Shuck and Jive

Opinions expressed here are my own and do not represent the views of the congregation I joyfully serve. But my congregation loves me!

Saturday, November 03, 2007

New Winos Are All About Jesus

The Layman and I are having a fun little chat. They have printed twelve letters of folks critical of my ministry. One even included the e-mail of my EP so tattlers wouldn't have to do the hard work of searching for it. I voluntarily met with my COM and EP over this nonsense and my ministry has been affirmed unanimously, of course. So what is next fellas?

Yesterday The Layman printed a letter from Tom Gray and reposted one of my blog entries. The Layman has never found a schismatic it didn't like and the new winebibbers are the latest vintage.

Tom Gray of Kirk of the Hills in Tulsa is one. He has decided to follow Jesus and to move his congregation to the fundamentalist EPC denomination. Whether or not the EPC will remain holy enough for him or other "tall steeple pastors" remains to be seen.

One commenter on this blog insightfully suggested that these big steeple boys (and they are all boys) will eventually go totally independent. They will then have their own little feifdoms without any responsibility to the denomination that provided the infrastructure for their congregations or even to the new denomination which they will use and leave on their way to independence. No responsibility and no accountability is the Promised Land. In their words, "unfettered."

Rev. Dr. G. Henry Wells, senior pastor of Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church (the site of the winebibbing conference) was quoted in the Layman article, "Let My People Go!"

"We are not leaving the PCUSA just to be leaving," he said, "but so we can do ministry unfettered and let God do His work in us where we are planted. We're going beyond denominational stuff," Wells said. "We're all about Jesus."

Now these poor tall steeple Moses caricatures so oppressed under the Pharoah of Louisville are trying to get sympathy for their cause. Somehow each reasons that the tall steeple he happens to currently serve is his own steeple. Shame on the PCUSA for thinking differently and for seeing to the stewardship of the whole of the Church.

The New Wineskins is aptly named all right as a temporary container for big steeple preachers drunk on their own power.

Oh, right, they're all about Jesus.







29 comments:

  1. John,
    I just cannot be silent. I was at Sacramento Presbytery which met several weeks before Fair Oaks and Roseville voted to separate from the PCUSA although we all knew they were going. I watched as Pastor Henry Wells attempted to get up and walk to the microphone. He is very ill and the walk was not easy for him. Others not noticing him trying to reach the microphone would get there ahead of him and he would have to set down again.

    When he finally was able to speak we all discovered that he was wanting to tell us how much we all meant to him. How much he had enjoyed working in this Presbytery, how much love he had for everyone.

    He and others that are leaving will be deeply missed and it does no one any good for you to insult and lie about them. In fact, I think every member of our Presbytery, both progressives and evangelicals, if they knew how badly you have maligned Pastor Wells would cry out in protest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Funny Shuck I didn't realize I was a tall steeple preacher - actually most of the churches in NWAC are medium or small in size but the facts never seem to matter with you.

    You seek to be such a revolutionary but doesn't it strike you as odd that you are the one endorsed by the establishment and those you malign are actually the ones sacrificing for a cause that they truly believe in?

    Have fun with the rants I'm sure you are looking forward to the Winter Solstice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bill,

    Thank you for visiting. You are a curious one. In the spirit of setting the facts straight, maybe you can answer a question.

    What will your new denomination allow you to do that you cannot do in the PCUSA?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Viola,

    The same question to you that I have for Bill. What then, are the fetters that the Pharoah of Louisville are holding Pastor Wells and the others?

    What will they do in their new denomination that they cannot do in the PCUSA?

    ReplyDelete
  5. John,
    They will be working from a common set of named theological assumptions and operating under clearly articulated and joyfully embraced ethical imperatives. Prayer will be to the Father, through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Worship in network gatherings (think presbytery) will be robust, not a hobbled together patchwork of preferences. There will be far more common mission endeavors, sacrificially entered into.

    So, in a way, they probably won't be doing anything in the new structure that couldn't be done in the old... it'll just be more effective, more efficient and more enjoyable.

    God still receives glory, in their obedience and in your slander and mocking.

    Ps. 1
    dm

    ReplyDelete
  6. "it'll just be more effective, more efficient and more enjoyable"

    So people who are inefficient and ineffective are now apostate heretics?

