Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

The Response - Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My response to that was this:

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

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

Re: Back with some new perspective
 

Right! :thumbsup