You Guys Are Too Much

Donnie
Donnie

November 18th, 2010, 9:25 pm #11

Grate [oops!] questions!!!

1. No, but we still maintain that: "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent when the Bible is silent." No, it's not for one whose grammar is flawless.

2. I think that if one mipels a word more than 70 times 7, we leave him alone.

Quote
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 18th, 2010, 11:17 pm #12

I have two questions.../qerwufbds 1. Does this mean that now the super-hyper-ultra-conservatives in the Church of Christ are LITERALLY emphasizing crossing every t and dotting every i? afdudmfxz and 2. Does this mean that if a person mipel some words every time that every time they will be corrected?

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."
Fred wrote out two bunches of letters: "qerwufbds" and "afdudmfxz." Now I have a question:

Was that Fred's way of "speaking in tongues"?
Quote
Share

Sonny Elliot
Sonny Elliot

November 18th, 2010, 11:27 pm #13

Well, I think it is time for me to move on from reading this site. I think I have finally been overcome with the reality of the total failure of this site in any ability to do any good for the cause of Christ.

Let me set forth the reasons:

First, you have Dr. Crump who takes the time to correct every error of typing or grammar posted by a "liberal" and then he turns around and uses "gotta" in a sentence. Further, his denial of using a curse word at Faithsite is just an out and out lie. (Some may remember that it was finally SE (Mike Dugger) who convinced him to remove his word which no one else had used on the site. It is exactly this type of arrogance and narcissism that has led many congregations (and more are on the way) such as Oak Hills to disassociate themselves, NOT FROM CHRIST, but from many within Churches of Christ. To claim that a congregation that drops "of Christ" from their name means that they have dropped Christ represents uncontrolled ignorance on the part of the one making the claim. I was at Oak Hills when that decision was made and it was a painful decision to some, but one that was made, after countless hours of study and prayer, to overcome prejudices represented by many who have encountered this type arrogance and allowed that to cloud the view they hold of anything associated with the name "Church of Christ."

Next, you have Donnie who chooses to eliminate any "rumor" [... about ...] one of the staunch writers on this site. Then, Donnie turns around and says that Max loves to be called Reverend (a fact which is not true, although I hope that Donnie has spoken to Max about this (like I have) and is not posting "rumors" simply because it is about a "liberal." Donnie, I admired your stand initially with regard to Madison, but you recently posted that you were distracted by a solo during the contemporary service. The answer is simple - if you know a solo might take place during that service, then don't go to that service. Why put yourself in that position? I'm assuming that it was done in that service because that type of service is preferred by most in the service. And, I would assume that a solo is not done during the traditional service. Again, why put yourself in that position. Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site. And all of this about a congregation of which you are not a member?

I have nothing but respect from Ken and have learned a great deal from his writings. I will continue to read his writings on his site and correspond with him via email when appropriate.
Brother Brite,

You make a strong statement when you say this site has not accomplished anything for Christ. I know my defense of this site would be that "if" both "rumors" were true, that it is a far more serious sin to allow someone to call you reverend than to commit the other act because with the reverend title we are now dealing with matters of sacredness, pride, idolatry and setting oneself on a pedastal next to God himself. This site has not and will not tolerate a person being called pastor or reverend. However, on possible sins of infidelity those are not as grievous to God or as consequential to man, neither to families or churches. Therefore, I defend this site for its consistent and conservative stance on the issues.

-Sonny Elliot
Quote
Share

Donnie
Donnie

November 19th, 2010, 12:39 am #14

Well, I think it is time for me to move on from reading this site. I think I have finally been overcome with the reality of the total failure of this site in any ability to do any good for the cause of Christ.

Let me set forth the reasons:

First, you have Dr. Crump who takes the time to correct every error of typing or grammar posted by a "liberal" and then he turns around and uses "gotta" in a sentence. Further, his denial of using a curse word at Faithsite is just an out and out lie. (Some may remember that it was finally SE (Mike Dugger) who convinced him to remove his word which no one else had used on the site. It is exactly this type of arrogance and narcissism that has led many congregations (and more are on the way) such as Oak Hills to disassociate themselves, NOT FROM CHRIST, but from many within Churches of Christ. To claim that a congregation that drops "of Christ" from their name means that they have dropped Christ represents uncontrolled ignorance on the part of the one making the claim. I was at Oak Hills when that decision was made and it was a painful decision to some, but one that was made, after countless hours of study and prayer, to overcome prejudices represented by many who have encountered this type arrogance and allowed that to cloud the view they hold of anything associated with the name "Church of Christ."

