Emergents Thank WeDeclare Crowd

[Kim Komando]

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]

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]

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.

[Justin]

Originally Posted by Kim Komando

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.

Who's to say that this whole "We Declare" thing isn't just another statement "in addition" to the affirmation statement, and not "instead of"?

[Nitehawk013]

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]

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?

[Nitehawk013]

Pastors, even though their roles are extremely over reaching these days, do have the responsibility to watch over the siants in their care. If they constantly see them falling away because of something and do nothing to build a fence of protection, then they are going to be accountable for those souls.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Pastors, even though their roles are extremely over reaching these days, do have the responsibility to watch over the siants in their care. If they constantly see them falling away because of something and do nothing to build a fence of protection, then they are going to be accountable for those souls.

I think your analogy is wrong for several reasons. First, Shepherds lead sheep they don't fence them in on a pasture, at least Biblically.

Second, people should be taught how to handle life from a Biblical perspective not have a nanny tell them what to do and what not to do.

Third, when you do have a church that plays nanny to these folks they become very judgmental the rules become the standard by which one measures another persons walk with God.

Fourth, Scripture doesn't give us any examples of creating more rules, the fact is the decision in Acts 15 is to put no more on them than necessary.

[Kim Komando]

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

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I think your analogy is wrong for several reasons. First, Shepherds lead sheep they don't fence them in on a pasture, at least Biblically.

Second, people should be taught how to handle life from a Biblical perspective not have a nanny tell them what to do and what not to do.

Third, when you do have a church that plays nanny to these folks they become very judgmental the rules become the standard by which one measures another persons walk with God.

Fourth, Scripture doesn't give us any examples of creating more rules, the fact is the decision in Acts 15 is to put no more on them than necessary.

First, I am in Ohio. I know plenty of peopel who raise cattle, sheep, etc. They build fences to protectthe animals because not doing so would be ignorant.

Second, teaching depends on maturity. You can't teach an infant the greater principles behin why mom or dad set certain rules. You simply tell them what to do and what not to do. Thats it. UNtil they grow up, it is healthy for them to do as they are told because you set the rules for their own good.

Third, then you preach against being judgmental. You don't throw out principles that work fine just because a few peopel have a spiritual problem with being judgmental jerks.

Fourth, Paul often spoke to churches he founded and told them to follow him as he followed Christ. This included the MANY times he gave them directions that were HIS decisions, not God's commands.

I am completely against Pastors setting a million rules that make no sense. Its silly, controlling and legalistic. That doesn't take away form the fact that some thigns are just good for the church. Some traditions are healthy.