Bott '14

[KeptByTheWord]

Regardless of whether JA took a quote out of context... or not... the whole attitude that he demonstrated while preaching overall just reeked of a man who is burnt out, and who was blaming new converts/saints for that. And, there is no doubt in my mind that after dealing with people, they will burn you out, wear you out until you are dried up and have nothing left over, except pieces of yesterday's bread, that are stale, old and tasteless.

I've said before in this thread... and hope someone hears it that needs to hear it... if you are in the ministry, and you feel you are giving, giving, giving until you feel you have nothing left to give, you need to see what Jesus did when those same things happened to Him. As He poured himself out, he never failed to stop, leave the crowds of people, even his closest friends, and be alone with the Lord for a time of refreshing. This is the ONLY way to survive burning yourself out in the work of the Lord.

[n david]

Went back over some posts and need to correct something. Last night I wrote that I didn't accuse JA of lying. That's not correct. Below is the quote where I included "misrepresented...lied..." (referring to Maxwell's quote) and because of that, did accuse JA of lying.

Originally Posted by n david

JA misrepresented...lied...about the context and meaning of that quote.

After that quote, my more recent quotes have been based on "if" SG didn't say what JA claimed he said, then it would be a lie.

Originally Posted by n david

And yes, if he exaggerated or took SG's words out of context and SG didn't say what JA claimed he said - "it's the minister's fault," then yes, JA lied. A spade is a spade. I'll call it regardless.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

Went back over some posts and need to correct something. Last night I wrote that I didn't accuse JA of lying. That's not correct. Below is the quote where I included "misrepresented...lied..." (referring to Maxwell's quote) and because of that, did accuse JA of lying.



After that quote, my more recent quotes have been based on "if" SG didn't say what JA claimed he said, then it would be a lie.

A great man can always acknowledge that he can be wrong, at least once...

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

So, you are saying the church will likely be moving towards a "police" state mentality as well... lol

It would be easier to contain something like this. Most concerts I've been to, with exception of Rock and Worship Roadshow, have either printed statements, video announcements or spoken announcement that flash photography and recording are not permitted. So honestly, I joke about how easier it would be to scrub offending content, but I wouldn't be upset if BOTT decided to prohibit recording devices.

After all, it's a church service. People should be paying attention, not messing around with their cell phone.

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

A great man can always acknowledge that he can be wrong, at least once...

Definitely not a great man. It's just not good to be in the middle of discussing whether or not someone may have lied, and then declare that I didn't write something that I actually did write!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

And it was like pulling teeth to get you to finally admit that!

In your quest to win the argument, I would appreciate that you wouldn't misrepresent me, when you can easily be proved that you are wrong.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Seriously, I would want to hear the whole sermon. And I never have had a problem with JA's preaching style. But, I think there are some times where you can insert the word "idiot" in the wrong place. This is probably one example.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

He perfectly stated where he was coming from, although, yes, he does get heavy on the "idiot" and always has.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I'm not defending him in the sense of using that language as a proper training message.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I wrote that JA couldn't have been directing "you're an idiot" at a quote...key part being "you're" and not "it" or "the quote." After I stated maybe the quote became flesh and was sitting on the platform, you flip back to Maxwell!

Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
I'm still not clear as to whether he was referencing Maxwell as being the idiot."

I was confused at this and then looked back and realized that I made a typo and meant to type minister and not Maxwell. I realized it was a typo when I finished reading the paragraph that ended - "Mainly, because I don't know why he would say he wished he could get a minister to agree with him."

In the same post, you say:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post
It doesn't matter what Maxwell said really.

Next post I point out your flip flop flip from Maxwell to the quote back to Maxwell as who JA was referring to. I also point out that at first you were interested in what Maxwell said, but now "it doesn't really matter."

Is your head spinning yet? It's hard to keep track with what story you're going with.

I'm disappointed David, that you would resort to grabbing clips in order to make them appear out of context. Kind of reminds me of a CNN journalist.

I said more than what you posted. You conveniently left out my point.

It won't matter what it says. JA already allowed us to know the impression he received from the text given. That isn't going to change. He responded to what he heard.

The point is that JA heard what he heard and that is what he responded to. We all have "takeaways" from things we hear, arguments, music, news reports, etc. This isn't anything different, IMO.

My angst is that you accused him of lying, which you later tried to save yourself out of while accusing me of flip-flopping. Granted the Maxwell typo was my fault, so I don't blame you on that score. But, the other statements I made that you readily cropped out is disingenuous of you.

