong.
Sorry, I don't think that it is what it was intended for at all.
Theophil
07-08-2009, 03:06 PM
Ron, seriously.
Some HAVE to post anonymously for a reason. You can't discredit what they have to say because of that. You have become very intolerant.
Yeah, like me for example! :-)
You don't seem to like the anonymity of this forum Ron. It IS an anonymous forum...don't like it, leave it. :foottap
freeatlast, you are a hardliner!:-)
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:07 PM
Wether I have or have not is entirely relevant to my statements!
My username is who I am, it is the same name & picture on my Drivers License & my City is listed in my user profile.
One can know my name & my Church & if you like my Pastor & his phone # if you like.
I will stand behind my statements & not hide any accusations behind anonymous user names!:thumbsup
That is the point!
Renda, all I am intolerant of is this, I respect peoples right to disagree but I think it is a little sneaky to put it mildly that people would use an anonymous
user name to make accusations against people in particular men of God about thier motives & or try to interpret what or why they are saying it.
Same could be said of posting things from another forum in contravention of it's rules & then slap your hands together & say you did no wrong.
Sorry, I don't think that it is what it was intended for at all.
Ron, why do you belong to a secret forum?
Why do you need to hide your posts away from the rest of the world?
You don't seem to like the anonymity of this forum Ron. It IS an anonymous forum...don't like it, leave it. :foottap
Ahh, rather I do not like it as a place for disgruntled, bitter, ex UPCers posting all thier petty drivels behind "anonymous user names" the Bible does have something to say about it!:thumbsup
OnTheFritz
07-08-2009, 03:07 PM
Maybe anonymity is a good thing. Valid points often need to be made without having to worry about a resulting witch hunt. :blah
You guys have weird driver licenses up there in the great white north, by the way. :ursofunny
Ron, why do you belong to a secret forum?
Why do you need to hide your posts away from the rest of the world?
I will answer that when you tell me "who" you really are!:thumbsup
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 03:08 PM
And you don't???:foottap
I don't have a wife.
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:09 PM
Ron, why do you belong to a secret forum like justpreachers?
Why do you need to hide your posts away from the rest of the world?
:gotcha
Yeah, like me for example! :-)
freeatlast, you are a hardliner!:-)
Be nice to him, I stepped on his toes one time & he still hasn't gotten over it!:thumbsup
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Be nice to him, I stepped on his toes one time & he still hasn't gotten over it!:thumbsup
I honestly don't know why you stick around, Ronnie.
All you ever do is whine.
Why stay here if it torments you so much?
Maybe anonymity is a good thing. Valid points often need to be made without having to worry about a resulting witch hunt. :blah
You guys have weird driver licenses up there in the great white north, by the way. :ursofunny
I haven't seem any witch hunts & besides have nothing to fear from anything I post & am willing to stand behind it.:thumbsup
I am not sure but others though!
Are DL are kinda cool!
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Ahh, rather I do not like it as a place for disgruntled, bitter, ex UPCers posting all thier petty drivels behind "anonymous user names" the Bible does have something to say about it!:thumbsup
Ron, are you angry at the anonymity, or the things people say with anonymity that you feel is cowardly and lacks credibility?
I think I understand what you're saying. I'm anonymous for a reason, as most are. But if I want to leak BREAKING NEWS that is all hearsay, I need some credibility. I get that. In this case, we all had the opportunity of hearing PM's words out of his own mouth and were able to discuss that.
I honestly don't know why you stick around, Ronnie.
All you ever do is whine.
Why stay here if it torments you so much?
Ahh, I must have struck a nerve!:gotcha
Someone has to keep people honest!:thumbsup
freeatlast
07-08-2009, 03:12 PM
Ahh, rather I do not like it as a place for disgruntled, bitter, ex UPCers posting all thier petty drivels behind "anonymous user names" the Bible does have something to say about it!:thumbsup
OK Ron...I can't find anonymous user names in my concordance. Could you enlighten us disgruintles as to where it mentions this.
and another question, if one is disgruntled, how do they become ungruntled?
