Let me take a moment and comment on this thread. It has been a good year since I've posted here on AFF. First, I'd like to say, as a member of CAF (where these excerpts originated), that I read through some of this long thread regarding Scott Graham and his preaching at Indiana Camp. I've read much more than the excerpts which were posted on the blog site and can say that the thread was much more balanced than the blog excerpts indicate. There were several who came to Scott Graham's defense and stood up against those who attacked him, yet the blog post never brought that salient fact to light.
It seems apparent to me that all conservative Apostolics (a redundant term IMO) are painted unfairly here by some with the same broad brush, and character assassination here of many conservative brethren is the standard MO of several prominent AFF posters.
I am uncomfortable with bashing of a man's character regardless of where it occurs and believe that it God is displeased with such bashing - however, the thread did deal with what appears to be a suddenly-improvised "damage control" campaign by the UPCI relative to traditional holiness stands. Holiness issues, for the first time in many years has some to the forefront of the UPCI: A "Holiness" theme to a recent issue of the Pentecostal Herald (when is the last time we've seen that?), holiness preaching and seminars at district and national events when such themes have been taboo in those same places for many years, etc. Some CAF members - especially those pastoring nearby SG brought up the apparent contradiction between his conference preaching and what happens at his church, all to point out that his preaching was part of the "damage-control" campaign. While I like Scott Graham's preaching, and have gotten much from it in the past - such observations have some validity that should be acknowledged.
Much has been made about SG's cousin and his comments. Let me say that the blog TOTALLY mischaracterized his comments, which, in total, praised Scott for preaching holiness in a camp meeting. Much of what he wrote (you only have seen part of what he wrote) was in defense of his cousin - and the harsh criticism on this forum of him is, IMO, unjustified.
Finally, I want to say how disappointed I am with the way B Kendrick's comments were tossed aside as unimportant. In particular, he brought up that the person who "anonymously" forwarded the contents of a CAF thread to the anonymous blogger did so in violation of the agreed-upon CAF forum rules. This observation was belittled here as the rules were, apparently "silly." Can we afford to cast aside honesty and integrity so carelessly? When a person agrees that they will abide by certain rules and then violates their solemn word - is that no longer considered a lie in 2008? If so, when did this change in the definition of "lie" occur? Shouldn't someone notify the publishers of our most referenced dictionaries of the change? The rules are not silly. The violation of agreed-upon rules, when a person takes an action to affirm their agreement with them and their pledge to abide by them - is still a lie and that makes the person who did this a liar. It amazes me that some here would feel differently and still consider yourself Apostolic. I guess
that definition is changing in some circles as well.
BTW, has anyone here noticed that the referenced blog post was the only post by this anonymous blogger (that makes it a new blog site) and that "KimberlyS" posted that blog here on her(?) one-and-only AFF post about 2 hours after the blog first appeared? It sounds like someone trying to stir the pot to me. Fire away - I know you will.
So all is not lost.
Linear Mode
