Perspectives Sounding Social Network Alarms

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by pelathais

He seems to follow the same error in thinking that I think BHILL committed when he said the "cons" on AFF were "tolerant" and left because of the "ridicule." Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.

And BHILL, I'm not trying to pick on you. You're obviously a brother and we almost certainly share a lot of common experiences.

PM bemoans the loss of those who in his eyes are trying to clarify some sort of "blur" between "righteousness and worldliness;" but what about those that were trying to clarify the "blur" between the spirit and letter of the 1945 merger and those who were attempting to "clean house" with the "bowel movement" (their words, I'll remind you) of 1992?

The nastiness really seems to have started with a mini-exodus of "ultra-cons" to California who went prospecting for saints in the expressed desire to prevent Clyde Haney & Co. from gaining too large a following back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'll not mention the "smutty" nickname (JW's words from the pulpit at General Conference in 1992) of the man who led that charge to California long ago.

It was really odd to see those who supposedly were leading the fight for "holiness" behaving in such a manner that they needed such a public rebuke.

The same sort of "aggressive/passive" behavior is often seen here. An "ultra-con" steps out and throws some rocks at folks, temperatures rise; and then suddenly the offending "ultra-con" is simply a "tolerant and misunderstood brother" and those whose hackles were raised are "loose living" and "weak on doctrine."

PM plays the same cards in this article. Where were you PM, in 1992? Were you happy with the tone? Were you eased by the "bowel movement" (Leonard Westberg's words)? Did you feel any loss over the departing brothers who were clearly in step with the original Fundamental Doctrine and the original Articles of Faith?

They gave their lives and their health to build a something for the Kingdom of God here. And you and your cohorts called them "excrement." Shame.

Excellent. As usual, very well said.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by pelathais

He seems to follow the same error in thinking that I think BHILL committed when he said the "cons" on AFF were "tolerant" and left because of the "ridicule." Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.

And BHILL, I'm not trying to pick on you. You're obviously a brother and we almost certainly share a lot of common experiences.

PM bemoans the loss of those who in his eyes are trying to clarify some sort of "blur" between "righteousness and worldliness;" but what about those that were trying to clarify the "blur" between the spirit and letter of the 1945 merger and those who were attempting to "clean house" with the "bowel movement" (their words, I'll remind you) of 1992?

The nastiness really seems to have started with a mini-exodus of "ultra-cons" to California who went prospecting for saints in the expressed desire to prevent Clyde Haney & Co. from gaining too large a following back in the late 1940s and early 1950s. I'll not mention the "smutty" nickname (JW's words from the pulpit at General Conference in 1992) of the man who led that charge to California long ago.

It was really odd to see those who supposedly were leading the fight for "holiness" behaving in such a manner that they needed such a public rebuke.

The same sort of "aggressive/passive" behavior is often seen here. An "ultra-con" steps out and throws some rocks at folks, temperatures rise; and then suddenly the offending "ultra-con" is simply a "tolerant and misunderstood brother" and those whose hackles were raised are "loose living" and "weak on doctrine."

PM plays the same cards in this article. Where were you PM, in 1992? Were you happy with the tone? Were you eased by the "bowel movement" (Leonard Westberg's words)? Did you feel any loss over the departing brothers who were clearly in step with the original Fundamental Doctrine and the original Articles of Faith?

They gave their lives and their health to build a something for the Kingdom of God here. And you and your cohorts called them "excrement." Shame.

It appears that some prospecting might result from those who might interpret this article as a call to provide a "safe harbor"/haven for those seeking "doctrinal holiness".

I think this article is more divisive than originally thought.

[Apocrypha]

Originally Posted by DAII

It appears that some prospecting might result from those who might interpret this article as a call to provide a "safe harbor"/haven for those seeking "doctrinal holiness".

I think this article is more divisive than originally thought.

Disclaimer: I used to work on IBC Perspectives/AIS staff for 2 years.

The purpose of Perspectives is two fold. To advertise IBC among the churches by giving a copy out to all the licensed ministers in many denominations... its not UPCI only. They have the master list of several fellowships. The second reason is to bring out issues that are being discussed among the ministers in a balanced way.

The article makes perfect sense if you look at why it was written. The greatest fear many pastors have is that their young people will go to IBC and "loosen up" on standards. It's a subtle way of saying "if your young person comes to IBC you won't have to sweat them losing their standards".

[BHILL]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Uh.......a high level of tolerance for other viewpoints????? Which forum have you been reading?

RRFord was about the best of the bunch, the others you mentioned, along with a few other members of their "posse" were HIGHLY intolerant of anyone who disagreed with them.

Respectful, most of the time, but highly intolerant for any opposing viewpoints.

