Mooney Guns for "Secret" Meeting in Detroit?

[HopePreacher]

I am thankful that the body of Christ is a big tent. Even those brothers and sisters who do not believe that those who are not just like them aren't in the tent, we are there just the same.

Our task is to keep our own hearts clean and our attitudes adjusted. The danger of this type of dialogue is that attitudes are like a virus - they are very contagious. We must constantly be on guard lest we who have found freedom in Christ fall prey to the spirit of division and lose our freedom to the bondage of bitterness.

[mizpeh]

Who else is running for GS?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Papabear

And if these cool brilliant talents boys who have one claim to fame and that being nepotism, why take a church who was built on this foundation... and STEAL IT because daddy don't have the guts to tell you no...

And go prove your method's on their merits, rather than piggy backing your doctrine and leading good people into darkness.

Mooney is a Good Man of God who is standing against this evil, dark, deceptive spirit of compromise.
www.inbythroughhim.blogspot.com

Ron, so you think everything in bold is okay to say?

Just really wondering if you think that's okay - it seems negative is relative to you.

[tv1a]

My sister mentioned PM was at their church recently. He tanked big time. He tried that campmeet mumbo jumbo which nobody fell for. She said the substance wasn't there. According to AFF reports, my sister's pastor was one of the organizers of the "secret" meeting.

Now you know more to the story.

Originally Posted by Paul Harvey

Assistant General Superintendent, Paul D Mooney (IN), last night, at the Mississippi Camp meeting(most notably known for Greg Godwin and Borat) has seemingly railed- as perceived by some of his ministerial peers who have heard this message - against the recent invitation-only ministerial fellowship meeting that took place several weeks ago in Pontiac (Detroit) Michigan asking "who holds secret meetings?"

Mooney who recently headed a committee appointed by General Superintendent Kenneth Haney called the Committee For Inquiry of the Emerging took a page from the committee's recommendation to "affirm the Apostolic doctrine and Biblical holiness positions in campmeeting and conferences throughout the UPCI" in his sermon entitled "Intentional Confrontation".

This message is hailed by some already for its aggressive defense and/or offense for "the message".

What is unclear from the tone of this message is if Mooney is in step with another committee recommendation which states: "Establish a caring atmosphere within the UPCI in which individual Pastors are encouraged to maintain Apostolic doctrine."

Mooney alludes to the actions of some brethren as "cunning","conniving", "crafting" and that God is testing the Church in these last days with "dreamers" and "false prophets".

This on the heels of his recent Twitter post the day before the Detroit meeting in which he stated: "Good things, honest things, meaningful things, positive things, pure things, ethical things, are never done in secret ..."

Last night's preaching can be accessed here. Listen attentively towards the end of his message:
http://web.me.com/scottaphillips/Sit...rontation.html

Other notable quotes towards the end of this message include:

Pentecost is at a place where you will have to have "intentional confrontation" with their children.

He refers to "people" (in this case, sons of ministers) who take churches and "destroy them" - "thieves".

"Either you stand for this or confess you are liar all your life."

To learn more about Mooney's involvement in heading the "Emerging" Committee, click here:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=24736

[tv1a]

There is a difference between holiness and man made dress codes. No one in the group suggests doing away with holiness. It could be they discussed passing a resolution to remove the abomination of legalism from the manual.

Originally Posted by moniker

I wonder if these guys will push a resolution to do away with the holiness articles.

I heard that may be what this is about.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by Ron

People who come out of the world need teaching.
We had one sister who as sweet as she was, still needed instruction.
She wore a real nice white blouse that had long sleeves---but was almost transparent!!

Don't forget, the "flesh" doesn't like restrictions on it so a person saying they have freedom from any restrictions may just not like having a man of God tell them how to live for God!

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Let me play the DA for Ron on this one, just out of curiosity. Because of culture changes, we look at the principles, and shouldn't we interpret them, and bring the timeless truths that they are into our modern context? Shouldn't we be specific, and not just leaving everything in the air? And what should we be specific about?

The problem is that people become very legalistic. If a church wants to say that they agree on a certain standard I have no problem with that. Like beards, there is nothing wrong with a man wearing a bear but someone decided against it. After 25 years it becomes doctrine to the point that our whole church basically split over a preacher having a beard.

A typical standards today is that women should wear skirts to their knee. Now, a woman can also wear pants down to her shoes and be considered immodest by the UPC culture. Is she immodest? No, but because someone got it in their minds that it was then it is.

The bible didn't give us exact interpretations for modesty. My opinion, teach modesty, exalt God and holy living and folks will for the most part line up. If there is a blatant display then an elder might mention something. However, we are treading on very shaky ground when we set up a standard for everyone to follow.

