The apostle Paul was a ZEALOUS defender of the word of God and all that he knew. He was defending to the death what God had originally done int he OT. I'm not justifying his consent to murder. He was just doing the EXACT same thing that the UC's do and that is condemning the preachers of the grace of God as heretics. I know it all too well, and only one who has been one can really understand. If you can't understand, then you probably haven't worn the label. Count yourself lucky!
What I have said has not an ounce of ungraciousness, it just simply is the truth.
He named some "heretics" after his conversion too.
I will add, however, that in my personal experience I have only seen one church where this was commonly practiced... an independent church in Duncan, OK back in the 70s. Based on all the reports, these guys must exist but I have personally only encountered one.
While I may not agree with the entire "letter", I have seen enough of these behaviors to know it to be based on the writers experiences.
A former missionary related evidence of the overseas contraband.
We can't broad brush but I do know of churches that place outward appearance at the top of their sermon topics.
If a visitor enters the subject matter will include hair and slacks. I've been witness to this delightful pattern.
Fortunately this is limited, but it does happen.
__________________
"Le sens commun n'est pas si commun."
(Common sense is not so common.)
Voltaire
Common sense is genius dressed in working clothes.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing.
William James
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.
In my pursuit to "highlight" certain remarks made by the author, I suddenly came to the realization that I agree with everything stated. Earlier posts on this thread denounce the author, but the last comment has the last word in my opinion...they think they have the final say when it comes to holiness and standards! One AFF poster certainly believes that way and he firmly stands on his belief! While everyone is entitled to their way of believing...it doesn't give them the right to impose that belief on others without sound biblical doctrine. That is their error...creating psuedo-Scripture to support baseless standards! Good Post PP!
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Blue"]
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.
Ok I am going to be serious, believe it or not , for this post.
1. To use the term "Ultra Right Wing" is an extreme misnomer. Right wing means nothing in the apostolic world.
2. The use of the word liberal, in the cases I have heard it,
refers to a man who does not believe the holiness message as lined out in the scriptures.
3. We do not reject, ridicule, or scorn those that do not believe like us. We often fellowship and through a Godly attitude become friends.
4. My code of ethics prevents me from doing anything illegal INCLUDING ALL of the things mentioned.
5. I don't join organizations, form groups, or run down anyone who does not do it like I do. CIP. On this forum, someone mentioned that they thought the thread would be a bash Anthony Magnum thread. I stated that I do not like AM but would not want to hurt him. Someone asked WHY I do not like him. Someone else said because AM is not conservative. I made sure that was cleared up. I don't like AM for my own personal reasons. My closest friends are going to BOTT and I wish them Godspeed.
6. THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH SAYS NOTHING OF THE KIND. As one who has taken the oath, It does not say "First do no harm".
7. CORRECTION. Preachers have done harm but not PREACHERS OF THE GOSPEL. If they are preaching the Gospel(Good News), they do not have time to pick at anyone. I am too busy trying to preach the stuff I need to preach instead of the junk I have no business preaching.
8. How can you preach the doctrine of reconciliation when it seems that you practice the doctrine of alienation? I do not alienate anyone. What is your theology of the grace and mercy of God? Err on the side of mercy and let God sort it out. If people do achieve the standard of living that you preach, is it enough? How do you know?
No it is not enough. People that only achieve what I preach, will never achieve what they need to. I want them to reach higher and go deeper. Get their own convictions. Live what they know is right. What if someone comes along with an even higher standard of holiness than you have? What will you do then? If it is something that makes sense and scripture backs it, I want to be saved. If not, God bless them. Do you believe grace is greater than sin? OF COURSE!!!! "Where sin is great, Grace is much greater" Why do you think your obligation is to define sin however you please, regardless of direct or even indirect scripture to substantiate your claims? I only know of a few people who do this and I would never fellowship them anyway. Why does it appear that you get greater joy from what you don't do rather than what you do? We don't. This is a misconception. I am too busy trying to do what I am supposed to. What I don't do is only preached about 10% of the time. What priority does the fruit of the Spirit have in your paradigm of Christian living? It is the foundation. No fruit no salvation.
Do you place a greater premium on outward holiness than inward holiness? If you do not, why are you overwhelmingly perceived this way? No I do not. I have a lot of liberal friends that are pastors and they all have said "If I am going to be a conservative, I want to be your brand" Not because I don't preach it and live it but because I have an attitude of gratitude to know where He has brought from. I will not judge a man on where he is in the journey just in how he is traveling.
Could it be that the very thing that ultra right wing preachers lack is true bible holiness? Again. ultra right wing. Interesting...
Also, I have seen the reverse as true where a man with a lessor standard proselyte from one with a greater standard. If you have no ethics, it does not matter what your standard is.
All of this being said, I would place myself on the UC side and am proud of the gospel. I am not proud of the fighting in the ranks and therefore stay to myself. This tulsa group has me bewildered. The men in the tulsa group, for the most part, are NOT conservatives. I am amazed at the lack of christian attitude from all sides. Although I am UC and dislike the evils of TV on our society, I would rather join the KKK than either side of this fight and I am pretty certain the kkk would not let me in
As for The letter, as a whole, was very bitter. Whoever wrote the letter, I am praying for them.
Well, I have to agree with what was said,
but isn't that just "business as usual" among some ultra-cons (maybe the more visible ones).
Years ago after the AMF was formed, one UPC pastor just casually dismissed the whole group with the words, "They don't think they've had church unless they beat somebody up."
Well, I have to agree with what was said,
but isn't that just "business as usual" among some ultra-cons (maybe the more visible ones).
Years ago after the AMF was formed, one UPC pastor just casually dismissed the whole group with the words, "They don't think they've had church unless they beat somebody up."
I agree. We used to love to go watch the amf fight. But I can say that does not seem to be the attitude now. Most of their guys are pretty humble.
Some valid points, to be sure. But I wouldnt say it was all "on point".
Too much hyperbole there. In he end he sounds almost as extreme as the people he's criticizing.
It was a bit over the top for me. Speaking as a moderate-conservative myself...when I hear someone ranting like that, to me it just undermines the effectiveness of their argument somewhat.
__________________ http://endtimeobserver.blogspot.com
Daniel 12:3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever.
While I may not agree with the entire "letter", I have seen enough of these behaviors to know it to be based on the writers experiences.
A former missionary related evidence of the overseas contraband.
We can't broad brush but I do know of churches that place outward appearance at the top of their sermon topics.
If a visitor enters the subject matter will include hair and slacks. I've been witness to this delightful pattern.
Fortunately this is limited, but it does happen.
I know some "mods" who have contraband too...
The thing for me is, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And because a man gets up and hammers Acts 2:38 but doesn't talk about the Love of God or the Cross at any time (which I've never seen someone do that continually service after service without preaching other things right along with it.. but they tell me every day on this forum that it happens)
...and just because there is a preacher or two out there who gets up every Sunday and hammers on outward standards rather than speaking on other things. And preaches on skirts when a new person comes instead of preaching on salvation knowing the other stuff comes later... (which I've never seen either, but they tell me every day on this forum that it happens)
...doesn't mean you just throw all those things away because there are people who lack wisdom and love, and maybe even a brain.
I can't agree with everything the letter writer says because I've never met any one who fit the description he lays out.
__________________ Mrs. LPW
Psalm 19:14
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.
, for this post. 
Linear Mode
