Scathing Letter From a Moderate!

[aegsm76]

As one who has attended Ultra Conservative and what some would call liberal churches, I have never seen what the author has described. I have been with Morton, Westberg, Booker, Godair, and others, and have found them to be good men. Did I agree on every issue, no, but they would discuss them in a civil manner.
Now, why was the author not willing to attach his name to the letter? Furthermore, if he is so upset with these practices, why not name names?
I have had a few ministers who have made me uneasy in the spirit. Some were conservative and some were liberal. I would say that the author of this dissertation will look back and regret the tone of this letter, at some point.

[bdlooney]

I personally have never once met any ultra-con preacher that this letter describes.

I understand that a heavy focus on standards does carry the risk of legalism. That is why we must worship Him in Spirit and Truth.

This is not to say that you have to let down standards to rid yourself of a nasty attitude. You must temper the law with the spirit of the law.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

As one who has attended Ultra Conservative and what some would call liberal churches, I have never seen what the author has described. I have been with Morton, Westberg, Booker, Godair, and others, and have found them to be good men. Did I agree on every issue, no, but they would discuss them in a civil manner.
Now, why was the author not willing to attach his name to the letter? Furthermore, if he is so upset with these practices, why not name names?
I have had a few ministers who have made me uneasy in the spirit. Some were conservative and some were liberal. I would say that the author of this dissertation will look back and regret the tone of this letter, at some point.

Why not name names??

[ManOfWord]

Originally Posted by philjones

Just my opinion, MOW, but that is a horrible parallel to apply to men of conviction who preach the blood and mercy of Jesus.

Apply it to yourself if you wish, but leave the other men to their convictions. I am thankful that you found a place in your life where you could "get real" and shed your religiosity. I just wish your tolerance was as great for them as you expect theirs to be of you.

OOPS.. I just noticed that Sis. LPW answered your post and said it much more succinctly than I did...


AMAZING!

Amazing is right! Paul was a man of extreme conviction. He happened to be WRONG! Truth is truth, no matter who speaks it.

I find nothing intolerant about my post in the least. I only spoke truth.

Those men may preach the blood, but they CERTAINLY don't preach MERCY.

I am totally dumbfounded that ANYONE who knows the Bible would think that TRUTH is a horrible parallel. Tell me you don't really have the audacity to deny the word of God!

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I thought the writer went a little too far! A lot of Utra-cons are good people and honestly believe they are doing God's will!

I agree, and it's one of the reasons I couldn't agree wholeheartedly and without reservation with all the points made in the letter.

[Rhoni]

Here are my questions for the ultra right wing preachers:

• How can you preach the doctrine of reconciliation when it seems that you practice the doctrine of alienation?
• What is your theology of the grace and mercy of God?
• If people do achieve the standard of living that you preach, is it enough? How do you know?
• What if someone comes along with an even higher standard of holiness than you have? What will you do then?
• Do you believe grace is greater than sin?
• Why do you think your obligation is to define sin however you please, regardless of direct or even indirect scripture to substantiate your claims?
• Why does it appear that you get greater joy from what you don't do rather than what you do?
• What priority does the fruit of the Spirit have in your paradigm of Christian living?

Do you place a greater premium on outward holiness than inward holiness? If you do not, why are you overwhelmingly perceived this way?
Could it be that the very thing that ultra right wing preachers lack is true bible holiness? As long as they obsess on rigid rules, the farther they stray from the kind of holiness that the Holy Spirit actually brings. Daniel J. Boorstin says, "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." Perhaps the greatest obstacle to holiness among ultra right wing preachers is their illusion of holiness. Thinking they have the final say on holiness may be the reason that they don't.

Pastor PosterView Public ProfileSend a private message to Pastor PosterFind all posts by Pastor PosterAdd Pastor Poster to Your Buddy List

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Dora

Where are Coon and Jekyll????

Why does it matter?

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

This letter was forwarded to me today. I will not reveal who the author is, though it seems he wouldn't mind. Needless to say, the man is pretty middle of the road.


I have heard ultra right wing preachers publicly denounce the spirituality of those who don't subscribe to their brand of "holiness." I have heard them question whether such "liberals" even have the Holy Ghost and avow that they would be better off as a rank sinners lying under a bar stool in their own drunken vomit than to preach the gospel. They have referred to these so-called liberals as "blind leaders of the blind" and predicted that they would all fall in the ditch. Vicious, nasty, spiteful and mean attitudes are perfectly fine if arrayed against anyone perceived as compromisers. "Liberals" present bona fide targets to belittle and discredit. People who attend "liberal" churches may be approvingly proselyted away from their home congregation and accepted into a "holiness" church without compunction. At least, so they reason, people who switch their membership to their churches have an opportunity to be saved that they did not have before. They feel no obligation to practice common ethics if it involves the relationship with a criminal, a punk or a "loose preacher."

Much of the reasoning that ostensibly supports these abusive practices stems from the Bible principles governing modesty and godliness. Ultra right-wingers, however, cleverly gerrymander their way around a conventional code of dress and behavior so as to include some things and exclude others. For example, their idea of modest living pronounces judgment upon clothing issues, ornamentation and certain practices like playing golf, but winks at ownership of palatial homes that dwarf the average size house; elaborate gun, knife and bow collections that would make Wayne LaPierre of the NRA salivate; exotic vacations and cruises that most only dream about; salaries that place them well within the top one percent of US wage earners; luxury vehicles—like, automobiles, sport utility vehicles and mammoth motor homes—and hundreds of pricey gadgets and trinkets well above the price range of the people who populate their churches.

