Letter from Bro. Chester Wright to Bro. Haney

[Indy]

seriously, CW did what he did in bad taste. no 1 else was mentioned and this bro is the center of it now of all the others.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It was CW's approach that bothered me the most. His email was sent en masse! There was no indication that CW talked with MJ first. Would CW do a thing like this if MJ was a relative or a close personal friend.

I find something (namely love) lacking in this email. Why not be just as vague and not name a specific church like he was when speaking of those who are leaning to salvation at repentace? Why didn't he call out some one steppers in the org? That's why I think there is spite or envy involved.

There is plenty of love in the email--love for Truth.

God's love "rejoiceth in truth."

False doctrines are spread by people.

The messenger takes on something of the nature of his message. That is unavoidable.

The Bible tells us plainly to mark them that cause divisions contrary to the doctrine.

CW was doing that.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Amos

I only mentioned the size of CW's church because there was an implication that he needed to be concentrating on reaching his city. I was merely pointing out that he had done so.

And then there was the post that suggested he was jealous of MJ's church.

Those were my reasons for pointing out the fact that his church is large.

When I said ENVY it had nothing to do with the size of his church. MJ has been asked to preach in high profile meetings like the GC and the LA Campmeeting. He seems to be a rising star within the org that CW is trying to snuff out or at the least put back in his place!

[Indy]

Originally Posted by Amos

There is plenty of love in the email--love for Truth.

God's love "rejoiceth in truth."

False doctrines are spread by people.

The messenger takes on something of the nature of his message. That is unavoidable.

The Bible tells us plainly to mark them that cause divisions contrary to the doctrine.

CW was doing that.

i still c nothing but a spectre


put some flesh on it and give some specs

either there is substance or their aint

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Amos, I like you, and I think you like me. I'll tell you what I think here.

I think your emotion is kicking in, and you're concerned about losing the "old time pentecost" ways that we've held for so long. Which is absoutely understandable, and I am not condemning you for that.

However, I think it's clouded your logic.

By your own admission, you are not saying this guy is heading into sin, and you're not really sure what the danger is, but you just feel it's dangerous.

I don't have any problem with people saying "This is who I am, and I'm not changing".

But, to denigrate someone's character ecause THEY are trying something new, by saying they aren't as smart on their best day as someone else is on their worst, blah blah blah.....that's just a sign that you're speaking from emotion instead of fact.

The truth is, this brother is doing what he feels is right, and no one (as of yet) can point a finger and say "he's in sin", they can only say "We've never done it that way before, henceforth it must be false doctrine".

I do like you.

I also know some things I won't share on an internet forum.

None of these things have to do with his "character," which is, as far as I know, beyond reproach.

But when a man starts teaching things that I believe are unscriptural, that's where I get off.

When we talk about sin in terms of a preacher, we usually think of some moral failure.

I refuse to give room for that kind of false accusation, so while I believe teaching false doctrine is sin, I avoid that kind of language in a setting like this because of the possibility of it being misconstrued.

And yes, I believe the man in question is moving away from old time Pentecost, including some standards that I believe are Biblical essentials.

I also have doubts about where he stands on the essentiality of the New Birth.

I hesitate to say more, and maybe shouldn't have said that much.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Amos

Brother, when we talk about sin, we generally are not speaking of mindsets and concepts that lead in a wrong direction.

There is a distinction.

Trends need to be checked before they go too far.

I might be able to agree with you if I knew what you were talking about! What practice is MJ being accused of that warranted a letter to the GS with his church being specifically named, using someone who is not born again? In what capacity did MJ use this person who I suspect at least repented? And did he go against the AOF?

[Amos]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

When I said ENVY it had nothing to do with the size of his church. MJ has been asked to preach in high profile meetings like the GC and the LA Campmeeting. He seems to be a rising star within the org that CW is trying to snuff out or at the least put back in his place!

CW has preached BOTT and more than one GC.

You are making accusations against a man you don't even know.

If you knew him, you would know that he really could care less about preaching big meetings and such.

That has never been his motivation.

[Indy]

Originally Posted by Amos

I do like you.

I also know some things I won't share on an internet forum.

None of these things have to do with his "character," which is, as far as I know, beyond reproach.

But when a man starts teaching things that I believe are unscriptural, that's where I get off.

When we talk about sin in terms of a preacher, we usually think of some moral failure.

I refuse to give room for that kind of false accusation, so while I believe teaching false doctrine is sin, I avoid that kind of language in a setting like this because of the possibility of it being misconstrued.

And yes, I believe the man in question is moving away from old time Pentecost, including some standards that I believe are Biblical essentials.

I also have doubts about where he stands on the essentiality of the New Birth.

I hesitate to say more, and maybe shouldn't have said that much.

so the real threat is that he is 1 step away from being a 1 step guy?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Amos

I do like you.

I also know some things I won't share on an internet forum.

None of these things have to do with his "character," which is, as far as I know, beyond reproach.

But when a man starts teaching things that I believe are unscriptural, that's where I get off.

When we talk about sin in terms of a preacher, we usually think of some moral failure.

I refuse to give room for that kind of false accusation, so while I believe teaching false doctrine is sin, I avoid that kind of language in a setting like this because of the possibility of it being misconstrued.

And yes, I believe the man in question is moving away from old time Pentecost, including some standards that I believe are Biblical essentials.

I also have doubts about where he stands on the essentiality of the New Birth.

I hesitate to say more, and maybe shouldn't have said that much.

Fair enough. That's why I brought the conversation to light.

I guess what puzzles me is that you seem to have made a distinction between "false doctrine" and "sin". I've never thought the two to be mutually exclusive.

[Indy]

so this is the same hunt in a different jungle

he may be soft on the message

that is his crime it seems