    When did Jesus get a Harvard MBA?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gee John, no one ever quotes me on their web sites or in their blogs! I think I'm hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In other words, they'll get a church where they can be guaranteed of the excommunication of anyone who does not believe 100% in the following five things:

    1. The Inerrancy of Scripture
    2. The Virgin Birth of Christ
    3. The Blood Atonement of Christ
    4. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
    5. The Historical Reality of Christ's Miracles

    It will be a pure denomination free of the apostasy of "modernists" and where there will be no debate because everyone will be guaranteed to agree with everyone else. And this glorious institution shall be called....

    The Orthodox Presbyterian Church!

    err...oops... I meant the Evangelical Presbyterian Church! (because we don't think the Bible is inerrant when it comes to ordination of women or the Regulative Principle of Worship)

    ---

    John, that's EXACTLY the right question to ask the schismatics (and let's be honest, that's what the "New Wineskins" are about). WHAT do you expect your new denom to allow you to do that the PC(USA) currently doesn't?

    Will you be able to refuse to ordain a candidate who is refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the Confessions call sin?

    Will you be able to refuse to ordain someone who does not live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, or chastity in singleness?

    Will a congregation have the freedom to nominate and call its own regular pastor and/or other officers and not have one forced upon it by a central authority?

    Will a congregation have the right to representation at the Presbytery level (and thereby at the Synod and General Assembly level) through democratic representation?

    Will you have the right to amend or change your denomination's constitution through democratic processes and deliberations?

    ReplyDelete
  9. byxcJohn,

    Precision is not one of my gifts but I will try. First I guess we share the "curious person" quality.

    One thing that I can do (if I were to leave this denomination) is leave "you" alone. Right now, due to our connectional nature, you are connected to my ministry therefore what you teach and preach are of concern to me. The elders you ordain are elders to me, same with Deacons, and MOWAS.

    I have to think in the grand scheme of things this (the only reason I came around was because I heard I was being blogged about and curiousity finally got to me - actually I'm pretty well to the leaving you alone point so rejoice) would make us both "happy".

    Furthermore, I can preach the Gospel and do ministry in my local context while not having to explain to people why we are not the same as many PCUSA churches. I was stunned to learn that people of good Christian quality were not coming to visit our church because of the PCUSA label. That is the reason for greater effectiveness and efficiency.

    Furthermore, when I stand up and say "thus sayeth the Lord" I will not have my integrity put in question because what I am saying is completely inconsistent with the statements of yourself and many within the PCUSA and the actual denomination itself.

    Lastly what I can (if I were to choose to reaffiliate) do is be bound into a body that is not just homogenious as Fly tried to make it but rather in a group that is Christian. Although you claim that label I am afraid the faith you teach is something entirely different - I would suggest Gnosticism.

    As to Fly's comments:

    The differences between the EPC and the OPC are pretty profound - I realize it is a very convenient foil for you to use but if you did 30 minutes of investigation you would realize significant differences (i.e. the Five Fundamentals are not synonymous with the EPC Essential Tenets of the Faith - you should retract that mistatement). There are many kinds of fundamentalists out there after all; some are conservative and some are liberal/progressive.

    Fly looking at your list- in the PCUSA:

    we often see candidates ordained who have profound issues of theology and life but we cannot do anything because of our political ethos. I'm afraid John is a perfect example of this behavior. I really hold no ill will towards John - I am gravely saddened by the COM and Presbytery that see no need to disciple him. I have seen examples of the EPC lovingly training and examining its candidates in the faith which the whole denomination professes.

    The presence of many non-repentant, self professing, practicing, homosexuals in the PCUSA shows our utter inability to enforce our actual polity. It would be nice to live in a denomination that actually does this.

    I know of a number of churches that have been forced into a corner of accepting clergy they did not want. You will demand exact examples but they would not appreciate me telling the tale and calling the attention of the presbytery to them. Conversely in the EPC they have more clergy than open pulpits so the congregation often has multiple clergy to discern God's will with.

    If we are so open and loving and wonderful - why are churches desperately trying to get out of our denomination while others are begging (spending thousands of dollars, facing persecution, even leaving their property behind) to get into the EPC? Denial is not a river in Egypt.

    We don't have democratic representation but republican representation. The EPC is actually much more democratic because every congregation is represented at the GA. Also at both GA and Presbytery there are two Elders to every Clergy. Shocking isn't it? That oppressive regime is actually more representative than the liberal PCUSA. OUCH that had to hurt.

