Some Follow up of Richland: Lipscomb University approves of "Hell and Mister Fudge."

James Kisner
James Kisner

November 19th, 2002, 5:42 pm #11

Brother McKinney,

I do apologize that the tone of my post sounded vitriolic. I assure you that wasn't my intent. I usually read the posts on here and wait a day or so to respond so as to keep myself in check (usually I don't respond). However, this time I digressed and responded immediately. Looking back I can see that I erred, at least in the tenor of my post. For that, I ask for your forgiveness.

However, regarding the basic gist of my comments, I offer no apology. I was taught growing up, as I said, in a very conservative but mainline Church of Christ, that it is better to leave a church in peace than to openly, and especially by the circulation of letters, petitions, meetings, etc., accuse an eldership of unscriptural decision-making. I was educated in one of the best Christian colleges in the non-instrumental brotherhood, and to the person, everyone of my Bible instructors warned their young preaching students to avoid any group in a church that would "go up against" (those are my words)an eldership. We were told specifically that it is always better just to leave quietly, with the church in tact. And, maybe that is what you folks did. Only you, God, and the Richland Hills Church know that.

Obviously, I went out of control with my previous post, and though you and I still disagree on this issue, I hope and pray that you'll see that I am not quite as venemous as you thought. Thanks for your consideration and God bless you as you search the scriptures.

Sincerely,

James Kisner
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

November 20th, 2002, 2:15 pm #12

That is more like what I was have expected from my brother!

I was taught an over-whelming respect for elders--they care a great self-imposed, congregation imposed and God imposed responsibility.

But, the one difference that comes forth here is the one for the ultimate authority of God's Word. My teachings led me to respect the Word over the opinions of man.

To simply leave a congregation "silently" when a point of scripture and the very organization of the church is at hand, is a whole different matter. To leave silently under such circumstances would be the same as giving silent consent to changes that you know are in conflict with the Word. In order words, do "we serve God or man?"

And what would happen in a small town where there is only one congregation of the Lord's church?

There just may be more to the story than in on the surface. I have found Mac McAllister and Elvin Bobo and wives Barb and Beth to be very creditable people. Their stories were freighting to me! Some of that is documented here.

In matters of opinions, I will bend far, but in Scriptural matters, I believe in sincere and honest, tempered with love, discussion.

To find a "deaconess" in I Timothy is a far stretch to me. I have studies carefully and understand the conclusion that the elders and staff agreed to, I still believe that it is a stretch and not in harmony with the all the Scriptures.

I believe that all are equal in the church and in every aspect of our lives. But equal does not mean SAME. It does appear that societal changes and the National Organization of Women are even beginning to effect church policy.

I prefer Scriptural authority. To attempt to PATTREN my Christianity as closely as possible to the inerrant Word of God should be the mission of each of us.

Thank you James, for you response in love--it is exactly what I would have expected from you--and appreciate so very much.

For those treating the church of Christ as a denomination, both from the progressive and the conservative side, please carefully evaluate what you are doing.
Quote
Share

Weldon McKinney
Weldon McKinney

November 21st, 2002, 1:22 pm #13

Somehow, my name was omitted from the above article. I most sincerely apologize and especially to James.

Weldon
Quote
Share

J. A. Davis
J. A. Davis

November 21st, 2002, 11:28 pm #14

Brother Choate, it is refreshing to see your response to the 25 Theses. Your thinking is clear, as contrasted to some other responses that do little more than cloud the issues and take up space. As one of the 19 signers of the 25 Theses (and coordinator of it), again I would remind that the purpose was to invite discusson and study with the church leaders so as to come to truth together.

I am informed that the entire document has been read to at least one church assembly, and printed copies have been offered to many who requested it. Some are writing and/or calling and offering to have their names added to the 19 if it could be done somehow. Of course October 31st finalized that original document, but there are other ways to rally to the truths of it.

