Perspectives Sounding Social Network Alarms

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by DAII

"How sad when life long church members have to leave the churches they attended all their lives to find doctrinal holiness preaching . "

The solution he offers is coded in con speak is a "safe harbor".
What could be perceived as one man's sheep stealing is now a noble cause of protecting the vulnerable.


http://twitter.com/pauldmooney

He seems to follow the same error in thinking that I think BHILL committed when he said the "cons" on AFF were "tolerant" and left because of the "ridicule." Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.

And BHILL, I'm not trying to pick on you. You're obviously a brother and we almost certainly share a lot of common experiences.

PM bemoans the loss of those who in his eyes are trying to clarify some sort of "blur" between "righteousness and worldliness;" but what about those that were trying to clarify the "blur" between the spirit and letter of the 1945 merger and those who were attempting to "clean house" with the "bowel movement" (their words, I'll remind you) of 1992?

The nastiness really seems to have started with a mini-exodus of "ultra-cons" to California who went prospecting for saints in the expressed desire to prevent Clyde Haney & Co. from gaining too large a following back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'll not mention the "smutty" nickname (JW's words from the pulpit at General Conference in 1992) of the man who led that charge to California long ago.

It was really odd to see those who supposedly were leading the fight for "holiness" behaving in such a manner that they needed such a public rebuke.

The same sort of "aggressive/passive" behavior is often seen here. An "ultra-con" steps out and throws some rocks at folks, temperatures rise; and then suddenly the offending "ultra-con" is simply a "tolerant and misunderstood brother" and those whose hackles were raised are "loose living" and "weak on doctrine."

PM plays the same cards in this article. Where were you PM, in 1992? Were you happy with the tone? Were you eased by the "bowel movement" (Leonard Westberg's words)? Did you feel any loss over the departing brothers who were clearly in step with the original Fundamental Doctrine and the original Articles of Faith?

They gave their lives and their health to build a something for the Kingdom of God here. And you and your cohorts called them "excrement." Shame.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by pelathais

He seems to follow the same error in thinking that I think BHILL committed when he said the "cons" on AFF were "tolerant" and left because of the "ridicule." Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.

And BHILL, I'm not trying to pick on you. You're obviously a brother and we almost certainly share a lot of common experiences.

PM bemoans the loss of those who in his eyes are trying to clarify some sort of "blur" between "righteousness and worldliness;" but what about those that were trying to clarify the "blur" between the spirit and letter of the 1945 merger and those who were attempting to "clean house" with the "bowel movement" (their words, I'll remind you) of 1992?

The nastiness really seems to have started with a mini-exodus of "ultra-cons" to California who went prospecting for saints in the expressed desire to prevent Clyde Haney & Co. from gaining too large a following back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'll not mention the "smutty" nickname (JW's words from the pulpit at General Conference in 1992) of the man who led that charge to California long ago.

It was really odd to see those who supposedly were leading the fight for "holiness" behaving in such a manner that they needed such a public rebuke.

The same sort of "aggressive/passive" behavior is often seen here. An "ultra-con" steps out and throws some rocks at folks, temperatures rise; and then suddenly the offending "ultra-con" is simply a "tolerant and misunderstood brother" and those whose hackles were raised are "loose living" and "weak on doctrine."

PM plays the same cards in this article. Where were you PM, in 1992? Were you happy with the tone? Were you eased by the "bowel movement" (Leonard Westberg's words)? Did you feel any loss over the departing brothers who were clearly in step with the original Fundamental Doctrine and the original Articles of Faith?

They gave their lives and their health to build a something for the Kingdom of God here. And you and your cohorts called them "excrement." Shame.

Excellent. As usual, very well said.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Excellent. As usual, very well said.

Aren't ya just so nice!

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

He seems to follow the same error in thinking that I think BHILL committed when he said the "cons" on AFF were "tolerant" and left because of the "ridicule." Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.

And BHILL, I'm not trying to pick on you. You're obviously a brother and we almost certainly share a lot of common experiences.

PM bemoans the loss of those who in his eyes are trying to clarify some sort of "blur" between "righteousness and worldliness;" but what about those that were trying to clarify the "blur" between the spirit and letter of the 1945 merger and those who were attempting to "clean house" with the "bowel movement" (their words, I'll remind you) of 1992?

The nastiness really seems to have started with a mini-exodus of "ultra-cons" to California who went prospecting for saints in the expressed desire to prevent Clyde Haney & Co. from gaining too large a following back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'll not mention the "smutty" nickname (JW's words from the pulpit at General Conference in 1992) of the man who led that charge to California long ago.

It was really odd to see those who supposedly were leading the fight for "holiness" behaving in such a manner that they needed such a public rebuke.

The same sort of "aggressive/passive" behavior is often seen here. An "ultra-con" steps out and throws some rocks at folks, temperatures rise; and then suddenly the offending "ultra-con" is simply a "tolerant and misunderstood brother" and those whose hackles were raised are "loose living" and "weak on doctrine."

PM plays the same cards in this article. Where were you PM, in 1992? Were you happy with the tone? Were you eased by the "bowel movement" (Leonard Westberg's words)? Did you feel any loss over the departing brothers who were clearly in step with the original Fundamental Doctrine and the original Articles of Faith?

They gave their lives and their health to build a something for the Kingdom of God here. And you and your cohorts called them "excrement." Shame.

It appears that some prospecting might result from those who might interpret this article as a call to provide a "safe harbor"/haven for those seeking "doctrinal holiness".

I think this article is more divisive than originally thought.

[Apocrypha]

Originally Posted by DAII

It appears that some prospecting might result from those who might interpret this article as a call to provide a "safe harbor"/haven for those seeking "doctrinal holiness".

I think this article is more divisive than originally thought.

Disclaimer: I used to work on IBC Perspectives/AIS staff for 2 years.

The purpose of Perspectives is two fold. To advertise IBC among the churches by giving a copy out to all the licensed ministers in many denominations... its not UPCI only. They have the master list of several fellowships. The second reason is to bring out issues that are being discussed among the ministers in a balanced way.

The article makes perfect sense if you look at why it was written. The greatest fear many pastors have is that their young people will go to IBC and "loosen up" on standards. It's a subtle way of saying "if your young person comes to IBC you won't have to sweat them losing their standards".

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

Disclaimer: I used to work on IBC Perspectives/AIS staff for 2 years.

The purpose of Perspectives is two fold. To advertise IBC among the churches by giving a copy out to all the licensed ministers in many denominations... its not UPCI only. They have the master list of several fellowships. The second reason is to bring out issues that are being discussed among the ministers in a balanced way.

The article makes perfect sense if you look at why it was written. The greatest fear many pastors have is that their young people will go to IBC and "loosen up" on standards. It's a subtle way of saying "if your young person comes to IBC you won't have to sweat them losing their standards".

Not so subtle, perhaps? But I think you've probably supplied the most obvious element to the writer's motivation here. His appeal did focus on what "young men" and ministers were saying on "social networking sites."

Perhaps he was the one "throwing the rocks at the hornet's nest" all along?

Yet, PM doesn't exist solely in the realm of "Bible College President." And, like TFT's recently quoted playing of the "doctrine/standards card" many years back in the Missions arena (see Timlan's post) these sorts of things don't stay just within their most narrow contexts.