Next, you have Donnie who chooses to eliminate any "rumor" [... about ...] one of the staunch writers on this site. Then, Donnie turns around and says that Max loves to be called Reverend (a fact which is not true, although I hope that Donnie has spoken to Max about this (like I have) and is not posting "rumors" simply because it is about a "liberal." Donnie, I admired your stand initially with regard to Madison, but you recently posted that you were distracted by a solo during the contemporary service. The answer is simple - if you know a solo might take place during that service, then don't go to that service. Why put yourself in that position? I'm assuming that it was done in that service because that type of service is preferred by most in the service. And, I would assume that a solo is not done during the traditional service. Again, why put yourself in that position. Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site. And all of this about a congregation of which you are not a member?

I have nothing but respect from Ken and have learned a great deal from his writings. I will continue to read his writings on his site and correspond with him via email when appropriate.
Tom Brite's reaction to my being "distracted by a solo":
Donnie, I admired your stand initially with regard to Madison, but you recently posted that you were distracted by a solo during the contemporary service. The answer is simple - if you know a solo might take place during that service, then don't go to that service. Why put yourself in that position? I'm assuming that it was done in that service because that type of service is preferred by most in the service. And, I would assume that a solo is not done during the traditional service. Again, why put yourself in that position. Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site. And all of this about a congregation of which you are not a member?
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]RESPONSE: It's common knowledge in the religious world that the church of Christ does not operate or rely on mechanical music in its public assemblies; that it is devoid of choirs and solos that are common among denominational churches. I personally believe that solos are rendered in concerts and other secular programs, in religious concerts -- in which cases I would probably applaud after every performance. I also happen to believe that cheerleading, which includes handclapping and/or body gyrations and other movements, belongs in sports events and other secular activities -- but not in moments where the saints gather for worship to God in awe and reverence. I am not advocating that the solo itself or that "rhythmic clapping for the Lord" [a.k.a. "rehearsed, programmed joy"] while singing is wrong or sinful. However, there are those who are concerned about how performances may affect other saints gathered for worship.

With regard to the "distraction" that you referenced, [you did not mention that] it occurred during the observance of the Lord's Supper. Maybe, your faith is stronger than mine, but I couldn't help being overwhelmed at the time by a very beautiful soprano singing voice -- that's where I just lost it: rather than focusing on the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of the Lord Jesus. [To me it would be a question of: "the end result justifying the personal objective of the soloist 'to serve the Lord' in that capacity."]

Is the solo necessary? No, it is not. Is the solo itself a sin? I don't think so. Can a solo be a performance? Yes, it can be. Is solo performance sinful? Maybe; maybe not -- depending on its effects on those in the assembly. Is singing a solo controversial in the church of Christ. Generally, yes. Why? Because it's not the normal practice in the church [uh-oh, see, I told you so, that it is a man-made tradition in the hypocritical church of Christ], while it is common practice in other religious faiths.

[We can generate more questions besides those.] But since solo is not necessary but is more likely controversial in the church, why change or transform the church from a no-solo to a solo activity?

Remember that just because the time slot at 10:30 has been designated by the elders as the "contemporary worship hour-and-a-half service," it should not lead you to believe that there is only a handful of "traditional" folks in the assembly. Perhaps, the "boiling the frog" [the gradual transformation] story or principle has been working very well at Madison, as in the gradual acceptance of the solo performances not hurting anyone, right? And, by the way, there had not been any male or female soloist from the "Praise Team" assigned to perform for a long time during the "frog-boiling" period until such a period was over. Then started the concept of having a female soprano soloist (a.k.a. a female co-worship leader) doing her thing.

