The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ

AM
AM

November 15th, 2010, 2:19 am #11

AM,
When you say something a personal claim about someone, as you did with Rick Atchley by saying..."But when there is a personal one on one with him, he lacks personal warmth" ....and you respond with a one word answer of "church" when I ask for substantiating your claim.....well I have to tell you something AM.....that is a poor unacceptable answer.....it doesn't tell of a personal one on one encounter, does it?
It is a poor answer indeed for such a critical comment about someone.

Is that what you were looking for William? The pounce you were expecting?

"well I have to tell you something AM.....that is a poor unacceptable answer.....it doesn't tell of a personal one on one encounter, does it?" Yes.

It is a poor answer indeed for such a critical comment about someone.-Oh?
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 15th, 2010, 3:16 am #12

William said about me....."Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well."

Calm down William. When you say 'as much' what does that mean? Since I did not say what you accused me of....would that mean that you can read minds now? If you can't read minds....then the ONLY other possibility and conclusion that can be reached here is that you aren't telling the truth...again?

Dave seems to have trouble with phraseology and word meanings. Not having an unabridged dictionary might be the cause. No, Dave did not explicitly say that he wanted the information I posted, and I did not say that he said it. Since Dave would not accept AM's answer that AM had met Rick at "Church," then Dave evidently wanted more information (no doubt to be more argumentative). I simply suggested some inquiries that might satisfy Dave's curiosity if he had the answers. In other words, I am quite sure that Dave would like to have as much detailed information as possible about AM's encounter with Rick. It's not mind-reading; it's simply human nature. Dave may deny that up and down blue blazes, but it's true nonetheless.

BTW, the person who needs to calm down is Dave. He goes ballistic at hearing the truth from conservatives, and that truth always gets under Dave's skin. Dave then grows paranoid and imagines that people "aren't telling the truth." It's too bad that Dave refused to enroll in an anger management course. I think it really would have done wonders for him.
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

November 15th, 2010, 3:44 pm #13

William Crump said....."In other words, I am quite sure that Dave would like to have as much detailed information as possible about AM's encounter with Rick. It's not mind-reading; it's simply human nature. Dave may deny that up and down blue blazes, but it's true nonetheless."


IN OTHER WORDS, if someone creates, assumes, and goes as far to believe that he can speak for someone else by making it up as they go, as William did with....."Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well."....then tells everyone that he is "quite sure of it".....well I would only let the reader make up his own mind.

Is William delusional? Is he a liar? It is your choice? Is making this up, as William counters, "human nature?"
He says that it is "true nonetheless." How does he know it is true if the person didn't say it. When he falsely accuses someone and produces a vexing "as much" tale of someone, what does that tell you?

I thought I had heard it all........now someone wants to equate "human nature" with lying.

Simply put, for someone, as William Crump did, to make up something about another person, trying to make it sound like it comes from that person (AS MUCH), trying to shed a poor light on this person.....could it just mean......that they have let that person get under their skin???
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

November 15th, 2010, 4:30 pm #14

"well I have to tell you something AM.....that is a poor unacceptable answer.....it doesn't tell of a personal one on one encounter, does it?" Yes.

It is a poor answer indeed for such a critical comment about someone.-Oh?
AM, you gave that critical response without telling us 'the rest of the story.'
The poor response by you is BECAUSE you failed in the details.
If you are going to put down another individual, you certainly should include ALL of the story.
You did not.....unacceptable.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 15th, 2010, 5:26 pm #15

William Crump said....."In other words, I am quite sure that Dave would like to have as much detailed information as possible about AM's encounter with Rick. It's not mind-reading; it's simply human nature. Dave may deny that up and down blue blazes, but it's true nonetheless."


IN OTHER WORDS, if someone creates, assumes, and goes as far to believe that he can speak for someone else by making it up as they go, as William did with....."Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well."....then tells everyone that he is "quite sure of it".....well I would only let the reader make up his own mind.

Is William delusional? Is he a liar? It is your choice? Is making this up, as William counters, "human nature?"
He says that it is "true nonetheless." How does he know it is true if the person didn't say it. When he falsely accuses someone and produces a vexing "as much" tale of someone, what does that tell you?