My heart bleeds to see the sad effects from breaking with the old paths. Again, I thank you and ask you as a righteous man to pray, for we are promised it will avail much. I am your friend and brother, Alvin Jennings
Dear Alvin,

I didn’t know of your posting of the 25 Theses until my good brother Weldon McKinney and I were lunching together and he told me about it. Upon examining the document, I was concerned for several reasons. The whole tenor of the document seems to be one that will not heal the wounds at church; rather, it seems to me, it will only further exacerbate the situation and be a cause of contention and further hurt to the body of Christ at Richland Hills. I do not think that is what you wish to happen, but I think that will be the result. In the few times that we have been with each other, I have come to regard you as one who has a great desire to win the lost to Jesus. I consider you to have a good heart, and know that you have extended time and treasure to get some things done while you were a member at Richland Hills. The making of the Garden of Prayer is a testimony to that. But to publicly post the 25 Theses as you have with all the accusations contained therein will only take away from the good that you have done.

To state, as you have, that “to appoint both men and women without distinction as ‘special servants’ is without Scripture warrant” is to ignore that there are very good arguments for recognizing that the New Testament church had women deacons. (See my posting of the discussion that I had with Louis Rushmore concerning this.) I know that we will probably never agree on the New Testament evidence, but can’t you admit that there is a possibility that you might be wrong on this subject? I know that it is possible for me to be wrong about this, for I have changed what I previously thought about the subject of women deacons – and I know that I do not have all the answers. Weldon and I have discussed this a few times, and I doubt that either of us will change the other’s mind. But to divide a church over something like this is wrong. I know that you will probably say that it is the elders who are doing such by appointing women as “special servants.” But I think it was not a change of practice, it was only a change of nomenclature. Women were doing the work of “deacons” but they weren’t called “deacons.” And I would hold that every church of Christ that I know of has such women, for the church could not function without them. We have secretaries, Sunday school teachers and supervisors, those who serve in “benevolence” areas, etc. No church is without these women who serve as special servants.

You also state:

"5. We call on you to repent of changing the charter written in 1967 by the original founding elders. You removed, among other things, without the knowledge and consent of the congregation, this concise restrictive clause: "No mechanical instrument of any kind whatsoever shall ever be used in connection with the song service or worship or work to be carried on or conducted by said congregation or religious body". You have dishonored those righteous men and women who made every effort within their power to safeguard future generations from this specific departure from the Bible pattern for New Testament worship. They were aware of the divisive nature of this particular innovation and therefore made specific mention of it in their founding document. "

This, I think, is somewhat misleading. While it is true that the specific clause was removed, it was done in the context of a thorough revision of the charter to bring it into compliance with state and federal laws concerning non-profit organizations. There were a lot of changes and not just with regard to that particular clause. You also failed to note that this particular clause was added (Article 5, Section 6) “A Church of Christ as used in this Article Five is a group or body of two or more believer in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the Son of God, born of a virgin, raised from the dead, and now seated at the right hand of God ruling and reigning over His kingdom, the Church; the members of which group or body have been immersed in water into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins. Each such body of believers constitutes a completely autonomous Church of Christ, having no earthly head or headquarters; who believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the miracles recorded therein; to assemble on the first day of every week to honor God and spiritually edify each other by observing the Lord’s Supper; by studying the Bible, by contributing; by praying to God, and by singing songs of praise and edification without the use of mechanical instruments.” It seems obvious to me that the elders of the 1994 revision of the charter were not trying to make it easier to use the instrument in worship.

You indicate that this revision dishonors the “original founding elders” of the 1967 charter. Of the six elders in the 1967 charter, all but two are dead. Of the six, two were my family: my father, and my father-in-law. I cannot claim to speak for all of the elders of the 1967 charter, but I did know them all and the kind of men they were. I think they would be more concerned with those who sow discord among the brethren than the revision of the charter. I do know that when I asked my father about this, he said that he did not feel “dishonored” by what the elders did in 1994.

My roots go deep in the Richland Hills Church of Christ. As a child I met in the Glenview Elementary School with the church before we even had a building to call our own. It has grown through the years because God has given it leaders who were in love with Him. They weren’t perfect; they made mistakes. They did not always agree among themselves, but they were unified in their approach to leading the family at Richland Hills. I think that is what has made it a special place – it has been family. It has accepted people from all over who have been hurting in many different ways, and in it they have found a place to serve God. At Richland Hills we probably have had a wider spectrum of beliefs, practices, and socio-economic backgrounds than any other church of Christ that I know of. What has kept us together has been our love for God and for each other. That’s why we can have people who disagree on so many different things still remain in the one body. We show the world that we love God by loving each other and not insisting on our own way. Alvin, I don’t agree with everything that occurs at Richland Hills. If I were in charge I’m sure that things would be more traditional. (If I were in charge the church would probably end up much smaller :)) I doubt that there is a church anywhere that I would completely endorse its practice and teaching. I suspect that with your even wider experience you could say the same. But I love Richland Hills. I love it with all of its failings, warts and all. It is a great church. But if the time came when the elders thought that what I was teaching or doing was going to be disruptive and harmful to the church, I would not cause trouble, even if I were convinced that I was right and they were wrong. It’s more important to maintain unity than convince a brother that his viewpoint is wrong (Rom. 14). If, for some reason, I could no longer in good conscience continue there I would quietly leave and not cause trouble.