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:12 PM
I honestly don't know why you stick around, Ronnie.
All you ever do is whine.
Why stay here if it torments you so much?
Oh don't start shoving him around. Keep it on a higher ground. If he wants to rant, let him. He never said it torments him.
I hate these playground antics sometimes.
Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:12 PM
Who can't respect people who feel so strong about something they can't put their real name on it.
What is not to respect about that?
People of courage and principle who believe it and espouse it in the secret of the heart but lack the moral courage to say it outloud.
Either A. they are not fully persuaded or B. cowards
But hey, everyone is free to be a coward... it is America.
Just so you know, my name is scott phillips and i approve this message.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.com
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:14 PM
Who can't respect people who feel so strong about something they can't put their real name on it.
What is not to respect about that?
People of courage and principle who believe it and espouse it in the secret of the heart but lack the moral courage to say it outloud.
Either A. they are not fully persuaded or B. cowards
But hey, everyone is free to be a coward... it is America.
Just so you know, my name is scott phillips and i approve this message.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.com
BINGO. Definitely not a coward. More interested in candid discussions than being rushed to a tribunal about what you believe.
freeatlast
07-08-2009, 03:14 PM
Be nice to him, I stepped on his toes one time & he still hasn't gotten over it!:thumbsup
Please tell us about this Ron ?
OnTheFritz
07-08-2009, 03:14 PM
I haven't seem any witch hunts & besides have nothing to fear from anything I post & am willing to stand behind it.:thumbsup
I am not sure but others though!
Are DL are kinda cool!
The stakes may be higher for some than others. I had my real name as my ID for a while, but I didn't like my posts showing up on the first page of a google search. Nothing to hide, but I just prefer these discussions to be amongst a smaller group.
Ron, are you angry at the anonymity, or the things people say with anonymity that you feel is cowardly and lacks credibility?
I think I understand what you're saying. I'm anonymous for a reason, as most are. But if I want to leak BREAKING NEWS that is all hearsay, I need some credibility. I get that. In this case, we all had the opportunity of hearing PM's words out of his own mouth and were able to discuss that.
Someone willing to post some "sense!"
Thier is a lot of "negativity" on the forum (at least towards the UPC or anyone who is not liberal) & I just posted that it was a message that had a lot of substance to it.
If people who listened only heard "meetings" they missed the gist of the message IMHO.
mizpeh
07-08-2009, 03:16 PM
Who can't respect people who feel so strong about something they can't put their real name on it.
What is not to respect about that?
People of courage and principle who believe it and espouse it in the secret of the heart but lack the moral courage to say it outloud.
Either A. they are not fully persuaded or B. cowards
But hey, everyone is free to be a coward... it is America.
Just so you know, my name is scott phillips and i approve this message.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.commore rhetoric and name calling.
Oh don't start shoving him around. Keep it on a higher ground. If he wants to rant, let him. He never said it torments him.
I hate these playground antics sometimes.
Me too!:thumbsup
Please tell us about this Ron ?
After you, I insist!:D
Who can't respect people who feel so strong about something they can't put their real name on it.
What is not to respect about that?
People of courage and principle who believe it and espouse it in the secret of the heart but lack the moral courage to say it outloud.
Either A. they are not fully persuaded or B. cowards
But hey, everyone is free to be a coward... it is America.
Just so you know, my name is scott phillips and i approve this message.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.com
I agree 100% & that is for the most part my point!:thumbsup
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:19 PM
Reverend Philips,
You say you only want to help these men.
I don't believe you. You just want to punish them.
freeatlast
07-08-2009, 03:19 PM
After you, I insist!:D
I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to. you say you stepped on my toes and I never got over it???
Please share with our forum the accusation you make.
MikeinAR
07-08-2009, 03:20 PM
This is a view strictly from the outside as I've never been in the UPC and have no real attachment to the issues being discussed.
What I find odd is that of all the innuendo and rumor included by those who are speaking against the Detroit meeting, their posts seem to be devoid of any details of what actually occured at the invitation only gathering. Do those of you who are criticizing the brothers for meeting having specific details from credible sources about what was actually discussed that would be hurtful to the UPC?