Their code of ethics has no qualms about smuggling expensive items like illegal ivory carvings or forbidden animal hides into this country from foreign nations. They can accumulate as much gold in coins, bars and art objects as they want as long as they don't wear any of it on their bodies. They can wear as much stylish and costly clothing as they like, as long as any particular garment doesn't have a slit anywhere or reveal an elbow.
When it comes to political maneuvering, ultra right wingers unabashedly campaign for pet issues, organize conferences to rally their troops, mobilize massive mailings and/or phone brigades to promote their ideas, and let it be known who they want or don't want to be elected to a particular office. They form associations within associations, organize their own youth activities among their sycophantic associates, and discriminate between preachers on the basis of the mint, anise and cumin of Matthew 23:23.

Some ultra right wing preachers brag that they would never allow an unbeliever into their church services wearing a pair of shorts and a tank top, let alone let such a person kneel at their altars. Some prominently display dress codes in the church foyer so visitors will be fairly warned before proceeding into the sanctuary. A woman sitting in the congregation with cut hair and jeans is often verbally condemned from the pulpit before she ever has a chance to repent of her sins. For many ultra right wingers, no sermon is complete unless the whole litany of forbidden dress codes and behaviors is mentioned. Sometimes, their sermons don't even include the cross of Christ, the blood of Jesus, the love of God, grace, faith mercy or any of the other staples of the gospel. I am convinced that Jesus himself or the Apostle Paul would not be welcome in the congregations of some ultra right wing preachers. According to them, Jesus and Paul were far too inclusive and tolerant to have had much respect for truth.

I believe in the bible standard of holiness. I believe that pastors can be strict and even adamant about their in-house teachings. I believe that a pastor needs to preach his convictions passionately and fervently. I do not believe, however, that this authorizes a pastor to castigate, judge and condemn all his peers who fail to see everything exactly as he does. I do not believe that he should allow anything but the cross and the new birth to formulate his core message. I do not believe that he should teach his people to ridicule, scorn and reject others who may not be as strict as he is.

The Hippocratic Oath, the ancient pledge for physicians states, "First, do no harm." How can preachers of the gospel expect to do good after they have done so much harm? None of us have been commissioned to find ways to condemn people to hell. We have been called to preach the gospel of reconciliation, which is why we have been given the word of reconciliation. We must not allow our spirits to be poisoned by arrogant, haughty, mean persons who have had their calling subverted by spiritual pride. Those of us who share fellowship and common articles of faith ought to seek unity not disunity. I believe that if my ministry cannot be characterized by an overwhelming allegiance to the love of God, then I need to get out of the ministry. My first obligation is to be a Christian. Everything after that is secondary.

Here are my questions for the ultra right wing preachers:

• How can you preach the doctrine of reconciliation when it seems that you practice the doctrine of alienation?
• What is your theology of the grace and mercy of God?
• If people do achieve the standard of living that you preach, is it enough? How do you know?
• What if someone comes along with an even higher standard of holiness than you have? What will you do then?
• Do you believe grace is greater than sin?
• Why do you think your obligation is to define sin however you please, regardless of direct or even indirect scripture to substantiate your claims?
• Why does it appear that you get greater joy from what you don't do rather than what you do?
• What priority does the fruit of the Spirit have in your paradigm of Christian living?

Do you place a greater premium on outward holiness than inward holiness? If you do not, why are you overwhelmingly perceived this way?
Could it be that the very thing that ultra right wing preachers lack is true bible holiness? As long as they obsess on rigid rules, the farther they stray from the kind of holiness that the Holy Spirit actually brings. Daniel J. Boorstin says, "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." Perhaps the greatest obstacle to holiness among ultra right wing preachers is their illusion of holiness. Thinking they have the final say on holiness may be the reason that they don't.

Since you asked what I think of this anonymous letter...

It is well written.

Blessings, Rhoni

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

As one who has attended Ultra Conservative and what some would call liberal churches, I have never seen what the author has described. I have been with Morton, Westberg, Booker, Godair, and others, and have found them to be good men. Did I agree on every issue, no, but they would discuss them in a civil manner.
Now, why was the author not willing to attach his name to the letter? Furthermore, if he is so upset with these practices, why not name names?
I have had a few ministers who have made me uneasy in the spirit. Some were conservative and some were liberal. I would say that the author of this dissertation will look back and regret the tone of this letter, at some point.

As I understood it, the author did attach his name to the original letter. Pastor Poster chose to leave the name off when he posted the letter.

PP may have done this to facilitate or focus the discussion on the issues raised by the letter rather than have a discussion about the author.

I remember a discussion with one of the names you mention above. He said that "every movement needs to have a bowel movement" in reference to the events that would transpire in 1992. A couple of the young men I was with laughed and snickered. I guess "civility" is one of those relativistic things that the "libs" in the news media are always trying to push.

[Rhoni]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think the letter writer's indignation was probably agitated by just the things he describes. I've seen these same things, though I don't think I've ever seen a gun and knife collection that was "sinful." People importing the banned ivory and hides run a terrible risk if caught. The fines alone will cause most folks to have to down size the "palatial home."

My only complaint is about the divisive stuff that the letter writer mentions. The "holier than your kids" youth camps and Bible quizzing. That kind of stuff is just plain wrong. How sad it is when the "grown ups" never grow up.

The letter writer's complaints are real enough. But getting frustrated and writing a letter probably won't change anything.

In the early 1990's I wrote lots of letters until a friend of mine told me..."You know it is a waste of time because if they really cared about your opinion then you wouldn't have to write the letters."