    As to the last "yes" - but of course in the PCUSA after a decade of democratic effort on the issue or fidelity and chastity the GA circumvented the democratic process and handed down an Authoritative Interpretation so broad in its application to undermine the entire constitution of the PCUSA. There is no historical equivalent in any of the other Presbyterian denominations in this country.

    Defense of this action has become Quixotic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bill,

    Thanks for the reply and for your straightforwardness in answering my question.

    I have a few responses for clarification.

    1) My COM and presbytery do lovingly disciple me. I meet with several clergy on a regular basis via a book study. I participate in presbytery and I serve on a couple of committees. I have met with my COM, once to be examined upon entrance into the presbytery and again in response to the "reporting" that you mentioned on your blog. I didn't need to do so. Nor was the COM required to have me meet with them. They unanimously affirmed my ministry so that I would know that my ministry is appreciated here and so that people outside the presbytery who like to "report" on clergy will know that that type of bullying behavior will not work. If I have done something that needs extraordinary discipline, let someone file a charge. So I am discipled by my COM and my presbytery in the best sense of that word.

    2) I am not a gnostic. I am not sure exactly what a gnostic is. I am a Christian and a Presbyterian and I faithfully have upheld my ordination vows for over 15 years now.

    3) I personally don't really care if the EPC or some other denomination fits you better or not. You have my blessings in the discernment of your call. You have the freedom to leave at any time. For all the reasons you feel the PCUSA is not for you, I don't object. If you do not wish to serve in the same denomination as me, that is your call. If the decisions made by the PCUSA (both judicial and legislative) are so objectionable to you that you cannot stay, I have no need to argue with you. It is your decision. However...

    4) The congregation you presently serve is a PCUSA congregation. It is not yours. While you say you have interest in me due to connectionalism, the PCUSA certainly would have interest in the congregation you presently serve. Since I am not in your presbytery, I have no vote regarding how the presbytery will respond to you or to your congregation. Yet, if a minister of a congregation in my presbytery attempts to take a congregation out of the PCUSA, I certainly would have interest. I don't object to a minister transferring to another denomination, but if s/he tries to take the congregation with him or her, then the presbytery needs to examine the situation and make a determination on a case by case basis. One of the concerns (among many) the presbytery would have is how to serve that geographical area with a PCUSA presence. Establishing another PCUSA congregation in the same town would require a huge cost, especially if the congregation does not pay the presbytery for the property the PCUSA holds in trust.

    5) I am proud to be a member of the PCUSA and honored to be a steward of its witness.

    Thanks again for the response.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I keep hearing the argument that pastors are taking their congregations out of the denomination when in reality I see congregations voting with a majority deciding to leave the denomination. This isn't a power issue with power-hungry pastors. It is the congregation's decision to leave according to their convictions through prayer. I've only read of one church voting 100% and others are a definite majority.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I find it very telling that the schismatics cannot explain why the reason they are leaving the PC(USA) has nothing to do with gay people without bringing up gay people.

    It's the exact same bullshit that the PCA pulled with the ordination of women. Unlike John and Bob, I come from the PCUS (southern) tradition. Bill, you may argue that the OPC cannot be compared to the EPC, but the EPC certainly can be compared to the PCA. As a child, I watched my church split in half after a woman was ordained as associate. Those who left formed a PCA church, and while they would freely admit that they objected to having a woman pastor, they couched it in the same exact crap about the "infallibility of Scripture".

    The politics of New Wineskins is all about fear of "the other". We don't want "those people" here in our church. We don't want to have to deal with "those other pastors" in our denomination. Trust me, as a gay man in the PC(USA), it's no picnic for me. I have legal second-class citizen status enshrined in the Book of Order a decade ago. It would make my church life a hell of a lot easier if the conservatives would get out of my denomination, but I don't want that to happen. I believe the Church represents the body of Christ and that schism is sin.

    So if you as a pastor abuse your position in order to persuade your congregation to leave the denomination in order to form a slightly "purer" one (but one that still rejects the idea of the inerrancy of Scripture while pretending not to), then so be it, but don't pretend to be truer to the spirit of Christ than the rest of us.

    Yes, I'm upset, because I hate to see my church self-destruct over something so petty. You mention that a lot of folks avoid visiting your church because of the PC(USA) label. Here's a news flash: the reason most outsiders avoid the PC(USA) is because we're fighting all the damn time. People don't want to join a denomination that's in the middle of destroying itself.

