Just a Question

[Steve Epley]

Well here the the disenter I believe it is totally appropriate to preach holiness in meetings. I will not comment on this since I know nothing of it. But if he did that at Indiana Youth Conf. he had guts that's all I can say.

[clgustaveson]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well here the the disenter I believe it is totally appropriate to preach holiness in meetings. I will not comment on this since I know nothing of it. But if he did that at Indiana Youth Conf. he had guts that's all I can say.

I think it is a rude statement and is very judgmental for you to say something like that

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I personally don't believe that a preacher at a camp meeting, General Conference, Youth Rally, or any other venue where several churches are represented should preach about standards AT ALL! Either for, or against, that's not the time or place, in my opinion.

Those preachers should preach about soul winning, encouragement, revival, and a host of other great topics to inspire people, in my humble opinion.

Is Mooney still the D sup. there? I am sure that he would say something to the guy.

Phelps

I am not in the UPC? Are standards that big an issue nowadays?

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Well here the the disenter I believe it is totally appropriate to preach holiness in meetings. I will not comment on this since I know nothing of it. But if he did that at Indiana Youth Conf. he had guts that's all I can say.

Bro Epley

I appreciate your historical knowledge but 20th century traditions can hardly be equated as standards of holiness.

[clgustaveson]

The UPC still holds to most of its beliefs, the UPC is quite autonomous fellowship in that only the licensed ministers have to abide by the UPC's bylaws while the pastor presents his own to the church.

Mooney is not but it was held at his church. I highly doubt anything was said to him, considering who the minister was.

[pelathais]

I think he may have had a pretext text in search of a text - and found the tabernacle rings suitable.

We are in a "transition" period right now - but the "greatest in the history of the church?" Fact of the matter is, every period of time - by definition - is a transition period. Everyone has to learn how to carry what is important from the past into the future. That's our responsibility as human beings.

How important are hem lengths, for example? At a certain point it is important, but do guys always have to have their hems down to the ankle while the ladies can enjoy the comfort of every breeze? And since this is an example of something that the early church never observed, why do some insist upon following such a "standard." The list is really filled with the silliest of things.

"We" decided at some point to abandon infant baptism, because the early church never practiced it. "We" decided to abandon burning our heretics at the stake (at least literally) because, well... just because, but the early church didn't do that either.

"We" have successfully navigated an almost uncountable number of "transitions" all of which seemed to be fraught with the gravest of perils at the time. Most of these things are now looked upon as being so trivial that we're embarassed by the mention of them.

I have to question the motives of the preacher you describe. I have no idea who he is, but c'mon! Is the Indiana board really such a tyrannical group that they must be mollified with pap? How about preaching the Gospel to those kids - or have we "transitioned" out of that?

[clgustaveson]

I agree but let me point out again I am not saying what he preached was wrong merely the tactic was misguided.

I don't think I should tell anyone on here whether I am a proprietor of standards or not so I will leave the subject matter a question of ones own faith.

[RevBuddy]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

Just because its not new doesn't mean it is not bad...

Does anyone here actually read into the question at hand and look beyond the minor ones?

His point was not that standards are ever removable, simply that they aid in helping keep the church clean in transitional times... his statement about now being more of transitional period then ever seems incorrect IMHO but thats neither here not there.

My problem is that this type of message unsupported logic lends to a belief system that can hurt people.

I have never said their assumptions are wrong but when you base a principle on a foundation that doesn't exist you are doing something fundamentally wrong. It is safer to be wrong in principle then in foundation...

Sorry, but you're coming in broken and garbled...I don't have a clue as to what point you're trying to make....no clue...

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

Bro Epley

I appreciate your historical knowledge but 20th century traditions can hardly be equated as standards of holiness.

BK, he said holiness not standards or holiness standards. Get it right bubba.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by clgustaveson

I agree but let me point out again I am not saying what he preached was wrong merely the tactic was misguided.

I don't think I should tell anyone on here whether I am a proprietor of standards or not so I will leave the subject matter a question of ones own faith.

I understand, you don't want to be publically associated with my "rant" though privately you agree. I get that a lot, no problemo.

From what you described, and that's all I have to go on, I'd say the guy was exegetically and hermeneutically out of bounds as well as socially out of bounds. I couldn't care less about the "tactics" involved when the overall strategem imperils the souls in his audience.

And make no mistake here, we imperil the souls of our children and grandchildren because we have attached so many nonessentials to the essential Gospel message. We need to pull out some of those poles and do an Eleazar on the idolatrous and adulterous spirits that crowd out the Gospel from our churches and youth camps.