If a person came to you and told you someone else said something they did not actually say, is that a lie? Yes or no?

I am not going to play your game here. You are trying to set up JA as a liar and I refuse to play this with you.

So, as I see this conversation has not been productive. I leave you with the post I agree with the most:

Originally Posted by Ferd

I'm not siding with JA, nor am I taking shots at him.

I'm just not shocked that he said something controversial. When he isn't asleep, he does that. LOL.

He also says some stuff that folk need to hear and others won't say....

so... there ya go. I'm pretty much done with this very tired and very dead horse.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

In your quest to win the argument, I would appreciate that you wouldn't misrepresent me, when you can easily be proved that you are wrong.

I didn't misrepresent you. Those quotes you posted...were made after these quotes...

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I don't really care if he says idiot or not. No one posting here could stand up to any type of scrutiny and be found without some flaw that offends someone. Therefore, I am not casting stones at Jeff Arnold.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Listen, David, he has been speaking this way since he began and it isn't the first time he preached at BOTT. If AM doesn't have a problem with him, neither do I.

Then you doubled down with a quote from before...

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Anyway, I still am of the opinion that if AM doesn't have a problem with JA, neither do I.

...even though you seemed to somewhat acknowledge...

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But, I think there are some times where you can insert the word "idiot" in the wrong place. This is probably one example.

I did not misrepresent you. You were asked several times to acknowledge whether or not JA was wrong for attacking SG. You either refused or ignored before finally somewhat acknowledging idiot was "heavy"

You never said he was wrong though. Read your quotes again.

But, I think there are some times where you can insert the word "idiot" in the wrong place. This is probably one example.

He perfectly stated where he was coming from, although, yes, he does get heavy on the "idiot" and always has.

I'm not defending him in the sense of using that language as a proper training message.

It has moved past the idiot remark, which I have stated is problematic in any context.

"Idiot in the wrong place..." "heavy on the idiot..." "I'm not defending him..." "problematic..."

None of these come out and state JA was wrong for attacking another minister. It's like listening to a politician speak.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

I didn't misrepresent you. Those quotes you posted...were made after these quotes...





Then you doubled down with a quote from before...



...even though you seemed to somewhat acknowledge...



I did not misrepresent you. You were asked several times to acknowledge whether or not JA was wrong for attacking SG. You either refused or ignored before finally somewhat acknowledging idiot was "heavy"

You never said he was wrong though. Read your quotes again.









"Idiot in the wrong place..." "heavy on the idiot..." "I'm not defending him..." "problematic..."

None of these come out and state JA was wrong for attacking another minister. It's like listening to a politician speak.

I was speaking of his general use of the term idiot. AM doesn't appear to have a problem with his general use, it seems. It doesn't bother me, but I do acknowledge he does get heavy with it and I do acknowledge his use of it that day was problematic. He went a little further with it than normal as evidenced by the audience who appeared to gasp. IOW, they didn't have a problem with him earlier, only when he used it in the context that he did.

Now, I am done with you David. You can crucify JA ALL day, tomorrow and for weeks ahead. I have a feeling that after he apologized, as is God's way, it's over.

[MissBrattified]

4 things:

1. I think JA did call Stan Gleason an idiot. IMO, he made that clear when he said "...I don't know which one of you guys said it, and I know that came from John Maxwell...but whoever it is, don't get offended...you're an idiot." The "whoever it is" part shows that he's referring to the minister, because he knew where the quote came from and stated that.

2. It was over the line, and must have been brought to his attention, because he apologized. Or maybe he felt bad personally and apologized of his own accord. I don't know which way it went down.

3. JA is coarse. That's just who he is, for whatever reason. People who are impulsive and hot-headed say things they regret because they don't have a good filter on their mouths. That doesn't make him useless to the kingdom, and I, for one, don't want him to "sit down and shut up."

4. It's POSSIBLE (but not plausible, considering JA's manner) that he was directing the idiot thing at John Maxwell, but that doesn't matter even if it's true. It sounded like he was calling SG an idiot, so therefore it was offensive, e.g., he needed to issue an apology or at least a clarification. Further, John Maxwell is a respected author, fellow Christian, and has been a guest at POA. If JA was directing it at Maxwell, it was still uncalled for and an apology needed to be issued.

Other than that, he apologized and I no longer care. It's not like he murdered someone...or cut off someone's ear with a sword.

If you hang onto an offense after someone has made it right, that says a lot more about you than them. Move on.