What I see is a lot of groaning and complaining just because the meeting was in an exclusive setting where only certain bretheren were invited. That, in and of itself, doesn't seem that bothersome to me, without knowing the facts of what was discussed.
Just from the outside looking in, it seems like those who weren't invited are upset that they weren't included and have resorted to fear mongering and rumor mongering.
Reverend Philips,
You say you only want to help these men.
I don't believe you. You just want to punish them.
See what I mean? A cowardly accusation hiding behind a mask!:foottap
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Assistant General Superintendent, Paul D Mooney (IN), last night, at the Mississippi Camp meeting(most notably known for Greg Godwin and Borat) has seemingly railed- as perceived by some of his ministerial peers who have heard this message - against the recent invitation-only ministerial fellowship meeting that took place several weeks ago in Pontiac (Detroit) Michigan asking "who holds secret meetings?"
Mooney who recently headed a committee appointed by General Superintendent Kenneth Haney called the Committee For Inquiry of the Emerging took a page from the committee's recommendation to "affirm the Apostolic doctrine and Biblical holiness positions in campmeeting and conferences throughout the UPCI" in his sermon entitled "Intentional Confrontation".
This message is hailed by some already for its aggressive defense and/or offense for "the message".
What is unclear from the tone of this message is if Mooney is in step with another committee recommendation which states: "Establish a caring atmosphere within the UPCI in which individual Pastors are encouraged to maintain Apostolic doctrine."
Mooney alludes to the actions of some brethren as "cunning","conniving", "crafting" and that God is testing the Church in these last days with "dreamers" and "false prophets".
This on the heels of his recent Twitter post the day before the Detroit meeting in which he stated: "Good things, honest things, meaningful things, positive things, pure things, ethical things, are never done in secret ..."
Last night's preaching can be accessed here. Listen attentively towards the end of his message:
http://web.me.com/scottaphillips/Site_2/FullProof_Podcast/Entries/2009/7/7_Intentional_Confrontation.html
Other notable quotes towards the end of this message include:
Pentecost is at a place where you will have to have "intentional confrontation" with their children.
He refers to "people" (in this case, sons of ministers) who take churches and "destroy them" - "thieves".
"Either you stand for this or confess you are liar all your life."
To learn more about Mooney's involvement in heading the "Emerging" Committee, click here:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24736
What is unclear from the tone of this message is if Mooney is in step with another committee recommendation which states: "Establish a caring atmosphere within the UPCI in which individual Pastors are encouraged to maintain Apostolic doctrine."
This all sounds very caring.
Papabear
07-08-2009, 03:21 PM
Just because you call it rhetoric, don't make it false.
One Name... Coward... I don't view it as a name perse, but the definition of the word.
"a person who shows fear or timidity"
I think the "name" or word is fitting in this setting...
I understand on some level for certain things the anonymous aspect, but more harm than good has flowed from the free wheel nature and destructive bent to tear down some have excercised
words should have consequences.
if you are bold enough to say it, you should be bold enough to take the consequences of the same
I believe in bold communication... however I think it is less than bold if you don't feel strong enough to stand behind it.
but that is just me
My name is scott phillips and I approve this message
I don't have a clue as to what you are referring to. you say you stepped on my toes and I never got over it???
Please share with our forum the accusation you make.
I must have stepped on your toes Bro, why else would you post rude to me?:nah
Just because you call it rhetoric, don't make it false.
One Name... Coward... I don't view it as a name perse, but the definition of the word.
"a person who shows fear or timidity"
I think the "name" or word is fitting in this setting...
I understand on some level for certain things the anonymous aspect, but more harm than good has flowed from the free wheel nature and destructive bent to tear down some have excercised
words should have consequences.
if you are bold enough to say it, you should be bold enough to take the consequences of the same
I believe in bold communication... however I think it is less than bold if you don't feel strong enough to stand behind it.
but that is just me
My name is scott phillips and I approve this message
Amen!