I thought I had heard it all........now someone wants to equate "human nature" with lying.

Simply put, for someone, as William Crump did, to make up something about another person, trying to make it sound like it comes from that person (AS MUCH), trying to shed a poor light on this person.....could it just mean......that they have let that person get under their skin???
Once again, Dave has gone ballistic. I gotta reveal something to Dave that he might not realize: Dave has become a real source of abundant entertainment here at Concerned Members, despite his mean-spirited attitude. It's actually comical to witness Dave's endless tantrums and ridiculous smearings of those with whom he disagrees. It's kinda like watching a type of Concerned Members Barney Fife running wildly around in total hysterics, hollering and screaming. Only instead of yelling, "Nip it, nip it in the bud!" as Barney Fife did, Dave hollers, "Liar!" and "False teacher!" over and over.

I can almost imagine Dave locked in his room all bug-eyed, huffin' and puffin' and sweaty at the computer, fists pounding the table, slamming his raving messages into the keypad, and bellowing blue blazes. His wife and kids (if he has them) are huddled in terror in another room, while the kids ask, "OMG, Momma, who IS that crazy man locked in Daddy's room?" And the wife replies, "Sweeties, that's Daddy. Someone's gotten under his skin again, and that upsets him a little!!" A loyal wife does tend to downplay her husband's worst faults, don't ya know.

Just as Barney Fife consistently made a clown of himself, so Dave by his sophomoric antics and smear tactics has done the same to himself. No wonder we just can't take Dave seriously anymore. All I can say is, "Keep it up, Dave. Your performances provide 'theater' at its best."
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 15th, 2010, 5:33 pm #16

AM, you gave that critical response without telling us 'the rest of the story.'
The poor response by you is BECAUSE you failed in the details.
If you are going to put down another individual, you certainly should include ALL of the story.
You did not.....unacceptable.
AM may be withholding the details because he might feel that Dave would not like them. In other words, the truth about that encounter just might be more than Dave would want to read. Eh?
Quote
Share

Donnie
Donnie

November 15th, 2010, 6:12 pm #17

Wineskins
by Jay Guin
September - December, 2010


The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ

In the interview, Rick and Chris made a powerful point regarding the future of the progressive Churches of Christ, which is that these churches are plateaued and soon to die if they dont change.

Up until now, most progressive Churches of Christ have operated as hospitals for broken Church of Christ members but not as beachheads of the Kingdom in the world. My own congregation has many members who grew up in legalistic a cappella Churches of Christ, and weve experienced dramatic growth because of they transferred from less grace-centered churches. But were plateaued. Why? Well, in part because you cant grow but so much through transfers, and in part because we arent very evangelistically effective.

Meanwhile, in my home town, community churches that teach a non-denominational Christianity that places scripture above tradition and that study the Bible rather than their denominational history are growing. They stole our playbook!

There is unquestionably a need for a church that nurses and heals those broken by the legalist congregations of our denomination. But that need is quickly ending as the old legalistic congregations are dying. Members my age tell me of their old churches back home being down to 20 members, demanding one more sermon on baptism and the Five Acts. We wont be receiving any more wounded from those churches.

While we still need to help wounded Christians recover from legalism, the greater need is to help heal a wounded world. And we are working to becoming that kind of church. But, yet, one thing remains. We have to become united with the rest of Gods Kingdom. We cant plausibly claim to be a part of the body of Christ while isolated from our instrumental brothers in other congregations. And our members have to decide that we have to give a few comforts up to be more effective in the mission of God.

Recent studies show that evangelical churches arent growing much at all as a whole, but that non-denominational community churches are growing rapidly. That means the denominational churches are losing members to non-denominational churches. And isnt that what the Restoration Movement has always been about? Calling believers out of the denominations to be united on just the gospel?

Of course, it would be woefully inadequate to merely steal sheep from the denominations in order to grow a congregation but not the Kingdom! No, the goal is the expansion of the Kingdom, and that can only be accomplished by uniting the Kingdom which is quite impossible if we insist on being separate.