Does anyone ever wonder whether or not it is a performance issue when a [male or] female soloist does her thing while the congregation shuts up to listen to a beautiful and distinctively female voice?

Let us not forget that the advent of Keith Lancaster and his "Praise Team" worship program was a major factor that caused division not only among the elders but also among the regular members.

As far as membership goes, I am convinced that this is of great importance -- that my name is "in the book of life" (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20:15).

I'll have to disagree with your reasoning "that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site." Now, I'll agree with you if Jimmy and others have indicated to you their feelings with regard to this matter.

Anyway, Tom, we appreciate you passing thru. We'll welcome you every time you decide to visit.[/color]
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 19th, 2010, 12:49 am #15

Brother Brite,

You make a strong statement when you say this site has not accomplished anything for Christ. I know my defense of this site would be that "if" both "rumors" were true, that it is a far more serious sin to allow someone to call you reverend than to commit the other act because with the reverend title we are now dealing with matters of sacredness, pride, idolatry and setting oneself on a pedastal next to God himself. This site has not and will not tolerate a person being called pastor or reverend. However, on possible sins of infidelity those are not as grievous to God or as consequential to man, neither to families or churches. Therefore, I defend this site for its consistent and conservative stance on the issues.

-Sonny Elliot
Brother Elliot,

I think this is a very interesting observation on my part: whatever works, go for it. I believe that your latest strategy is what's generally referred to as "reverse psychology." Get real, bro.
Quote
Like
Share

Dr. Bill Crump
Dr. Bill Crump

November 19th, 2010, 1:19 am #16

Tom Brite's reaction to my being "distracted by a solo":
Donnie, I admired your stand initially with regard to Madison, but you recently posted that you were distracted by a solo during the contemporary service. The answer is simple - if you know a solo might take place during that service, then don't go to that service. Why put yourself in that position? I'm assuming that it was done in that service because that type of service is preferred by most in the service. And, I would assume that a solo is not done during the traditional service. Again, why put yourself in that position. Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site. And all of this about a congregation of which you are not a member?
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]RESPONSE: It's common knowledge in the religious world that the church of Christ does not operate or rely on mechanical music in its public assemblies; that it is devoid of choirs and solos that are common among denominational churches. I personally believe that solos are rendered in concerts and other secular programs, in religious concerts -- in which cases I would probably applaud after every performance. I also happen to believe that cheerleading, which includes handclapping and/or body gyrations and other movements, belongs in sports events and other secular activities -- but not in moments where the saints gather for worship to God in awe and reverence. I am not advocating that the solo itself or that "rhythmic clapping for the Lord" [a.k.a. "rehearsed, programmed joy"] while singing is wrong or sinful. However, there are those who are concerned about how performances may affect other saints gathered for worship.

With regard to the "distraction" that you referenced, [you did not mention that] it occurred during the observance of the Lord's Supper. Maybe, your faith is stronger than mine, but I couldn't help being overwhelmed at the time by a very beautiful soprano singing voice -- that's where I just lost it: rather than focusing on the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of the Lord Jesus. [To me it would be a question of: "the end result justifying the personal objective of the soloist 'to serve the Lord' in that capacity."]

Is the solo necessary? No, it is not. Is the solo itself a sin? I don't think so. Can a solo be a performance? Yes, it can be. Is solo performance sinful? Maybe; maybe not -- depending on its effects on those in the assembly. Is singing a solo controversial in the church of Christ. Generally, yes. Why? Because it's not the normal practice in the church [uh-oh, see, I told you so, that it is a man-made tradition in the hypocritical church of Christ], while it is common practice in other religious faiths.

[We can generate more questions besides those.] But since solo is not necessary but is more likely controversial in the church, why change or transform the church from a no-solo to a solo activity?

Remember that just because the time slot at 10:30 has been designated by the elders as the "contemporary worship hour-and-a-half service," it should not lead you to believe that there is only a handful of "traditional" folks in the assembly. Perhaps, the "boiling the frog" [the gradual transformation] story or principle has been working very well at Madison, as in the gradual acceptance of the solo performances not hurting anyone, right? And, by the way, there had not been any male or female soloist from the "Praise Team" assigned to perform for a long time during the "frog-boiling" period until such a period was over. Then started the concept of having a female soprano soloist (a.k.a. a female co-worship leader) doing her thing.