I pray, Alvin, that you will re-examine what you are doing.

In Christian Love,
J. A. Davis
Quote
Share

Sandy Spengler
Sandy Spengler

January 10th, 2003, 12:31 pm #15



http://www.piney.com/Lipscomb.Universit ... oshua.html

http://www.piney.com/Hell.and.Mister.Fu ... Jesus.html

Former Richland Hills Members And Friends Post
25 Theses To The Doors of The Church

<a href="http://www.concernedmembers.com/forumar ... es.htm">[b]
.....Click Here To Read[/b]</a><a href="http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thr ... 504485">[b]
.....See Discussion Below[/b]</a>
Where in the Bible does it say anything about instruments in church service? And if your basing your church service on what was done in the old testament I think you need to have many more changes. I am sure they did not have microphones, and pews, for goodness sake they met in homes. We don't meet in homes. How do you know they did not raise there hands. Where is that mentioned in the Bible?

I do believe that baptisim is a response to and a show of obedience as a result of being saved by grace. But if you must do something to be saved, thats a work and our salvation is not a free gift from God. The Bible teaches clearly that we are not saved by works.

Do you really believe that God would not be faithful to all those out there seeking him? Do you really believe that He would lead Billy Graham and millions of others earnestly seeking him down the wrong path after all these years?

Do you really think if we don't follow your ways we will all perish? How about those in Africa that sing and shout out loud and dance before the Lord with no musical instruments because their culture is different from ours. Shall they perish too?

After reading your posting I am so glad I have been free from all this nonsense for the last 9 years. I have been able to focus on Jesus as my salvation and loving others as Jesus loved me. Not- musical instrumnets, have you been dunked (we don't care what's in your heart or if you understand what salvation means to your lifestyle, we want to know if you have been emersed fully under water). Just think of all God could do for the kingdom if we spent as much time on Him as you have wasted on bashing His church.
Quote
Share

Jack L Drain
Jack L Drain

January 13th, 2003, 10:03 pm #16

To Concerned members:
I have read with heightened interest the 25 theses addressed to the Richland Church of Christ. The statement are clear and well thought. David Lipscomb wrote in the first years of the 20th century that division will come to churches of Christ, and he added when divisions come let it be along Bible lines. The first divisions were clearly marked along a multiple dividing line: ORGANIZED MISSIONARY SOCIETIES AND ORGANIZED LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL CONVENTIONS; and the invasion of liberal theology into the colleges and churches popularly known as MODERNISM until the 1950s.

The churches of Christ are again divided as wide as that gulf Jesus talked about. Once again there are multiple dividing lines which separate the churches, and the gulf keeps widening: These dividing lines are clearly marked: POST MODERN THEOLOGY WHERE INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC, YOU NAME IT, AND IT GOES CHURCH GROWTH MODELS SUCH AS WILLOW CREEK; and
others of the "theater of the weird and absurd, e.g., THE THIRD WAVE, KANSAS CITY PROPHETS, and the VINEYARD CHURCHES.

This one is the most important-they say that they are Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement denomination. They have names themselves--SO BE IT!

There is no need to lecture, chide, or moralize with these "know-it-all" brethren. Just leave them, get them out of your churches, don't invite them whatever the disguise. They are after your memberships, and church assets. Shake the dust off your feet and let them be where they choose to be.

Do what David Lipscomb and those around him did. Mark these church dividers. Draw up a census, and separate the sheep from the goats. Don't tear up the wheal to get the tares. Pull out the tares when they show fully what they are. Yes division among the churches is here, and the members of the Biblical churches of Christ have not been the cause in any respect.