As Thomas Campbell wrote in 1809

Meantime the truly religious of all parties are grieved, the weak stumbled; the graceless and profane hardened, the mouths of infidels opened to blaspheme religion; and thus, the only thing under heaven, divinely efficacious to promote and secure the present spiritual and eternal good of man, even the gospel of the blessed Jesus, is reduced to contempt; while multitudes deprived of a gospel ministry, as has been observed, fall an easy prey to seducers, and so become the dupes of almost unheard of delusions. Are not such the visible effects of our sad divisions, even in this otherwise happy country. Say, dear brethren, are not these things so.



The goal of the Restoration Movement was to heal divisions. Thomas Campbell and Barton W. Stone had founded the Movement and seen it grow and prosper long before anyone even thought about an instrumental music controversy. The goal was unity, and we cant claim to be promoting unity while insisting on remaining a sect separate from other believers, divided by our anti-gospel refusal to fellowship those who use the instrument.

Finally, our children care nothing about the instrumental music controversy. Theyve not heard the sermons, and theyve not engaged in the debates. To them, the instrument just isnt an issue. And thats true of the children of many very conservative Churches of Christ. In an age when the Bible is available in easy-to-read contemporary English, and when the struggle against the world is vastly more important than the churchs internal struggles, our kids are just not persuaded that we need to divide over the instrument.

Amen.

And this means that theyll find a church that helps them grow in faith and serve Christ without regard to the instrument. And a church thats entirely a cappella may well appear legalistic to the eyes of a young man or woman, even if the church teaches the true gospel. They will look for churches that practice what they preach including unity and including presenting the gospel in terms of the local culture.
Im not saying that an instrumental service is essential to a church today. Rather, Im saying

* Actively and visibly fellowshipping instrumental churches is essential to being the church God calls us to be.
* Choosing to be exclusively a cappella because your members are too legalistic to permit it means you have some serious teaching to do.
* If the world is searching for nondenominational Christianity that puts scripture above tradition and works of service above doctrinal disputation, then God has answered the prayers of the Restoration Movement. We should join in the work of God by making as many churches of this kind as possible.

The Progressive Church of Christ

http://www.piney.com/The.Progressive.Ch ... hrist.html

There is plenty to discuss regarding this thread: "The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ."

So, the liberals have created a new division in the church and referring to it as the "Progressive Church of Christ."

Another of Jay Guin's plea is:
"Meanwhile, in my home town, community churches that teach a non-denominational Christianity that places scripture above tradition and that study the Bible rather than their denominational history are growing. They stole our playbook!"
Really? Mr. Guin, that was not your playbook. Rather, it was the Saddleback Community Church's Rick Warren's playbook -- the culture-driven SCHEME for "church growth."

Please ... no more of that other stuff than seriously discussing important issues.


=====================

P.S.: I'm sorry. I was wrong. I forgot something really important -- not realizing what Mr. Guin meant by: "They stole our playbook!"

Notice the word "OUR" in "our playbook."

Jay Guin is a disciple of Rick Warren with his Community Church Growth SCHEME. Now, Jay Guin has his own disciples. Who might they be?
Last edited by Donnie.Cruz on November 15th, 2010, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Fred Whaley
Fred Whaley