    P.S.: I will "retract" nothing I said about the OPC or EPC. The same mindset led to the same result. The very idea of "Essential Tenets" is a slap in the face to the very concept of freedom of conscience and IMO commits the same sin that Machen did.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just a few more thoughts:

    My presbytery is very aware of my possitions, I have served on executive Council for 4 years, was on COPM and Chair of that committee for 3 and 2 years respectively. I am very active in the life of the presbytery as a whole. I had built a reputation as a bridge builder - because of my candidness and clarity. Recenlty that reputation has fallen on hard times.

    John you put yourself out there as have I, that's why I don't run around the internet complaining everytime someone says something about me, I've learned - I asked for it. So now we are both exposed for what we are. I'm comfortable with that - I have no intentions of filing charges - but many in the national church are offended by your possitions. Likewise many are offended by mine. So be it.

    Gnosticism is the belief in some "secret knowledge" or "gnosis" that has been recieved - since I cannot conceive of any wat in which your Gospel being the one that was handed to me I must assume you have some new secret knowledge that, for instance, allows you to ignore all of Scripture and even Jesus - if you disagree with itor him.

    Many of my responses were to Fly not you. I really don't intend to argue back in forth - I don't think that you want that either.

    I am amused that the wonderful, educated, human beings that serve presbyterian churches as layleaders around this country are labeled by some as foolish dupes. To believe that a highly educated congregation of Presbyterians have ever been lead off by a pastor is really quite funny. Most clergy I know experience frustration about not being able to lead their congregations.

    For instance, my congregations has 6 Phd's out of 97 members. My session has thanked me for my continued measured and reasonable response to the situation we face. I am sure that somewhere and at some time there was a church lead off into some wierdo land but honestly with NWAC its about the churches not the pastors.

    BTW - I say "my congregation" just as they say "my pastor" we are in a covenant and in a very real sense belong to one another. Secondarily it is a lot easier to type than "the congregation I serve" even though that may be a more acurate phrase.

    Lastly Fly,

    conversely, if the gay activists would just go and join any number of denominations that would approve of their lifestyle this fight would be over. Those who are realigning are merely conceding the fact. You however describe a possition that would rather hold people hostage and beat them into submission. That process sounds a lot like the power hungry possition you like to accuse others of embracing.

    I've never said it was not about gay ordination - its not JUST about gay ordination. In fact as time goes on it is really less and less about gay ordination.

    I did answer your question - you just didn't like the answer

    Its funny really you progressives have been losing so much of the fight for so long, now that you've won, it's just not enough you have to throw tomatoes at people as they leave. Have fun with that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bill, the difference here is that I am NOT advocating for anyone to leave the PC(USA)--quite frankly the opposite. I would like for our church to stay a church and not continue to degrade into some sort of tacky political food fight. It is worth noting that if the progressive side is "losing", we're not the ones fomenting schism and threatening to take our toys and run home.

    Again, I posit to you that the schismatics and their fellow travelers swear up and down that their anger has nothing to do with The Gay, but they can't help but bring The Gay up as their primary reason.

    Yes, I'm sick of being a punching bag in my own denomination, but I love the Presbyterian Church enough to endure it so that it will continue to be the Church Reformed, Ever Being Reformed, After the Word (logos) of God.

    Again, notice the difference in my approach and yours. I do not want you to leave, even though it would make it a hell of a lot easier for the rest of us. You want me to leave and go "to any number of denominations that would approve of [my] lifestyle". Which particular lifestyle is that? Full-time job, devoted to my family, loving and loved by my church (and dedicated to serving it)? Do you really want people with "my lifestyle" to abandon the Presbyterian Church? To what end???

    ReplyDelete
  15. In between preparing a class on world religions for a Bible study I have been reading all the comments coming to this posting. My original comment was meant to uphold the true image of Pastor Wells and others in contrast to the insults and lies proffered in the original posting by John.

    Most of the comments placed here were done without calling others names or making them out to be evil people.

    But the original posting to which I wish to return uses such slurs as "winos" "New winebibbers" "Moses caricatures" "little fiefdoms," and "drunk on their own power." Remember these insults are aimed at all including a man who is so ill that he had to struggle just to get to the microphone to tell the Presbytery people that he loved them.

    This did not bring shame to John Shuck, he did not apologize; he simply asked me questions that are totally irrelevant to his own insults. Any intelligent person can disagree without verbal abuse.