Respectfully submitted,

J. E. Choate
Please send me the mailing addresses for the nineteen people who signed the "25 Theses" article.
Thank You,
jdrain
Quote
Share

Bob Hogue
Bob Hogue

January 20th, 2003, 6:45 pm #17

Dear Alvin,

I didn’t know of your posting of the 25 Theses until my good brother Weldon McKinney and I were lunching together and he told me about it. Upon examining the document, I was concerned for several reasons. The whole tenor of the document seems to be one that will not heal the wounds at church; rather, it seems to me, it will only further exacerbate the situation and be a cause of contention and further hurt to the body of Christ at Richland Hills. I do not think that is what you wish to happen, but I think that will be the result. In the few times that we have been with each other, I have come to regard you as one who has a great desire to win the lost to Jesus. I consider you to have a good heart, and know that you have extended time and treasure to get some things done while you were a member at Richland Hills. The making of the Garden of Prayer is a testimony to that. But to publicly post the 25 Theses as you have with all the accusations contained therein will only take away from the good that you have done.

To state, as you have, that “to appoint both men and women without distinction as ‘special servants’ is without Scripture warrant” is to ignore that there are very good arguments for recognizing that the New Testament church had women deacons. (See my posting of the discussion that I had with Louis Rushmore concerning this.) I know that we will probably never agree on the New Testament evidence, but can’t you admit that there is a possibility that you might be wrong on this subject? I know that it is possible for me to be wrong about this, for I have changed what I previously thought about the subject of women deacons – and I know that I do not have all the answers. Weldon and I have discussed this a few times, and I doubt that either of us will change the other’s mind. But to divide a church over something like this is wrong. I know that you will probably say that it is the elders who are doing such by appointing women as “special servants.” But I think it was not a change of practice, it was only a change of nomenclature. Women were doing the work of “deacons” but they weren’t called “deacons.” And I would hold that every church of Christ that I know of has such women, for the church could not function without them. We have secretaries, Sunday school teachers and supervisors, those who serve in “benevolence” areas, etc. No church is without these women who serve as special servants.

You also state:

"5. We call on you to repent of changing the charter written in 1967 by the original founding elders. You removed, among other things, without the knowledge and consent of the congregation, this concise restrictive clause: "No mechanical instrument of any kind whatsoever shall ever be used in connection with the song service or worship or work to be carried on or conducted by said congregation or religious body". You have dishonored those righteous men and women who made every effort within their power to safeguard future generations from this specific departure from the Bible pattern for New Testament worship. They were aware of the divisive nature of this particular innovation and therefore made specific mention of it in their founding document. "

This, I think, is somewhat misleading. While it is true that the specific clause was removed, it was done in the context of a thorough revision of the charter to bring it into compliance with state and federal laws concerning non-profit organizations. There were a lot of changes and not just with regard to that particular clause. You also failed to note that this particular clause was added (Article 5, Section 6) “A Church of Christ as used in this Article Five is a group or body of two or more believer in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the Son of God, born of a virgin, raised from the dead, and now seated at the right hand of God ruling and reigning over His kingdom, the Church; the members of which group or body have been immersed in water into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins. Each such body of believers constitutes a completely autonomous Church of Christ, having no earthly head or headquarters; who believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible and the miracles recorded therein; to assemble on the first day of every week to honor God and spiritually edify each other by observing the Lord’s Supper; by studying the Bible, by contributing; by praying to God, and by singing songs of praise and edification without the use of mechanical instruments.” It seems obvious to me that the elders of the 1994 revision of the charter were not trying to make it easier to use the instrument in worship.

You indicate that this revision dishonors the “original founding elders” of the 1967 charter. Of the six elders in the 1967 charter, all but two are dead. Of the six, two were my family: my father, and my father-in-law. I cannot claim to speak for all of the elders of the 1967 charter, but I did know them all and the kind of men they were. I think they would be more concerned with those who sow discord among the brethren than the revision of the charter. I do know that when I asked my father about this, he said that he did not feel “dishonored” by what the elders did in 1994.

