Scathing Letter From a Moderate!

[ManOfWord]

The truth is that there is enough blame to go around in almost any circle.

However, due to many UC's not believing others are even saved unless they're as "holy" as they are, it seems that more fall into that category than others.

It is a "theosophical" viewpoint that they can't concede, for if they do, their whole house of cards comes crashing down and then they must conclude that one can indeed be saved, holy and acceptable and pleasing to God without their strict viewpoint.

Originally Posted by LordChocolate

Are you speaking of Rodney Legg?

Now you need to quit naming names here. ROFL

I really didn't think there would be anyone on here that would have known Bro. Rodney.

His nephews, Gary, Randy and Greg, are a good friends of mine so let's be careful.

Bingo! Awesome! This letter about sums up how I feel about the whole situation.

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.

[embonpoint]

[QUOTE=Pastor Poster;344810]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.

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?

My question for the writer of this letter would be, Just what part of the fruit of the spirit does this little diatribe represent. Longsuffering? Meekness? Temperance???? Help me understand where this fits.

Btw I hope the writer didn't strain or herniate anything slingin that big brush around.

[Nahum]

Earlier in this thread a couple of posters asked why I did not identify the writer of the letter.

I did not, and will not, identify him because folks would immediately attack his person instead of taking the letter at face value.

For the record, I know the man who wrote the letter. I did not want to bring him any undue grief. So, even though the letter was a mass mailout, I chose to post it without his signature.

I would like to note that nowhere in the letter does the man attack holiness or conservatism. His beef is with those men and women who misappropriate scripture in order to manipulate followers into submission to their man-made code of conduct.

In that regard, I think he is 100% accurate in his assessment.

[RevBuddy]

PP,

You're exactly right in your conclusion and your actions regarding his signature. Good job!!

Originally Posted by RevBuddy

PP,

You're exactly right in your conclusion and your actions regarding his signature. Good job!!

I agree!

[LordChocolate]

Originally Posted by philjones

Now you need to quit naming names here. ROFL

I really didn't think there would be anyone on here that would have known Bro. Rodney.

His nephews, Gary, Randy and Greg, are a good friends of mine so let's be careful.

His nephew Roger, is one of my best friends.

Originally Posted by LordChocolate

His nephew Roger, is one of my best friends.

You aren't the current pastor of the church Rodney and Sis. Legg pastored are you? Is Roger named after his dad? If I am not mistaken Rodney's youngest brother was named Roger. In fact, I am almost sure his name was Roger.

Bro. Trellus an Sister Lorena Legg, Rodney's mom and dad were tremendous folks and were a great help to my dad when he pastored them.

[embonpoint]

Originally Posted by Pastor Poster

Earlier in this thread a couple of posters asked why I did not identify the writer of the letter.

I did not, and will not, identify him because folks would immediately attack his person instead of taking the letter at face value.

For the record, I know the man who wrote the letter. I did not want to bring him any undue grief. So even though the letter was a mass mailout, I chose to post it without his signature.

I would like to note that nowhere in the letter does the man attack holiness or conservatism. His beef is with those men and women who misappropriate scripture in order to manipulate followers into submission to their man-made code of conduct.

In that regard, I think he is 100% accurate in his assessment.

For the record I have no idea who the author of the letter is and have no problem with not revealing the name on this forum.

I do disagree with you bolded statement above. He may not have intended to attack but he certainly did.

He initially starts with statements he has heard some preachers make which would be fair to discuss. As the letter moves along the accusations become more generalized.

By the second paragraph he is talking about "Ultra right wingers" in general, the term itself being obviously pejorative, and their inconsistencies. He continues in this vein through the rest of what you have posted.


By the final paragraph he is asking "Could it be that the very thing that ultra right wing preachers lack is true bible holiness? "

If this is not an attack on conservatism then please explain what that kind of attack would look like.

Again what part of the Fruit of the Spirit was he manifesting?