    I would hope that if this discussion continues it will point back to the man who cared little for his brothers and sisters whether in one denomination or another.

    ReplyDelete
  16. How ironic, that on John Shuck's blog I would read this shot at the New Wineskins folks:
    "One commenter on this blog insightfully suggested that these big steeple boys (and they are all boys) will eventually go totally independent. They will then have their own little feifdoms without any responsibility to the denomination that provided the infrastructure for their congregations or even to the new denomination which they will use and leave on their way to independence. No responsibility and no accountability is the Promised Land. In their words, "unfettered.""

    "No responsibility and no accountability..."unfettered." Gee, Rev. Shuck, I cannot imagine a better description of you. Free of confession, free of creed, free of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Looks to me like you are the one seeking to be "unfettered."

    Walter Taylor

    ReplyDelete
  17. Fly,

    I believe there are some minimal levels of holiness that are expected of the church. Myself and about 95% of global Christianity agree on biblical Infallibility, the divinity of Jesus, the singular salvific work of Jesus Christ who is Lord, fidelity and chastity, and a few other key ingredients.

    You and the other 5% who happen to mostly reside in the Mainline Religious Corporations in the US (you keep refering to the PCUSA as "the Church" thats a rather Roman Catholic concept don't you think?) do not believe these things to various degrees.

    Some have reached the point of wanting to move on. You want to refuse us the right to move on.

    I say that nearly 500 years after the reformation we have come full circle to the my Denomination Right or Wrong.

    In an effort to cease all the bickering some have chosen to leave (BTW these aren't toys - these are holy things the fact is our view of the holy are so wholy different it is impossible to reconcile them you would have us compromise on the basic principles of our faith - how incredibly insulting to compare this to "taking our toys..." we lose our ordination, our congregations, our buildings for upholding the beliefs we swore to uphold) but now you know what is best for us what is best for us is for you to force us into relationship with you by threats, manipulation, and legal bullying.

    Sounds like an abusive relationship. You described your relationship with the PCUSA as being a punching bag - now you desire to force the same upon others. You know what I don't want you to be punched any more nor do those who are leaving plan to stick around to be punched.

    The adult thing to do is to walk away. Many are growing up.

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi, guys,

    I think Christians can disagree about a zillion things, but it's important to agree concerning the gospel.

    So, does your church expect that all of it's clergy affirm the incarnation, and the unique work of the cross?

    I know you're controversial, Pastor John, but what do you think about the gospel?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bill, trust me, I know the difference between an individual choosing to leave a church and another individual trying to foment a schism in order to bolster his numbers to make a political point.

    I have had to leave, with sadness and regret, the church I grew up in as they allowed their bigotry to blind them to the core teachings of Christ. I made my feelings clear in a letter to the Session (which was remarkably restrained considering the circumstances), shook the dust off my feet and left.

    In contrast, about a decade earlier, the same church installed a woman associate pastor. There were about two or three families who thought this was in defiance of God's Word and started a whispering campaign that eventually led to half of the congregation leaving and forming a PCA church.

    If you can't see the qualitative difference between those two kinds of departures, that's our problem right there. I don't think your congregation is stupid. If you have people on your Session with Ph.D.s in chemical engineering, then good for them. However, you have to acknowledge that a Pastor has special status in the eyes of his/her congregation (even if it might not necessarily be in the Constitution, we all treat the preacher with extra respect). If a pastor wishes to sever his/her ties with the denomination, then fine. But it is IMO highly irresponsible for a Minister of Word & Sacrament, ordained and pledged to serve the Presbyterian Church (USA), to abuse his/her status in order to destroy the PC(USA).

    If your hatred of gay people is so intense that you are willing to forsake your ordination vows, then so be it, but remember that you follow a path blazed by people you may not want to be associated with. And don't tell us to grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fly,

    I tried so hard not to devolve into personal attacks, shucks we almost made it.

    One you like to think I hate gays its easy for you that way you can ignore me. Got it.

    I happen to believe after carefule study and research that the biblical prohibitions on homosexuality are contextually relevant. You don't - I got that.

    You and I both understand that Pastors are treated with respect - got it.

    But what you don't get is what a pastor is. The literal translation of the word is "Shepherd". The Bible also says that the good shepherd lays down his life for the flock. You see people give you a level of respect for being their pastor but they love you when you lay down your life for them.