FTR my name is Ron Bjorndal & I agree 100%!:thumbsup
freeatlast
07-08-2009, 03:25 PM
I must have stepped on your toes Bro, why else would you post rude to me?:nah
No you didn't....and no I didn't
G'day Ron B
MikeinAR
07-08-2009, 03:25 PM
Just because you call it rhetoric, don't make it false.
One Name... Coward... I don't view it as a name perse, but the definition of the word.
"a person who shows fear or timidity"
I think the "name" or word is fitting in this setting...
I understand on some level for certain things the anonymous aspect, but more harm than good has flowed from the free wheel nature and destructive bent to tear down some have excercised
words should have consequences.
if you are bold enough to say it, you should be bold enough to take the consequences of the same
I believe in bold communication... however I think it is less than bold if you don't feel strong enough to stand behind it.
but that is just me
My name is scott phillips and I approve this message
Pastor Philips, since you were one seeming to condemn the meetings can you share with us publicly what you believe was discussed in Detroit?
No you didn't....and no I didn't
G'day Ron B
Is B your real last name?
I am being merciful to the readers of my posts so they don't have to try & pronounce it!:D
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:28 PM
I wonder if these guys will push a resolution to do away with the holiness articles.
I heard that may be what this is about.
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 03:33 PM
Someone willing to post some "sense!"
Thier is a lot of "negativity" on the forum (at least towards the UPC or anyone who is not liberal) & I just posted that it was a message that had a lot of substance to it.
If people who listened only heard "meetings" they missed the gist of the message IMHO.
I've tried to only question and discuss issues. It's not an attempt to be negative. Some are acidic in their approach, but surely you don't see us all that way.
MikeinAR
07-08-2009, 03:34 PM
I hope that some of those who have condemned the meeting and supported the message brought last night at the MS camp, will back up their reasoning on the wrongness of the meeting by giving us details of what was discussed at the "evil, cunning, conniving" meeting.
I've tried to only question and discuss issues. It's not an attempt to be negative. Some are acidic in their approach, but surely you don't see us all that way.
No I don't, but then again while I have seen your opinions at times I don't believe I have ever seen you make any accusations either.
No you didn't....and no I didn't
G'day Ron B
Oh okay, forgive me as I did see the smiley when you posted with a suggestion I leave!:thumbsup
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 03:37 PM
I am pretty sure that the UPC doesn't allow debate about their core doctrines. These are doctrines that identify the UPC and are untouchable. Now maybe holiness standards aren't a part of that core doctrine but I think that if someone came out against the hair doctrine all heck would break loose.
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 03:38 PM
How can their be change if their can be no discussion?
moniker
07-08-2009, 03:40 PM
How can their be change if their can be no discussion?
Now you're getting the picture.:thumbsup
How can their be change if their can be no discussion?
Some feel we are changing---and not for the better!:thumbsup
RandyWayne
07-08-2009, 03:43 PM
How can their be change if their can be no discussion?
I guess it's just another brick in the wall.....
mizpeh
07-08-2009, 03:48 PM
Just because you call it rhetoric, don't make it false.
One Name... Coward... I don't view it as a name perse, but the definition of the word.
"a person who shows fear or timidity"
I think the "name" or word is fitting in this setting...
I understand on some level for certain things the anonymous aspect, but more harm than good has flowed from the free wheel nature and destructive bent to tear down some have excercised
words should have consequences.
if you are bold enough to say it, you should be bold enough to take the consequences of the same
I believe in bold communication... however I think it is less than bold if you don't feel strong enough to stand behind it.
but that is just me
My name is scott phillips and I approve this messageIt's your attitude. Combative and proud. What makes you think with your type of attitude that those "likeminded" men would even consider broaching their brethren who take the same approach you do with their concerns? It appears to me that you're ready to fight before you even listen to their POV! And I could care less what your name is.
Theophil
07-08-2009, 03:50 PM
It's your attitude. Combative and proud. What makes you think with your type of attitude that those "likeminded" men would even consider broaching their brethren who take the same approach you do with their concerns? It appears to me that you're ready to fight before you even listen to their POV! And I could care less what your name is.