[BHILL]

Originally Posted by tv1a

My sister mentioned PM was at their church recently. He tanked big time. He tried that campmeet mumbo jumbo which nobody fell for. She said the substance wasn't there. According to AFF reports, my sister's pastor was one of the organizers of the "secret" meeting.

Now you know more to the story.

I've never heard PM tank before when he's preached,I'd bet there's other people at your sisters church who thought he did great.
I think he's really concerned about the direction some of the churches are going with doctrine more than anything else.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by deltaguitar

The problem is that people become very legalistic. If a church wants to say that they agree on a certain standard I have no problem with that. Like beards, there is nothing wrong with a man wearing a bear but someone decided against it. After 25 years it becomes doctrine to the point that our whole church basically split over a preacher having a beard.

A typical standards today is that women should wear skirts to their knee. Now, a woman can also wear pants down to her shoes and be considered immodest by the UPC culture. Is she immodest? No, but because someone got it in their minds that it was then it is.

The bible didn't give us exact interpretations for modesty. My opinion, teach modesty, exalt God and holy living and folks will for the most part line up. If there is a blatant display then an elder might mention something. However, we are treading on very shaky ground when we set up a standard for everyone to follow.

I agree Delta, for the most part. What will they "line-up" to? Is there something in yours/my mind?

Do any of you think the church should have said something about abstaining from the look of the rebels and hippies in the 1960s? I can really, sincerely, see Paul doing this (based on the principles of 1 Cor 11 no less)? I think it was possibly handled wrong, and passed down wrong, and we can learn from that in the future.

If the Bible had given exact definitions for modesty, we would argue over its relevence, since it was modesty, in a society 2,000 year ago. I don't think it's a legal thing, it's a wisdom thing. We ought to know how to be modest today, shouldn't we? What should the older ladies teach the younger? The older men the young?

I don't care who goes to a public beach with their torso showing, as a child of God I don't see that as appropriate. I don't think it's sinful (unless one is violating what they understand as right), but certainly not wisem, nor the prudent thing to do for a child of God.

It seems many would prefer us to teach "modesty" as an abstract, but to avoid the responsibility of making any application.

Again, just challenging the idea. I'm not arguing for a position on this. I recognize the danger on both extremes.

[*AQuietPlace*]

I think that when women first began wearing pants, the church was right to say that a Christian woman should not do that. At that time. Because at that time, it was seen as scandalous. A Christian woman should not participate in something that would ruin her witness. It was not the pants themselves that were wrong, it was the scandal attached. (just like Christian women used to not show their ankles) There is now no scandal attached to it. Yet we made it a law, so now we're stuck with it.

Same with the hippie movement, whatever. Christians should never participate in extreme things that will ruin our witness.

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

I agree Delta, for the most part. What will they "line-up" to? Is there something in yours/my mind?

Do any of you think the church should have said something about abstaining from the look of the rebels and hippies in the 1960s? I can really, sincerely, see Paul doing this (based on the principles of 1 Cor 11 no less)? I think it was possibly handled wrong, and passed down wrong, and we can learn from that in the future.

If the Bible had given exact definitions for modesty, we would argue over its relevence, since it was modesty, in a society 2,000 year ago. I don't think it's a legal thing, it's a wisdom thing. We ought to know how to be modest today, shouldn't we? What should the older ladies teach the younger? The older men the young?

I don't care who goes to a public beach with their torso showing, as a child of God I don't see that as appropriate. I don't think it's sinful (unless one is violating what they understand as right), but certainly not wisem, nor the prudent thing to do for a child of God.

It seems many would prefer us to teach "modesty" as an abstract, but to avoid the responsibility of making any application.

Again, just challenging the idea. I'm not arguing for a position on this. I recognize the danger on both extremes.

I honestly don't know any other answer other than to exalt the holiness of God and to preach the word of God. You can do all you want to change a persons behavior but it is up to God to change their heart. If their heart is not changed then they are not a believer anyway. They are a sinner and Christian standards don't apply to them anyway.

As far as being culturally separate just look at the UPC youth of today. Within their holiness standards they are the most fashionable people around. Minus long hair and skirts the youth in most UPC churches look like they have stepped out of the latest fashion magazine. Is this wrong? Is this modest? When we were UPC our youth hated to be around other UPC churches because everything was a fashion show. We are from a very poor area of the US and most of our kids could barely afford to go to youth convention or youth camp.

As far as modesty goes. If I am around someone who is offended by my bare chest (which is almost everyone as I get older) then I won't do something to offend my brother. If I am around people of less means then I might dress less expensive if I think I might cause them pain.

We are to love the lord with all our heart and our neighbor as ourself. If we conduct our life and live by this principal most standard issues will take care of themselves as Christians mature.