    Folks who bring in false doctrine are described as wolves in that same bible. So as you describe it I should just bail out and leave the flock - that person is described not as a shepherd but a hired hand - a professional.

    So long and thanks for an interesting discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Except the Church has only one pastor, Jesus Christ.

    What Bill is supposed to be, and seems to have gotten distracted from, is a "Minister of Word and Sacrament", i.e., one who is trained to >serve< the Word of God (like a waiter who serves you dinner) and the sacraments of Baptism and Communion.


    The Scriptures tell us that Jesus is "the good shepherd" who laid his life down for his Church once and for all. We need no other.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Holy smoke, Bill thinks he's Jesus now. You would seriously commit suicide rather than allow an openly gay or lesbian person become a Deacon in your church???

    Again, I am bemused by the fact that no matter how hard the hardliners and schismatics swear up and down that this has nothing to do with The Gay, the prime example used to bolster the argument is... The Gay.

    The Victim Card being played is hilarious, IMO. Bill, is anyone threatening to take away your ordination and pension? Is anyone telling you "because you were born straight, you cannot ever answer the call to become a Deacon, Elder or Minister"?

    ONE MORE TIME: under the Constitution of the church, neither you nor your congregation can have an openly gay officer foisted upon them. Your Session can continue to reject qualified gay and lesbian people who wish to serve as Deacons or Elders. You can still grill candidates for Ministry about the darkest reaches of their sex lives in Presbytery and vote against their ass. What "oppression" are you seeking relief from? The Rule of Love?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Fly,

    There is some element of truth to the argument that it is not about "the Gay"

    For "the Layman" it has always been about breaking up the PCUSA - by any means possible.

    If you watch the arguments over the years, they have wandered far and wide.

    The New Wineskins is a recent brain child of "the Layman" (they share the same insiders). It was definitely born out of Homophobia. The Layman found a strong constituency of folks who can't stand the thought of openly gay people participating in the life of the church. For them that >is< the bottom line. And Bill has made it clear that for him that is the bottom line too. He just can't stand the thought. So he sold his soul to the Laymanites to keep them out.

    What you see is a temporary merging of priorities. But I don't think the folks at the Layman give a damn really about gay ordination, property rights, Scripture, or any other issue. All of it is just ammunition to be manipulated in any way possible to take down the PCUSA. Whatever can cause a riot, that is where they focus. Next year or the year after it will be something else.

    Klifton Kirkpatrick has just announced the theme for the next GA. It's from the prophet Micah "What does the Lord require of you?" For sometime I have thought this is the calling that the Holy Spirit is making to all of us, liberals and conservatives. But watch the Laymanites find a way to mangle that one too.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jodie, you're right, of course. My parents were on our church's (at the time) Hymnal Committee, which was set up at the insistence of several conservative Session members to examine the blue hymnal, page by page, for subversive messages, after the accusation was made in the Layman. Without strife within the denomination, the Layman becomes irrelevant, and by gum, they're not gonna let that happen.

    I think Jack Rogers is right in that the same, tired old rhetoric is being used by the reactionary wing to trash gays that they used to trash women and African Americans before them. It's never about the individual, it's about the Authority of Scripture. "It says a woman must not speak out in church and should not teach a man. Black folks are the Children of Ham and therefore have to serve white folks."

    50 years from now, we will look back at this weird time in disbelief. The EPC will be yet another strange, stodgy hermitage of reactionaries along with the PCA and OPC before it. And we will look back in wonder at The New Wineskins. "What the hell were they thinking with that name?"

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think the name was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Sort of as a spotlight, hoping against hope that they might see themselves in the mirror.

    I mean, why would someone critical of the church for consorting with people they consider too sinful to live choose the very term Jesus used when he was criticized for the very same thing?

    God has a wonderful sense of humor.

    John,

    In deference to God's own sense of humor, I think we should let them keep the name they chose.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No. The name was created by consultants along with the phrase "The New Thing". I admire John for exposing the New Wineskins. Someone has to. The New Wineskins think they are holy but they are an abomination.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Wow it is always interesting to watchg the Tolerance Nazi's at work.

    I just can't be offended when it simply so over the top.

    Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  28. That's right Bill,

    Just close your eyes and cover your ears and stay the course.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yep, those damn "Tolerance Nazis", making us be nice to black people and women all the time. Harumph!

    ReplyDelete