You go girl!!! LOL. :thumbsup
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 03:51 PM
Some feel we are changing---and not for the better!:thumbsup
No one is forcing anyone else to change. If you are a pastor who believes one-step or three-step or clothes-line standards or not you should be able to make the changes necessary.
There is so much propaganda out there about those who leave the Apostolic way. It is real simple. Just submit your life to Christ, get into the word, and live in the freedom of Christ.
If the gospel message was preached instead of trying to force a doctrine that is way to controversial and takes a lot of jumping through hoops to explain the UPC would grow like never before. The UPC has some of the most talented people yet has a message that leads to nothing more than a checklist.
Sorry for being so straightforward but that is how I feel.
Lets just get back to the Bible as our source for answers.
It's your attitude. Combative and proud. What makes you think with your type of attitude that those "likeminded" men would even consider broaching their brethren who take the same approach you do with their concerns? It appears to me that you're ready to fight before you even listen to their POV! And I could care less what your name is.
Well, well, well, it sounds like the pot calling the kettle black!
That is okay though cuz you just hide in the shadows!:D
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 03:53 PM
How can their be change if their can be no discussion?
I think that's the point. :)
mizpeh
07-08-2009, 03:54 PM
You go girl!!! LOL. :thumbsup
Yeah, well, I'm sure he's saying his name PROUDLY.
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 03:55 PM
Great points, Miz!
No one is forcing anyone else to change. If you are a pastor who believes one-step or three-step or clothes-line standards or not you should be able to make the changes necessary.
There is so much propaganda out there about those who leave the Apostolic way. It is real simple. Just submit your life to Christ, get into the word, and live in the freedom of Christ.
If the gospel message was preached instead of trying to force a doctrine that is way to controversial and takes a lot of jumping through hoops to explain the UPC would grow like never before. The UPC has some of the most talented people yet has a message that leads to nothing more than a checklist.
Sorry for being so straightforward but that is how I feel.
Lets just get back to the Bible as our source for answers.
I agree the Bible is a book that is filled with "Holiness Principals" a lot of which doesn't spell out such things as "crack" wearing "thongs" with tight jeans with the clothing exposed ahem!
Enter a Holy Ghost filled anointed Pastor with teaching for our day & age.
It also says of I believe this day & age in 2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
deltaguitar
07-08-2009, 04:00 PM
I agree the Bible is a book that is filled with "Holiness Principals" a lot of which doesn't spell out such things as "crack" wearing "thongs" with tight jeans with the clothing exposed ahem!
Enter a Holy Ghost filled anointed Pastor with teaching for our day & age.
It also says of I believe this day & age in 2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
I don't see any Christians doing these things. Sin is sin and will always be sin. But the "holiness principals" you are talking about are fence laws and not the real law.
If a person has been regenerated by Christ and doesn't experience a change of heart then I would doubt their new birth. If all we try to do is change behavior then all we are doing is getting people cleaned up enough to send them to hell.
mizpeh
07-08-2009, 04:01 PM
PapaBear,
From what I've read you love God and His word. If we are truly looking for the old paths shouldn't we go to the Bible and not to the last few generations that preceded us? What if their standards of holiness are simply traditions of men and poor exegesis of the scriptures? Then they are laying grievous burdens upon the saints of God and adding to the word of God. Is it possible that we can have differing opinions and still be saved? Didn't Paul allude to that in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8? and please consider your attitude toward your brethren. Why are you so willing and eager to kick them out of the fold by telling them to leave?
*AQuietPlace*
07-08-2009, 04:06 PM
It really puzzles me that there is not much fear concerning "adding to the word of God."
I don't see any Christians doing these things. Sin is sin and will always be sin. But the "holiness principals" you are talking about are fence laws and not the real law.
If a person has been regenerated by Christ and doesn't experience a change of heart then I would doubt their new birth. If all we try to do is change behavior then all we are doing is getting people cleaned up enough to send them to hell.
People who come out of the world need teaching.
We had one sister who as sweet as she was, still needed instruction.
She wore a real nice white blouse that had long sleeves---but was almost transparent!!
