Abusive Preachers

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

From the podcasts I have listened to and his blogs (and what others have said about him), he strikes me as a very conservative guy personally, who is using his God-given common sense and ability to study scripture to help determine what is important and what is not. He made the statement in a sermon that if blue ties suddenly became a symbol and trademark of homosexuals, he would stop wearing them -not because blue ties were wrong but because of their association (used this example as an analogy to why facial hair was preached against) and if at some point in the future they STOPPED becoming a symbol, there would be nothing wrong with wearing them again. How is this "moving in the wrong direction"?

As much as I like SP, I find that logic slippery.

I'll be wearing blue neckties no matter. But I guess it's like ear piercings in one ear in the 90's?

I also think that goes into the category of personal preference and don't find that to be something that is "wrong" as much as just using wisdom... and COMMON SENSE.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Socialite

As much as I like SP, I find that logic slippery.

I'll be wearing blue neckties no matter. But I guess it's like ear piercings in one ear in the 90's?

I also think that goes into the category of personal preference and don't find that to be something that is "wrong" as much as just using wisdom... and COMMON SENSE.

The whole point of this particular sermon was separating the Law from wisdom and common sense. So many OP standards are based on things that have either been forgotten or are no longer relevant but have now become "ancient landmarks" that should not be removed in their own right. Another example he used was Paul teaching that it was BEST not to get married if you had not already done so because of future trials coming up concerning the Christian persecution at the hands of the Roman empire. Typical UC thinking today would run with that and continue to preach that it was wrong to marry without any attempt at looking at the context of his "suggestion" at the time.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Socialite

As much as I like SP, I find that logic slippery.

I'll be wearing blue neckties no matter. But I guess it's like ear piercings in one ear in the 90's?

I also think that goes into the category of personal preference and don't find that to be something that is "wrong" as much as just using wisdom... and COMMON SENSE.

How is that wet logic? (slippery when wet/bon jovi)

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by berkeley

How is that wet logic? (slippery when wet/bon jovi)

Slippery, if he calls it "wrong" and not distinguishing between personal preference. Being the culture police, looking for ever faulty association you can to avoid wearing is futile. Neither does our separation come in that manner.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

From the podcasts I have listened to and his blogs (and what others have said about him), he strikes me as a very conservative guy personally, who is using his God-given common sense and ability to study scripture to help determine what is important and what is not. He made the statement in a sermon that if blue ties suddenly became a symbol and trademark of homosexuals, he would stop wearing them -not because blue ties were wrong but because of their association (used this example as an analogy to why facial hair was preached against) and if at some point in the future they STOPPED becoming a symbol, there would be nothing wrong with wearing them again. How is this "moving in the wrong direction"?

I deny that beards are sign one is homosexual at all. False premise... other than that I agree. LOL!

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I deny that beards are sign one is homosexual at all. False premise... other than that I agree. LOL!

He was making the point that IF blue ties started becoming a sign that gays used he would stop wearing them in the same way that beards were a sign of hippies in the 60's. BUT blue ties aren't and beards are not anymore. And he did say that there was for more scripture FOR beards then against them -which there is basically none.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Yeah, I think it also had to do with the conference becoming increasingly who can preach the holiest. For example:

Speaker 1: "My God, all these compromisers, we don't believe in Christmas Trees. Those are the debil."

Speaker 2: "God is looking for a faithful remnant that won't wear sideburns past the tops of their ears."

Speaker 3: "This may be tight, but it's right... some of these churches that sing these new songs with rock beats, getting rid of song books, and not wearing white collared shirts."

It just got worse and worse (or better and better, depending on your view).

PSR was, in my opinion, the UC's of UPCI and Independents, and was a pre-cursor in many ways for those who eventually joined together in the WPF (though many of the UC's in that group went Independent). But the speakers were always critical of the UPCI, and things they were "concerned" about.

Originally Posted by berkeley

I don't believe that most of the young people care for this kind of stuff. Some of my UC friends were laughing about the preacher that spent 20 or 45 minutes preaching against patterns on nylons. Another or maybe the same guy preached against the internet, not the evils of the internet, but the internet. Funny, you can find WCC online.

My first pastor was pretty conservative and he did not want us mixed up with PSR

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

My first pastor was pretty conservative and he did not want us mixed up with PSR

define conservative

[Socialite]

Pixler's interesting 3-stepper post...

http://blog.stevepixler.com/2011/04/...onfessing.html

At least he's placing more emphasis on believing than others of his peers do.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Pixler's interesting 3-stepper post...

http://blog.stevepixler.com/2011/04/...onfessing.html

At least he's placing more emphasis on believing than others of his peers do.

Taken from the above blog:

If we do not preach the gospel in such a way that sinners are first brought to faith that believes with the heart, then we have done nothing for them but press them to admit their guilt under guise of repentance, to be dunked in a tank of useless water in a pretense of baptism and urge them to share in an emotional and glossalalic experience that makes them nothing more than guilty, soaked and babbling sinners! Sinners are not believers unless they believe.