November 15th, 2010, 6:39 pm #18

Of course, we know that when Dave asks for "proof" from someone with whom Dave disagrees and that someone gives it, Dave has no intention whatsoever of accepting it. That's an old argumentative tactic of denial. Even if someone gave Dave a long, elaborate dissertation, Dave would say, "Nope, not good enough!" AM stated that he had personally met Rick at "Church." Now, Dave as much as wants to know the full conversation, the address of the church, the name of the preacher and his sermon topic, what Rick was wearing, whether Rick parted his hair on the right or left, the names of the song leader and all witnesses who were present, and a notarized affidavit from each one of them as well. Even then, Dave would still say, "Nope, AM has not supported his statement." It amounts to this: If a conservative told Dave that the earth was round and showed him pictures of the earth from space, Dave would flatly deny that just to be argumentative. Needless to say, we need not take Dave very seriously.
I have not met Mr. Crump personally but I will continue to say HIS "Christianity" AND personality are equally toxic based on reading his remarks. And while I agree with Dave about the lack of credibility of AM's statements, if AM believes that Rick Atchley lacks warmth in person, I wonder what AM thinks about Mr. Crump's "warmth"? Mr. Crump just oozes love and warmth in his statements, so to meet him in person must really be an experience. Mr. Crump will likely point out my hyperbole and sarcasm on the previous sentence. I would not bet my house on the church where Mr. Crump worships as growing in leaps and bounds as he demonstrates such love and warmth to visitors and the community. Toxicity. Mr. Crump will likely point out that this is neither a word nor a complete sentence with subject and verb. Dave, do not let Mr. Crump's tantrums and pestering remarks bother you. Mr. Crump is just acting like a chump the way he treats you.

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 15th, 2010, 7:29 pm #19

There is plenty to discuss regarding this thread: "The Future of the Progressive Churches of Christ."

So, the liberals have created a new division in the church and referring to it as the "Progressive Church of Christ."

Another of Jay Guin's plea is:
"Meanwhile, in my home town, community churches that teach a non-denominational Christianity that places scripture above tradition and that study the Bible rather than their denominational history are growing. They stole our playbook!"
Really? Mr. Guin, that was not your playbook. Rather, it was the Saddleback Community Church's Rick Warren's playbook -- the culture-driven SCHEME for "church growth."

Please ... no more of that other stuff than seriously discussing important issues.


=====================

P.S.: I'm sorry. I was wrong. I forgot something really important -- not realizing what Mr. Guin meant by: "They stole our playbook!"

Notice the word "OUR" in "our playbook."

Jay Guin is a disciple of Rick Warren with his Community Church Growth SCHEME. Now, Jay Guin has his own disciples. Who might they be?
It sounds to me as if those who embrace a "non-traditional", progressive Church of Christ are those who in effect advocate going away from the "traditions" of the New Testament. To follow the New Testament as written is a 2,000-year-old "tradition" in the mainstream Church of Christ. By "tradition," I don't mean two songs, a prayer, another song, the Lord's Supper, another song, the sermon, invitation hymn, acknowledgment of responses, collection, announcements, closing prayer--in that order (or something like it). Today, being "progressive" is NOT the same as being 100% committed to following the New Testament. Being "progressive" means, "Let's CHANGE things around, so we won't appear to be old stuffy traditionalists." Never mind changing the order of worship or the time of worship. That's not what the "progresive" change agents have in mind. To CHANGE (be progressive) means to reconsider/rewrite what the New Testament says so that it will be acceptable to 21st-century culture. And speaking of "traditions":

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15 KJV).

The "progressives" want to downplay those traditions.
Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 15th, 2010, 8:07 pm #20

I have not met Mr. Crump personally but I will continue to say HIS "Christianity" AND personality are equally toxic based on reading his remarks. And while I agree with Dave about the lack of credibility of AM's statements, if AM believes that Rick Atchley lacks warmth in person, I wonder what AM thinks about Mr. Crump's "warmth"? Mr. Crump just oozes love and warmth in his statements, so to meet him in person must really be an experience. Mr. Crump will likely point out my hyperbole and sarcasm on the previous sentence. I would not bet my house on the church where Mr. Crump worships as growing in leaps and bounds as he demonstrates such love and warmth to visitors and the community. Toxicity. Mr. Crump will likely point out that this is neither a word nor a complete sentence with subject and verb. Dave, do not let Mr. Crump's tantrums and pestering remarks bother you. Mr. Crump is just acting like a chump the way he treats you.

Fred Whaley

"If you are in the parking lot and have still not quit arguing with the people on the porch, you haven't left the Church of Christ yet."
I believe Donnie wrote: "Please ... no more of that other stuff than seriously discussing important issues." Time for Fred and Dave (two birds of a feather) to put their insults and smearings on the back burner.
Quote
Share