Does anyone ever wonder whether or not it is a performance issue when a [male or] female soloist does her thing while the congregation shuts up to listen to a beautiful and distinctively female voice?

Let us not forget that the advent of Keith Lancaster and his "Praise Team" worship program was a major factor that caused division not only among the elders but also among the regular members.

As far as membership goes, I am convinced that this is of great importance -- that my name is "in the book of life" (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20:15).

I'll have to disagree with your reasoning "that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site." Now, I'll agree with you if Jimmy and others have indicated to you their feelings with regard to this matter.

Anyway, Tom, we appreciate you passing thru. We'll welcome you every time you decide to visit.[/color]
Donnie quoted Tom, who said, "Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site."

Who are some other conservatives who no longer post here? Although Mike Dugger posted at FaithSite, I don't recall if he ever posted here.
Quote
Share

Sonny
Sonny

November 19th, 2010, 1:49 am #17

Tom Brite's reaction to my being "distracted by a solo":
Donnie, I admired your stand initially with regard to Madison, but you recently posted that you were distracted by a solo during the contemporary service. The answer is simple - if you know a solo might take place during that service, then don't go to that service. Why put yourself in that position? I'm assuming that it was done in that service because that type of service is preferred by most in the service. And, I would assume that a solo is not done during the traditional service. Again, why put yourself in that position. Donnie, and I say this with respect, but this is the reason that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site. And all of this about a congregation of which you are not a member?
[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]RESPONSE: It's common knowledge in the religious world that the church of Christ does not operate or rely on mechanical music in its public assemblies; that it is devoid of choirs and solos that are common among denominational churches. I personally believe that solos are rendered in concerts and other secular programs, in religious concerts -- in which cases I would probably applaud after every performance. I also happen to believe that cheerleading, which includes handclapping and/or body gyrations and other movements, belongs in sports events and other secular activities -- but not in moments where the saints gather for worship to God in awe and reverence. I am not advocating that the solo itself or that "rhythmic clapping for the Lord" [a.k.a. "rehearsed, programmed joy"] while singing is wrong or sinful. However, there are those who are concerned about how performances may affect other saints gathered for worship.

With regard to the "distraction" that you referenced, [you did not mention that] it occurred during the observance of the Lord's Supper. Maybe, your faith is stronger than mine, but I couldn't help being overwhelmed at the time by a very beautiful soprano singing voice -- that's where I just lost it: rather than focusing on the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of the Lord Jesus. [To me it would be a question of: "the end result justifying the personal objective of the soloist 'to serve the Lord' in that capacity."]

Is the solo necessary? No, it is not. Is the solo itself a sin? I don't think so. Can a solo be a performance? Yes, it can be. Is solo performance sinful? Maybe; maybe not -- depending on its effects on those in the assembly. Is singing a solo controversial in the church of Christ. Generally, yes. Why? Because it's not the normal practice in the church [uh-oh, see, I told you so, that it is a man-made tradition in the hypocritical church of Christ], while it is common practice in other religious faiths.

[We can generate more questions besides those.] But since solo is not necessary but is more likely controversial in the church, why change or transform the church from a no-solo to a solo activity?

Remember that just because the time slot at 10:30 has been designated by the elders as the "contemporary worship hour-and-a-half service," it should not lead you to believe that there is only a handful of "traditional" folks in the assembly. Perhaps, the "boiling the frog" [the gradual transformation] story or principle has been working very well at Madison, as in the gradual acceptance of the solo performances not hurting anyone, right? And, by the way, there had not been any male or female soloist from the "Praise Team" assigned to perform for a long time during the "frog-boiling" period until such a period was over. Then started the concept of having a female soprano soloist (a.k.a. a female co-worship leader) doing her thing.

Does anyone ever wonder whether or not it is a performance issue when a [male or] female soloist does her thing while the congregation shuts up to listen to a beautiful and distinctively female voice?