My roots go deep in the Richland Hills Church of Christ. As a child I met in the Glenview Elementary School with the church before we even had a building to call our own. It has grown through the years because God has given it leaders who were in love with Him. They weren’t perfect; they made mistakes. They did not always agree among themselves, but they were unified in their approach to leading the family at Richland Hills. I think that is what has made it a special place – it has been family. It has accepted people from all over who have been hurting in many different ways, and in it they have found a place to serve God. At Richland Hills we probably have had a wider spectrum of beliefs, practices, and socio-economic backgrounds than any other church of Christ that I know of. What has kept us together has been our love for God and for each other. That’s why we can have people who disagree on so many different things still remain in the one body. We show the world that we love God by loving each other and not insisting on our own way. Alvin, I don’t agree with everything that occurs at Richland Hills. If I were in charge I’m sure that things would be more traditional. (If I were in charge the church would probably end up much smaller :)) I doubt that there is a church anywhere that I would completely endorse its practice and teaching. I suspect that with your even wider experience you could say the same. But I love Richland Hills. I love it with all of its failings, warts and all. It is a great church. But if the time came when the elders thought that what I was teaching or doing was going to be disruptive and harmful to the church, I would not cause trouble, even if I were convinced that I was right and they were wrong. It’s more important to maintain unity than convince a brother that his viewpoint is wrong (Rom. 14). If, for some reason, I could no longer in good conscience continue there I would quietly leave and not cause trouble.

I pray, Alvin, that you will re-examine what you are doing.

In Christian Love,
J. A. Davis
J.A.,
This was a good reply and what the Lord prayed for
in his last recorded prayer before he died for us-That
we be one so the world would know we were his disciples.I too attended Richland Hills coC when you
and I were in school together and it breaks my heart to
see this strife.If you get a chance E-mail me and we can catch up on old times!baron@yahoo.com Bon Hogue
Quote
Share

Bob Hogue
Bob Hogue

January 20th, 2003, 6:51 pm #18

(I really didn't know where to post this response, so here it is, though it is not completely a direct response to the original message.)

Well, I suppose these 25 theses nailed to the church doors at Richland Hills are supposed to be likened to Luther's 95 theses on the Wittenburg church door. I agree with you, brother, this is a bunch of rubbish and a last ditch effort by the ultra-conservatives in the non-instrumental churches to keep things the way they have always been (which they feel is the only scriptural arrangement). To them, I would say, if you cannot follow the leading of the elders of the Richland Hills Church of Christ, then LEAVE! It really makes no difference whether you or the elders are right. If you cause more trouble in that church, then you are guilty of propogating the discord in the church, and that is a SIN, too! Richland Hills Church of Christ is not YOUR church. You are not the elders, you are not the leaders. If you don't like how things are being done there, then close your Bibles and go to another congregation where you can worship God in peace. Let's face it, the elders are probably not going to change their minds, and obviously you are not either. Don't tear up the church there. Just go where you can be at peace. Richland Hills doesn't belong to you personally. You don't own the church.

Having recognized one of the signers of the so-called 25 theses as being a former Bible instructor of mine at a Church of Christ school, I am a bit surprised that his name is on it. I remember very well hearing him say many times that if someone is not happy in a church with decisions that elders make, then they should leave peacefully. And, you know, I took his advice. I am now a Minister of Worship in a Church of Christ in Wisconsin. Yes, we are a progressive Church of Christ. Yes, we use instruments in worship. Yes we lift our hands in worship. Some of us shout, some say Amen, some clap. And, we have women on our praise team. We have Christmas Eve and Easter worship services, and we even serve communion at those services, whether they are on a Sunday or Tuesday. We are led by qualified elders and a senior minister. We believe the Bible to be true from cover to cover. We still (and always will) practice believer's baptism by immersion for the remission of sin. And do you know what, we don't all agree on many points of doctrine. There are amillenialists, premillenialists, post-millenialists, charismatics, non-charismatics, instrumentalists, non-instrumentalists, former Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, Mennonites, Amish, and others represented among our ranks. All of these have been bought by the blood of Jesus, and we all have one thing in common - we are SAVED BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH (and yes, all of us have been immersed!). Additionally, we have peace. We aren't perfect, but we have peace. And we take seriously our search for truth, but we don't let that search and our own discoveries cloud the issue of what brought us to where we are - the BLOOD OF JESUS! All of the issues that we have serious disagreements over and that we pledge to each other to study vigorously, pale in comparison to the gift that Jesus gave. I am glad that I took my instructor's advice and found a church where I am able to serve the Lord in peace. To that instructor, whom, out of respect and admiration, I have chosen not to name, if he ever reads this post (if this post clears the moderators), let me say, "take your own advice." If you are at Richland Hills and are not happy, leave. Do what you told all of your Bible students to do. If you are not there, I really wish you'd take your name off of that list of signatures. You are doing the church no good by allying yourself with this divisive element.

