A Relevant Holiness Message

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Good one, Daniel!

So, speaking of, DO you love President Obama?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

*To his face* is the important part. I have no problem with preachers asking one another tough questions. This would be a lot more productive if RM were participating in thread--and that's why I didn't complain much about the Prodigal Son thread. (RM showed up and defended himself.)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by notofworks

So, speaking of, DO you love President Obama?

I wouldn't want someone to assassinate him. His family would be devastated.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

This is more extreme than the RM/GP contradiction, but my father interrupted a visiting preacher's sermon (he was also a very dear family friend) and asked him to sit down for preaching what he believed was false doctrine. It was blatantly and purposefully contrary to what our church taught, and my father was heartbroken over the incident, but he was not afraid to respond accordingly.

In this case, RM could have responded by not posting the message online. By doing so, his support was clearly shown.

Easy as that! Then, the Wednesday after GP spoke, he could address his church family. However, the sad part seems to be that they are confused because it appears that they agreed with both ministers.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Let's discuss.

In the heat of the moment, Paul called him out for showing respect of persons. This is not the same thing.

The same thing would have been someone in the congregation immediately calling RM out for letting GP insist on a rock song being played in church.

This thread is more like displaying someones sins for all to see after the fact and not in the very act.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

In this case, RM could have responded by not posting the message online. By doing so, his support was clearly shown.

Excellent point. His support shown by posting the message online reveals his hypocrisy.

So if we judge RM to be a hypocrite because of this, then what?
If he doesn't publicly apologize and privately repent, then what?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by triumphant1

You see nothing wrong with RM discrediting and destroying the ministry of the preacher who used a rock song as an illustration in his sermon to his congregation and to those who watch is service online?

My relevant issue:

That minister could be me. I have used rock songs to illustrate sermons and he has the capability of knowing that. So, did he discredit me? Even if I wasn't the one specifically on his mind, I fit the bill.

So after ministers like myself were dicredited, and he has the same thing happen in his church that he condemned us for, I was curious (as one of those discredited ministers) what does he say now??

You have missed the relevant issue that I have asked him to dialog about. What exactly does one do when this happens? It seems to me to be a great point for discussion among ministers.

Sorry, T1. I had to cut out for a bit. I have company coming by.

RM never once mentioned a person's name. Yea, it could be you, but we don't know, because he didn't say. He went off the principle that he did not agree with using the music in church. Big difference in that and Daniel dragging him, his church and guest speaker over to YouTube with a persecution, cropped video clip. "Please everyone, dislike these guys!"

No, I didn't miss the relevant issue one little bit. DA's persecution video is the relevant point. You are overlooking the relevant point, IMO.

You said you were one of his friends at Facebook. They have private messaging there. If you are really his friend, contact him at Facebook or call his church.

Don't post things about him on YouTube. He answered one thing about some dancing and because he knew this would be a tar and feathering and he knows that he doesn't have to answer to any of you, he hasn't posted. Good for him! He can do whatever he feels is in his best interest. Obviously, it isn't here. LOL!

We also don't know what happened between him and GP at his church. Maybe he realized he pushed how he felt too strongly after GP's "soul" ( at Renda) song and thought it wasn't as big an issue as he thought the week before. Maybe he talked to GP about it. We don't know and it really is none of our business. I know it is none of mine. He isn't my pastor and never will be. I don't send them money. I haven't seen GP in a couple of years, so whatever he is doing is none of my business either.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Excellent point. His support shown by posting the message online reveals his hypocrisy.

So if we judge RM to be a hypocrite because of this, then what?
If he doesn't publicly apologize and privately repent, then what?

Maybe he didn't feel that one incident, with the song, was enough to scrap the whole service.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Easy as that! Then, the Wednesday after GP spoke, he could address his church family. However, the sad part seems to be that they are confused because it appears that they agreed with both ministers.

Maybe they only agree or disagree with the manner that a rock song is presented at church and didn't feel the one that Poe sang was that big of a deal?

Maybe we could e-mail Rob and ask if we could be voted in on his Board? LOL!

[triumphant1]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Sorry, T1. I had to cut out for a bit. I have company coming by.

RM never once mentioned a person's name. Yea, it could be you, but we don't know, because he didn't say. He went off the principle that he did not agree with using the music in church. Big difference in that and Daniel dragging him, his church and guest speaker over to YouTube with a persecution, cropped video clip. "Please everyone, dislike these guys!"

No, I didn't miss the relevant issue one little bit. DA's persecution video is the relevant point. Your overlooking the relevant point, IMO.

You said you were one of his friends at Facebook. They have private messaging there. If you are really his friend, contact him at Facebook or call his church.

Don't post things about him on YouTube. He answered one thing about some dancing and because he knew this would be a tar and feathering and he knows that he doesn't have to answer to any of you, he hasn't posted. Good for him! He can do whatever he feels is in his best interest. Obvious, it isn't here. LOL!

We also don't know what happened between him and GP at his church. Maybe he realized he pushed how he felt too strongly after GP's "soul" ( at Renda) song and thought it wasn't as big an issue as he thought the week before. Maybe he talked to GP about it. We don't know and it really is none of our business. I know it is none of mine. He isn't my pastor and never will be. I don't send them money. I haven't seen GP in a couple of years, so whatever he is doing is none of my business either.

I didn't post anything on youtube. I simply entered a discussion that Dan had already in progress here--as RM has done many times on other subjects. I had no ill will towards him and still don't. I see no reason to ask him privately on facebook because my interest in this is only on the forum and not on facebook. This is a discussion forum isn't it? Facebook is not.

I am sorry that this particular discussion doesn't suit your fancy. But you know, that's waht this is...a discussion. I personally would have liked for RM to participate in it since it was brought up.

I would like to know how one would handle this from his perspective. I'd like to know if he sees a discrepency in the two weeks. I'd like to discuss if he felt differently about the use of rock songs, and if not, what made GP's song acceptable. (or not acceptable just tolerated) How does a Pastor fix the contradiction between what he preached and what was practiced a week later?

Does he have to answer? Nope. But the discussion would have been interesting. Again, He has participated on this forum for some time and he has had no problem participating in other threads that call others out for things he disagrees with (like doctrine).