Emergents Thank WeDeclare Crowd

Kim Komando · #1 09-25-2009, 05:43 AM

In an amazing twist of events the Emergent crowd has broken their silence to thank the 290 some odd ministers who had the courage and boldness to publicly violate their affirmation statements that they will no longer abide by the org's Holiness statement regarding Television, Hollywood movies, mixed bathing, organized sports, worldly amusements and allow modest jewelry - as a point of disfellowship.

The Magnificent Seven from Detroit would agree that the Fantastic Ten of the Bread Basket - and their radical, political activist action this week - to side step the resolution process, has ceded more territory in the area of Holiness than ever imagined in the last 6 decades.

The emergents would not comment on WeDeclare's declarations that breach the Fundamental Doctrine in regards to contending to the disunity of the brethren.

Nitehawk013 · #2 09-25-2009, 06:01 AM

I would imagine that in many cases these men weighed the situation in the balance. What was more important: organizational hobglob or long held moral beliefs? To these men, well...many of them at least, it likely became a very simple issue. "What fellowship does light have with darkness?". So continue to be silent as more and more fallacy and unorthodoxy invades the UPC (and every other organization) over not only holiness, standards and modesty but over principle doctrines like salvation and the Godhead became something they could no longer do with a clear conscience.

Are they a bit too stringent on standards? I can agree with that. However, when the shift is obviously drastically to the "liberated" left then a hard push to the right is needed in order to counter it.

If I have to choose between the left who tend to want "anything goes" and whose idea of modesty is seriously lacking IMO and the hardline right who go WAY overboard with rules and regulations....I will still side with the Right because at least they are trying to maintain a seperation and not throw our heritage in the trash.

Baron1710 · #3 09-25-2009, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

I would imagine that in many cases these men weighed the situation in the balance. What was more important: organizational hobglob or long held moral beliefs? To these men, well...many of them at least, it likely became a very simple issue. "What fellowship does light have with darkness?". So continue to be silent as more and more fallacy and unorthodoxy invades the UPC (and every other organization) over not only holiness, standards and modesty but over principle doctrines like salvation and the Godhead became something they could no longer do with a clear conscience.

Are they a bit too stringent on standards? I can agree with that. However, when the shift is obviously drastically to the "liberated" left then a hard push to the right is needed in order to counter it.

If I have to choose between the left who tend to want "anything goes" and whose idea of modesty is seriously lacking IMO and the hardline right who go WAY overboard with rules and regulations....I will still side with the Right because at least they are trying to maintain a seperation and not throw our heritage in the trash.

If I go to a church that says "anything goes" (which BTW does not exist) I could serve God just fine. Because I have the Scripture by which to measure my life. I don't need artificial measuring sticks created by man, doesn't matter what position he may hold. Paul tells us that comparing ourselves among ourselves is not wise. When we create rules to "protect" us and "help" us, what we are really doing is building a religious system that allows us a chart to compare ourselves to others.

Nitehawk013 · #4 09-25-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

If I go to a church that says "anything goes" (which BTW does not exist) I could serve God just fine. Because I have the Scripture by which to measure my life. I don't need artificial measuring sticks created by man, doesn't matter what position he may hold. Paul tells us that comparing ourselves among ourselves is not wise. When we create rules to "protect" us and "help" us, what we are really doing is building a religious system that allows us a chart to compare ourselves to.

Any man who contiues to see his sheep eaten by wolves or falling off cliffs that refuses to start building a fence to protect them is a fool and a sad excuse for a shepherd.

Many rules are overboard. That doesn't mean that they are not helpful for saints who are not mature enough to make good decisions. Baby gates are a pain to adults who have to constantly step over them, but they are worth the hassle when they keep your kid from falling down the steps right?

Baron1710 · #5 09-25-2009, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Any man who contiues to see his sheep eaten by wolves or falling off cliffs that refuses to start building a fence to protect them is a fool and a sad excuse for a shepherd.

Many rules are overboard. That doesn't mean that they are not helpful for saints who are not mature enough to make good decisions. Baby gates are a pain to adults who have to constantly step over them, but they are worth the hassle when they keep your kid from falling down the steps right?

When did the pastor become a man while the rest of us remain sheep?

Kim Komando · #6 09-25-2009, 06:37 AM

Nite, the analogy and system of fence building you propose is a "modern" one. It is fiefdom manor living. Biblical and Kingdom living suggest as Christ did that sheep know the voice of their Pastor and follow. You won't find pastors building fences in the bible because they grazed from pasture to pasture and still waters to still waters

*AQuietPlace* · #7 09-25-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Many rules are overboard. That doesn't mean that they are not helpful for saints who are not mature enough to make good decisions. Baby gates are a pain to adults who have to constantly step over them, but they are worth the hassle when they keep your kid from falling down the steps right?

One problem with your analogy is that the baby gates are never removed. They are still in force, even after the saints are "all growed up". In truth, saints usually aren't allowed to mature beyond the gates.

Nitehawk013 · #8 09-25-2009, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

One problem with your analogy is that the baby gates are never removed. They are still in force, even after the saints are "all growed up". In truth, saints usually aren't allowed to mature beyond the gates.

Um...you never take a baby gate down as long as there are still babies in the house do you?

*AQuietPlace* · #9 09-25-2009, 07:29 AM

"(from wedeclare.org) 4. Deuteronomy 22:5, properly interpreted, is a forbiddance of pants or other bifurcated garments on women and skirts on men. "

That still cracks me up every time I read it. Deuteronomy - properly interpreted - means no skirts on men. Proper interpretation would remember that when Deut. was written, that's what men wore!

I think they need to at least re-word that a little bit.

CAD/JPY · #10 09-25-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Any man who contiues to see his sheep eaten by wolves or falling off cliffs that refuses to start building a fence to protect them is a fool and a sad excuse for a shepherd.

Many rules are overboard. That doesn't mean that they are not helpful for saints who are not mature enough to make good decisions. Baby gates are a pain to adults who have to constantly step over them, but they are worth the hassle when they keep your kid from falling down the steps right?

On the subject of "Babes in Christ" I feel this point needs to be made. The majority of people we refer to as babes, are adults in actual life. We can't just give them a baby gate.... WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION. Even a baby is taught why the gate is there...

And yes, I agree there should be gates. There needs to be fences. What I believe we have done as a conservative apostolic movement is not to be CONTENT with simply the Word of God that defines sin as sin. But rather, in good conscience, we cry danger... even when the messenger is barely on the horizon, and the sun is in our eyes. And that is fine, we are being cautious, but then it becomes clearer the messenger is of little consequence... But unfortunately people refuse to accept their cry of danger was wrong... and rally the troops to kill the messenger!