James D. Kisner
God Bless you-that was a great response.If you can not
peacefully worship together-find a place where you can and maintain the Unity!!Thanks In His Love and Grace Bob
Quote
Share

C.G.
C.G.

March 7th, 2003, 2:58 am #19

Brother Choate, it is refreshing to see your response to the 25 Theses. Your thinking is clear, as contrasted to some other responses that do little more than cloud the issues and take up space. As one of the 19 signers of the 25 Theses (and coordinator of it), again I would remind that the purpose was to invite discusson and study with the church leaders so as to come to truth together.

I am informed that the entire document has been read to at least one church assembly, and printed copies have been offered to many who requested it. Some are writing and/or calling and offering to have their names added to the 19 if it could be done somehow. Of course October 31st finalized that original document, but there are other ways to rally to the truths of it.

My heart bleeds to see the sad effects from breaking with the old paths. Again, I thank you and ask you as a righteous man to pray, for we are promised it will avail much. I am your friend and brother, Alvin Jennings
I am not a member at Richland Hills but I heard about
this 25 thesis posted to the door and I was interested
to see what it was all about. It seems looking from
the outside that someone in your group of "concerned
members" has some kind of personal grudge or control
issue. And where is the brotherly love here. All I
see is your group trying to bash this congregation for
no reason that I can read. And what about people out
there reading this who are lost, what will they think
of the church? They will not want to come. Why must
you be so viscious to make a point and I lost the point
early on. Woman have always been servants in the church,
duh!!!! Whether we are called special servants or
whatever, the only name that matters is Christian. And
about the music thing, they used music in early church,
and I thought worship was to be joyous! And all your
bashing about Billy Graham is so uncalled for. He is
a true servant of the Lord and has devoted all his life
to sharing the gospel message. What are you doing for
the kingdom except causing division? How many people
are you sharing the gospel with? Not many since it is
obvious you are all spending your time bashing brothers
and sisters who are only using all means available to
bring the lost in to hear the saving message. It is
easy to criticize when you don't want to actually work
for the kingdom isn't it? Grow up and share the gosel
and stop trying to tear the church down!!!!
Quote
Share

Kenneth Sublett
Kenneth Sublett

March 8th, 2003, 2:13 am #20

C.G.: whatever, the only name that matters is Christian.

Me: What about a MUSICAL WORSHIP TEAM NAMED Jezebel? Is that ok? No.

Then how about one named HALAL which means to SHINE, BOAST, MAKE SELF VILE as the source of the word LUCIFER? How about one named ZOE after "the Beast and the female instructing principle"?

How about taking the name CHRIST off the church and adding COMMUNITY? Or how about naming your child Fido?
===================================================

C.G.: And about the music thing, they used music in early church, and I thought worship was to be joyous!

ME: That is what the LIERS FOR DOLLARS have told you but Jesus said that "Doctors of the Law take away the key to knowledge." He fired them but they are digging their way out of the earth.

The word "MUSIC" in Greek is SYMPHONIA and speaks of secular affairs with singing, playing, dancing, drinking much like the RISING UP TO PLAY at Mount Sinai which was MUSICAL IDOLATRY.

The word MELODY or PSALLO is not a musical term: it speaks of the warrior bow twangers who could melt your heart or drive you into panic. It derives from "grinding you into a fine powder" like the SOP Jesus fed Judas which caused him to SCOOT.

The word MUSIC is never used of the worship of God's people any time any place under any circumstances. People who LIE about that are agents of an alien power.

The Bible, the Book of Enoch and my 36 collected ancient resources show that Lucifer (Zoe) was a MUSICAL ENCHANTER who caused the fallen angels. He was in the garden of Eden. SHE will be the end-time Bablon whore who was KIRKE who attached her name to CHURCH in John's arena.

The MUSIC was not called such in the slaughter of thousands of animals as a CURSE for the idolatry at Mount Sinai. They made a loud crashing noise and if you could get the sight and sound and SMELL of this slaughter pen you could understand why the priests NEEDED DIVERSION from the horrors.