Let us not forget that the advent of Keith Lancaster and his "Praise Team" worship program was a major factor that caused division not only among the elders but also among the regular members.

As far as membership goes, I am convinced that this is of great importance -- that my name is "in the book of life" (Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8; 20:15).

I'll have to disagree with your reasoning "that several conservatives like Jimmy have left this site." Now, I'll agree with you if Jimmy and others have indicated to you their feelings with regard to this matter.

Anyway, Tom, we appreciate you passing thru. We'll welcome you every time you decide to visit.[/color]
Brother Cruz,

You stated, "I am not advocating that the solo itself or that "rhythmic clapping for the Lord" [a.k.a. "rehearsed, programmed joy"] while singing is wrong or sinful."

You also admit, "Is the solo itself a sin? I don't think so."

You seem to be considerably more open-minded than the average C of C "conservative". (I am worried you are leaving the old paths - just kidding.) Seriously, these admissions bring up some very good points for discussion. Your response about the solo is very thoughtful, substantive and analytical of the decisions made for the worship time at Madison.

Here are a few of my thoughts... (do whatever you want with the "..." on that other thread Brother Crump - I say this affectionately bro. I guess iron can sharpen iron in matters of grammar too.)

1. There are people in my extended family who would/have been distracted/offended by singing during the Lord's Supper and it was congregational. Knowing them, they probably would have croaked if it were a solo of a woman so thankfully it was not. My point is that I think you have a point on this one to a degree. Sometimes we can try to do "too much" in worship prep. that we overplan AND never allow for moments of silence. We think there must constantly be "fillers". Having said this, they probably had good intentions and arrived at the decision based on conversations about how "it's always the same" or whatever and since it was one time it obviously isn't the end of the world (and I know you aren't saying or acting like it is).

2. More importantly is the fact that you claim this to be a matter of dispute (opinion, preference). I am glad to hear you say this as this has significant ramifications. This means that it is a matter NOT worth dividing over.

3. What I would like to hear is how you arrive(d) at the conclusion that it is not sin, depending on the context and whether people are offended, it becomes a performance, etc. Secondly, how do you distinguish that this IS NOT a sin if there isn't a "clear example" in the N.T. for it AND YET would say that instrumental music IS in the opposite category of sin?

Respectfully,

Sonny
Quote
Share

Dave
Dave

November 19th, 2010, 7:24 am #18

Brother Brite,

You make a strong statement when you say this site has not accomplished anything for Christ. I know my defense of this site would be that "if" both "rumors" were true, that it is a far more serious sin to allow someone to call you reverend than to commit the other act because with the reverend title we are now dealing with matters of sacredness, pride, idolatry and setting oneself on a pedastal next to God himself. This site has not and will not tolerate a person being called pastor or reverend. However, on possible sins of infidelity those are not as grievous to God or as consequential to man, neither to families or churches. Therefore, I defend this site for its consistent and conservative stance on the issues.

-Sonny Elliot
Sonny,
In no small retort.....this site is evil. This site promotes traditions that it prefers and slanders the traditions that go against their preferred traditions.....even though neither the contemporary or traditional are unScriptural. They are different ways ONLY in worshiping our Lord.
They abuse the already Perfect written Word of God.

Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 19th, 2010, 7:40 am #19

Dave,

Let's let Sonny speak for himself.

But if you read carefully some of his latest posts, you can know that he is still a liberal/progressive like you. As I mentioned earlier, he is resorting to "reverse psychology" for a reason. You'll have to figure that out for yourself. Re-read his message to brother Brite. He was being facetious. No, he is not a conservative. Oh, I can't help it -- he is "a liberal in a conservative's clothing."

But I'll give him a lot of credit for his communication skills.
Quote
Like
Share

Fred Whaley
Fred Whaley

November 19th, 2010, 4:31 pm #20

Grate [oops!] questions!!!

1. No, but we still maintain that: "We speak where the Bible speaks and are silent when the Bible is silent." No, it's not for one whose grammar is flawless.

2. I think that if one mipels a word more than 70 times 7, we leave him alone.

I could not resist poking a little fun over this. Nice response D.C. I'm glad you saw the humor and responded with the same.

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