Don't forget, the "flesh" doesn't like restrictions on it so a person saying they have freedom from any restrictions may just not like having a man of God tell them how to live for God!:thumbsup
GrowingPains
07-08-2009, 04:30 PM
I don't see any Christians doing these things. Sin is sin and will always be sin. But the "holiness principals" you are talking about are fence laws and not the real law.
If a person has been regenerated by Christ and doesn't experience a change of heart then I would doubt their new birth. If all we try to do is change behavior then all we are doing is getting people cleaned up enough to send them to hell.
Let me play the DA for Ron on this one, just out of curiosity. Because of culture changes, we look at the principles, and shouldn't we interpret them, and bring the timeless truths that they are into our modern context? Shouldn't we be specific, and not just leaving everything in the air? And what should we be specific about?
MikeinAR
07-08-2009, 04:33 PM
It really puzzles me that there is not much fear concerning "adding to the word of God."
Anthony Mangun preached a great sermon at BOTT a few years back on this very thing. He basically said we're all quick to judge someone who takes away but in fact we should be just as concerned about those who decide to add too. Both are warned against equally.
OnTheFritz
07-08-2009, 04:37 PM
Some feel we are changing---and not for the better!:thumbsup
So if it were for the better in your estimation, would the discussion be ok?
I have only read the first four pages of this thread so probably someone has already pointed this out.
It sounds to me like this is just a case of Paul Mooney positioning himself for a run for GS. You have to convince the base you are solid, steadfast, locked into the UPC traditional views, to have a chance at being elected.
PM is a fine man. One of the nicest big name preachers I have ever met. I had the pleasure of having lunch with him once a year several years in a row and was very impressed. However he is a part of a unique religous culture that demands certain things of it's leaders.
In many ways PM would be a good progressive leader in much the same way KH has been but he will make it clear (and I believe he means it) that he draws the line well short of changing any doctrine or standards.
MikeinAR
07-08-2009, 04:44 PM
And if these cool brilliant talents boys who have one claim to fame and that being nepotism, why take a church who was built on this foundation... and STEAL IT because daddy don't have the guts to tell you no...
And go prove your method's on their merits, rather than piggy backing your doctrine and leading good people into darkness.
Pastor Philips could you expound more on this opinion from your orginial post in the thread?
You seem like a guy who doesn't mind to parse words or call names, so I'm wondering which preachers, specifically, you had in mind when you said this. No reason to talk in vague generalities, IMO.
Who exactly were you addressing with that?
freeatlast
07-08-2009, 05:02 PM
No wonder Pentecost came in like a mighty "blowing wind"
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:09 PM
I will answer that when you tell me "who" you really are!:thumbsup
Ron, you are getting a bit silly now. If he told you his name was Robert Clayton would that really make a difference - - you probably wouldn't know him either way.
I can't believe that you seriously have this much problem with people posting anonymously. Some could be the same brethren you post with on JP, but choose to take a REAL approach on how they feel over here - - so who's being truthful now?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:10 PM
Be nice to him, I stepped on his toes one time & he still hasn't gotten over it!:thumbsup
Ron, what's the difference in this post and the one that you reported?
moniker
07-08-2009, 05:13 PM
How did Ron become the focus of this thread?
Any time he feels his position is taking heat he starts slinging mud.
And I'm really tired of him trying to "out" all of our anonymous posters.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:14 PM
This is a view strictly from the outside as I've never been in the UPC and have no real attachment to the issues being discussed.
What I find odd is that of all the innuendo and rumor included by those who are speaking against the Detroit meeting, their posts seem to be devoid of any details of what actually occured at the invitation only gathering. Do those of you who are criticizing the brothers for meeting having specific details from credible sources about what was actually discussed that would be hurtful to the UPC?
What I see is a lot of groaning and complaining just because the meeting was in an exclusive setting where only certain bretheren were invited. That, in and of itself, doesn't seem that bothersome to me, without knowing the facts of what was discussed.
Just from the outside looking in, it seems like those who weren't invited are upset that they weren't included and have resorted to fear mongering and rumor mongering.