Maybe I didn't read the forum enough,lol. I really enjoyed reading their posts even if I didn't agree with them and now most of the cons are gone.
I just don't like the personal attacks on people,when DAII calls PM, Paul this or Paul that, I didn't know he was on a first name basis with PM. I married into his extended family and grown to admire and respect him. He's always the same,always a christian even when he's not in the pulpit.

[Apocrypha]

Originally Posted by BHILL

Maybe I didn't read the forum enough,lol. I really enjoyed reading their posts even if I didn't agree with them and now most of the cons are gone.
I just don't like the personal attacks on people,when DAII calls PM, Paul this or Paul that, I didn't know he was on a first name basis with PM. I married into his extended family and grown to admire and respect him. He's always the same,always a christian even when he's not in the pulpit.

I haven't seen any nasty personal attacks. Its just a disagreement over his position on things. You can disagree with someone and it doesn't mean your treating them hatefully.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Apocrypha

Disclaimer: I used to work on IBC Perspectives/AIS staff for 2 years.

The purpose of Perspectives is two fold. To advertise IBC among the churches by giving a copy out to all the licensed ministers in many denominations... its not UPCI only. They have the master list of several fellowships. The second reason is to bring out issues that are being discussed among the ministers in a balanced way.

The article makes perfect sense if you look at why it was written. The greatest fear many pastors have is that their young people will go to IBC and "loosen up" on standards. It's a subtle way of saying "if your young person comes to IBC you won't have to sweat them losing their standards".

Not so subtle, perhaps? But I think you've probably supplied the most obvious element to the writer's motivation here. His appeal did focus on what "young men" and ministers were saying on "social networking sites."

Perhaps he was the one "throwing the rocks at the hornet's nest" all along?

Yet, PM doesn't exist solely in the realm of "Bible College President." And, like TFT's recently quoted playing of the "doctrine/standards card" many years back in the Missions arena (see Timlan's post) these sorts of things don't stay just within their most narrow contexts.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Mike Phelps has already responded to that nicely.

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

Excellent. As usual, very well said.

Aren't ya just so nice!

[DAII]

Paul obviously believes and supports a "Holy Great Migration" option:

I believe we are seeing a migration among Pentecostal believers as they search for a safe harbor in a time of great change. A good many of these souls actually believe in righteous living. They were taught holiness and they live it. They love it. They teach it to their children. They want to continue in the Way. Yet, a good many are being marginalized in their own home churches. Nevertheless, they seek to walk in light of true spiritual revelation as it pertains to doctrine and life styles; and therefore, like the Puritans of England, they are seeking a spiritual resting place. They are searching for a place where the values of holiness are not maligned, where separation from the world is respected, not mocked and where the search for Truth is considered Christian responsibility. They desire a place of sanctity where pulpits are protected against hype and false doctrines. Migration will have consequences and Apostolics must decide quickly if what we really desire is a fellowship with no standards of discipline,or no certitude of beliefs or measurements of right and wrong or if we are willing to contend for the faith of our fathers.

His language about walking in the light of true spiritual REVELATION as it pertains to doctrine and lifestyles and finding a "resting place" ... is curious to say the least.

And is undoubtedly speaking about the direction of the fellowship in general ... not just his little niche in Indianapolis. And a willngness to cross an ocean if that's the case ....

The allusion that the liberal contingent doensn't believe in right or wrong is offensive and contending to the disunity of the brethren, IMO.

Again, he most definitely is advocating, as a quixotic crusader, that older saints "take back their churches" or leave. In which one might safely infer he support con churches to accept these "huddled masses yearning to be free".

Take notice James Kilgore Jr., et al.

Paul, if this is still in a "pre-revolution" mode... why are you in retreat and regroup mode?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by BHILL

Maybe I didn't read the forum enough,lol. I really enjoyed reading their posts even if I didn't agree with them and now most of the cons are gone.
I just don't like the personal attacks on people,when DAII calls PM, Paul this or Paul that, I didn't know he was on a first name basis with PM. I married into his extended family and grown to admire and respect him. He's always the same,always a christian even when he's not in the pulpit.

I agree with you on this, and I called DA out on it. I do not like the familiarity that he's using here with PM.

I did not marry into the family, but I have a great deal of respect for PM and truly believe that he's a man of integrity and character. I do not agree with his position on many things, but still respect him highly.

[Sam]

The analogy of some who felt that they had to leave the mother church to maintain scriptural purity as Puritans can have a couple of other implications.

1. The mother church has become worldly and standards have plummeted because they now allow advertising on television so the "Puritans" must leave and form the WPF.

2. The mother church has become political, controlling, and cumbered with tradition so the "Puritans" must "emerge" from under all that stuff and cast off their neckties, suit coats, intimidating pulpits, and three-step doctrine.