This SLAUGHTER represented their repudiation of the Spirit of Christ as their king, prince and priest.

Psalm 41 predicts that Judas would try this on Jesus and it was fulfilled when the WARRIOR MUSICIANS mocked Jesus: they "piped" trying to pervert Jesus into the Dionysus song and dance.

However, these SOUNDERS service was "HARD BONDAGE" and they did not WORSHIP. They served in the COURTS and not in the Holy Place. The Holy Place had its sanctity protected by a BODY so that no SINGER OR MUSICIAN could ever enter into the Holy Place as a type of the church or body of Christ.

The only one who MET God was the high priest once a year in the Most Holy Place. The people were IN EXILE from the presence of God. Only BELIEVERS now come boldly before the Throne of God where we worship in the PLACE of the human spirit. No musicians dare try to enter.

There were many INNOVATIONS by both Pharisees and Sadducees and Jesus REPUDIATES each and every one. For instance, it was pagan and polluted superstition which made the MUSICAL MOURING TEAMS believe that they could approach the "gods" on behald of the dead girl or appease the spirit of the dead. Jesus politely invited them outside, they MOCKED HIM something like "speaking in tongues" and they were CAST OUT "more or less violently." The word defines how one CAST OUT DUNG. Just like the carcass and dung was CAST out of the temple area.

No church had any notion of MUSIC as worship because:

1. The Jews had grown up in the Synagogue (never in the temple proper) and understood that it was A SCHOOL OF THE BIBLE. There was never any PRAISE SERVICE in the Synagogue.

2. The Gentiles understood the eternal connection between MUSIC in the pagan temples, adultery and perverted sexuality.

It was not until the fourth century that DIVISION was caused by introducing "music" which was simply chanting the INSPIRED BIBLICAL TEXT rather than obeying Paul and SPEAKING or PREACHING one to another.

All of the church historians associate MUSIC with Satan and repudiate it absolutely. The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia agrees.

The founders of denominations repudiated music as worship.

MUSIC has been introduced into the church as a planned, deliberate effort to INFILTRATE AND DIVERT churches of Christ into being Christian churches. Perhaps 100% of them were aspiring MUSICIANS riding the widows to bootstrap themselve up into fame and fortune. Or they were BOOK PEDDLERS or wannabes.

All of this is in fulfillment of Apollo or Abaddon or Apollyon's releasing the LOCUSTS. Apollo's MUSES were turned into LOCUSTS in the ancient stories. Throughout the classics the locust or grasshoppers are MUSICAL PERFORMERS who LULL people into a deep sleep. The MUSES are grouped with INSTRUMENTALISTS in Revelation 18 as "ministers" of the Babylon Harlot.

No, sister, LIERS ARE FRYERS if they tell you that MUSIC was EVER used in the worship of a Spirit God. And in paganism, the same AUTHORITY for music is also athority for girl singers as prostitutes and male performers as SODOMITES. THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE.

In fact, in the Bible all musical terms or names of Instruments are connected to the Devil, to polluting or to prostituting. The TRIUMPH over prophesied for Jesus by Judas was the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION in the Jerusalem Temple under the Greeks: The MASCULINE JOURNEY INITIATION was sodomy. There is no other tradition.

If you care one jot I can point you to the largest collection of documents but NOT ONE which will give you authority for MUSIC of any KIND unless you are MARKED by Satan.

The JUDGMENTALISM about Billy Graham began with the LOCUSTS eating up the widow's tithe KNOWING THEY WERE DELICIOUSLY sowing discord by JUDGING that Franklin Graham was OK along with EVERYONE who can say "Jesus."

This is the deliberate use of DISCORD or "Navigating the Winds of Change" derived from Hegel, Hitler or Machiavelli. You deliberately rub dung in the face of people but not to the point of getting fired. Then they WASH IT OFF and you are eternally grateful that you don't have to do it every week. Nevertheless, they have MOVED you from YOUR opinion to worship theirs.

The JUDGMENTALISM about music began with destructive children DELIBERATELY SOWING DISCORD just to pay off the TEMPLE BILL.

Those who OBJECT can be defined as JUDGMENTAL only by those who would shoot you in the heart and condemn you for squirting blood on their dancing slippers.

Ken Sublett
Quote
Share