Ya think?
A little hard to draw a conclusion if they weren't there, huh?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:17 PM
I've tried to only question and discuss issues. It's not an attempt to be negative. Some are acidic in their approach, but surely you don't see us all that way.
It's funny that there is "negative attempts" here, but what PM said wasn't negative.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:18 PM
I guess it's just another brick in the wall.....
Or another head against a brick wall.
Ron, what's the difference in this post and the one that you reported?
If you don't know Renda, I can't explain it to ya!:thumbsup
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:21 PM
Well, well, well, it sounds like the pot calling the kettle black!
That is okay though cuz you just hide in the shadows!:D
Good grief Ron - - what is UP with you? Miz is one of the most level-headed posters here and now you can't even be civil with her because she hasn't told you her name is Betsy Jones. I think you are confusing this forum with JP. We don't FORCE people to use their real names.
At least we get people's REAL opinions around here!
Ron, you are getting a bit silly now. If he told you his name was Robert Clayton would that really make a difference - - you probably wouldn't know him either way.
I can't believe that you seriously have this much problem with people posting anonymously. Some could be the same brethren you post with on JP, but choose to take a REAL approach on how they feel over here - - so who's being truthful now?
I have no problem with people posting anonymously, what I take issue with is "posters" making inflamatory statements, posting gossip, & innuendo behind a mask of "Anonymity" Renda if you can't see that then I am sorry!
Good grief Ron - - what is UP with you? Miz is one of the most level-headed posters here and now you can't even be civil with her because she hasn't told you her name is Betsy Jones. I think you are confusing this forum with JP. We don't FORCE people to use their real names.
At least we get people's REAL opinions around here!
Renda, her statement to Papa Bear, do you agree with it?
Is there anything over the line any more?
MrMasterMind
07-08-2009, 05:27 PM
Ron, love you man. Followed your posts and have usually found you are very level headed and rational, but lately. Why not take a midol PM and start over tomorrow?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:28 PM
I have no problem with people posting anonymously, what I take issue with is "posters" making inflamatory statements, posting gossip, & innuendo behind a mask of "Anonymity" Renda if you can't see that then I am sorry!
Ron, if you believe that, then call up PM and ask him to name the names of those he is referencing in his sermon. Get real.
How come it's okay for him to do it?
I can see VERY clearly. I work behind the scenes and know people that fear stating how they really feel sometimes because they know they would be slaughtered by the masses for speaking up.
Someone you admire very much had to post by another name in fear they would lose preaching engagements - - so, let it go, okay?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:30 PM
Renda, her statement to Papa Bear, do you agree with it?
Is there anything over the line any more?
It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with it. I don't have to agree with every post on the forum like some forums do. We allow opinions.
There is nothing over the line or breaks a rule.
It's no different to me than the things you've said to Freeatlast or Miz.
MrMasterMind
07-08-2009, 05:31 PM
Ron, if you believe that, then call up PM and ask him to name the names of those he is referencing in his sermon. Get real.
How come it's okay for him to do it?
I can see VERY clearly. I work behind the scenes and know people that fear stating how they really feel sometimes because they know they would be slaughtered by the masses for speaking up.
Someone you admire very much had to post by another name in fear they would lose preaching engagements - - so, let it go, okay?
rgcraig - I would disagree with your post in only one regard, it is not the masses they fear, its the few out of touch leaders wielding big sticks.
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:32 PM
rgcraig - I would disagree with your post in only one regard, it is not the masses they fear, its the few out of touch leaders wielding big sticks.
Point taken and I agree.
Ron, love you man. Followed your posts and have usually found you are very level headed and rational, but lately. Why not take a midol PM and start over tomorrow?
Why thank you sir! Now if I knew who you were I could perhaps return the compliment?:D
Seriously, I still consider myself level headed but a reasonable person gets tired of the negativity in the posting on AFF (that is your guys cue to show me the door LOL!) & the constant tearing down of the UPC, Men of God, & anything that doesn't align with the very predominantly "Liberal" slant AFF has taken as of late.
Is being level headed only when it is a "Liberal" point of view?
Ron, if you believe that, then call up PM and ask him to name the names of those he is referencing in his sermon. Get real.
How come it's okay for him to do it?
I can see VERY clearly. I work behind the scenes and know people that fear stating how they really feel sometimes because they know they would be slaughtered by the masses for speaking up.
Someone you admire very much had to post by another name in fear they would lose preaching engagements - - so, let it go, okay?
Woa, Renda is that all you heard in PM'S message???
If it is, then no wonder the Apostolic movement is in trouble!
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:35 PM
Why thank you sir! Now if I knew who you were I could perhaps return the compliment?:D
Seriously, I still consider myself level headed but a reasonable person gets tired of the negativity in the posting on AFF (that is your guys cue to show me the door LOL!) & the constant tearing down of the UPC, Men of God, & anything that doesn't align with the very predominantly "Liberal" slant AFF has taken as of late.
Is being level headed only when it is a "Liberal" point of view?
RON, hello!!!!!!
What we are discussing here is one UPC "man of God" tearing down other UPC "men of God" for having a meeting - - - is that something that you can't see?
So, is the rule that only UPC preachers can tear other UPC preachers down?
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:36 PM
Woa, Renda is that all you heard in PM'S message???
If it is, then no wonder the Apostolic movement is in trouble!
We aren't talking about his message, per se.......we are talking about what he said regarding the "secret" meeting. Did you see the title of this thread?
It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with it. I don't have to agree with every post on the forum like some forums do. We allow opinions.
There is nothing over the line or breaks a rule.
It's no different to me than the things you've said to Freeatlast or Miz.
Okay, I don't agree so fair enough.
Point is, I stand behind what I say regardless of the consequences.
Which by the way, is the main point about PM'S message.
Stand Fast, regardless of the cost!
Now, so I do not escalate things any further as I believe I have made my point whether people see it or not, I excuse myself.
To any who are offended, I apologize!
God Bless!
MrMasterMind
07-08-2009, 05:39 PM
Is being level headed only when it is a "Liberal" point of view?
Of course not, I honor those of high standards. However, when they start substituting their "standards" for the Word of God, and declaring people lost who do not look like they did 50 years ago. And declaring as heretics those who would like to discuss such topics, that is NOT level headed. And that is what you are defending.
No one is saying PM or SP are not good men.
RON, hello!!!!!!
What we are discussing here is one UPC "man of God" tearing down other UPC "men of God" for having a meeting - - - is that something that you can't see?
So, is the rule that only UPC preachers can tear other UPC preachers down?
Quick note: Even King David who was in the right, still would not touch King Saul, he let God take care of it!:thumbsup
MrMasterMind
07-08-2009, 05:42 PM
Quick note: Even King David who was in the right, still would not touch King Saul, he let God take care of it!:thumbsup
Excellent point and in your analogy PM would be Saul.
Since he is the elder stateman attacking the anointed young men coming along behind him.
:thumbsup
Excellent point and in your analogy PM would be Saul.
Since he is the elder stateman attacking the anointed young men coming along behind him.
:thumbsup
Take it any way you desire!
Thing is, there is a lot of everyday people willing to take men of God to task on AFF & forgetting that God isn't as "loosey goosey" with his lines of authority!:thumbsup
rgcraig
07-08-2009, 05:52 PM
Ron, I love ya!
Just as tired of the inconsistencies as you are of whatever you are tired of - see we can both say whatever we want here because it's an open forum!
MrMasterMind
07-08-2009, 05:52 PM
Ron, Perhaps I need to prepare a Bible study of the office of the Pastor.
Many believe they are the NEW Levite prophets and priests.
I DO believe in pastoral authority. (If you are not willing to follow what your pastor says go somewhere else period.) But NT pastoral authority is very different than what is taught in many of our pulpits. All believers are Royal Priests. The distinctive we often use is to try and divide a line between Clergy and Laity, is a Catholic creation and not found in the NT.
Pastors are the leaders of LOCAL assemblies, not OT prophets and priests.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.